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: Yes, There is Little Classism in Muslim Countries (Because It’s Against Islam)

James Schipper: Was it really very different (highly classist) in Islam?

Yes, Islamic countries are just not like that.

I can’t think of any Arab country that is like that.

No North African country is like that.

Neither Malaysia nor Afghanistan nor the Caucasus nor Xinjiang nor the Stans is not like that. However, Afghanistan was feudal or semi-feudal until recently. That’s why Communism was fairly popular there. An outsider went there in the 1950’s, and he saw groups of young men chanting with their fists in the air, “Kill the rich!” I suppose the Communist revolution did a land reform and got rid of this feudal land tenure system.

Communism was an easy sell in Bosnia and Albania, but Islam is weak there.

Corruption is a bad problem in the Arab World and a rich elite bled Lebanon dry for decades, but they are widely hated, and there is little to no class hatred in Lebanon.

I can’t see any class hatred in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Somalia, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or even in UAE.

I’ve never heard of any real classism in the Sahel, but no one there has any money anyway.

The only African countries with a history of classism were the apartheid states of Rhodesia and South Africa, but there it was racialized, and the classism was imported from Christian Europe. Classism among the Whites of these states themselves was not a problem.

Angola has become very unequal due to oil wealth, but the system is not popular, and most people are ending up poor. They had a successful Communist revolution that remained in power for a long time. The anti-Communist rebels didn’t even have much ideology. Jonas Savimbi of UNITA started out as a Maoist and switched to rightwing capitalist to get money from the West for his revolution.

Africa just doesn’t have a history of European classism. It was always a relatively egalitarian village society. Sure, the chiefs were rich, but they were supposed to provide for everyone.

All of the Gulf Arab states have such extensive social democracies that in a lot of cases, you hardly even have to work. Education and health care is free and housing may be subsidized. UAE is a very rich country and capitalism roars right along, but I don’t see a lot of class hatred. For one thing, everyone in the Gulf is well-off.

As I said, it was different before. Read Ghassan Khanafani (one of the founders of the PFLP) on the lives of fellahin or peasants in debt bondage in semi-feudal Palestine in the 1930’s. Nasser did a land reform in Egypt in the 50’s and he was a hero all over the Arab World. People said they went to Yemen in the 1960’s, and there were Nasser portraits everywhere in the homes of working class people. Nasser’s land reform set off a wave of land reforms in the Arab World. In Syria and Iraq, they were done by the socialist Baath Party. There was never much resistance to the Baath’s socialism. There were large state sectors and good social democracies. Even Saddam was basically a socialist.

Bangladesh is a problem. Pakistan has been discussed but it is Indianized and Hinduized. The same problem may be going on in Bangladesh. The class hatred is vicious in India, but it’s coded as caste hatred instead. So Pakistan and Bangladesh have a sort of Hinduized Islam. But the poverty and class hatred is not nearly as bad in those two states as it is in India and Nepal.

Bahrain and Indonesia are problems for whatever reasons but in Indonesia they had to kill 1 million Communists to get their crappy rightwing capitalist dictatorship. And in the last several years they have been led by a social democrat.

Turkey does have problems with its capitalist class in terms of exploitation of workers. After World War 2, there was a Communist revolution and the Commies almost won. However, there is a huge underground Leftist and Communist movement that regularly sets the factories and yachts of the rich on fire! They’re quite popular. The Kurdish PKK was also Left. Islam is rather weak in Turkey though, and Turkey is Europeanized. Erdogan is actually quite socialist. He’s more socialist than Biden. His brand is Islamism is heavy on the social justice end.

 

Alt Left: Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

Christianity Is Anti-Capitalist?

James Schipper: Still, theologically, Christianity is not a capitalism-friendly religion. There is nothing in the NT which encourages wealth accumulation or expresses admiration for the rich. In earlier times, there were very rich monasteries but also monastic orders which are committed to poverty, such as the Franciscans. These monasteries were rich for the same reason that Harvard and Yale are very rich. They became rich through donations and bequests.

Sure, theologically it may be so, but in practice, capitalism, extreme inequality, and class hatred have been accommodated in Christian countries quite easily.

You can say that Christianity is against capitalism all you want, but it hasn’t worked out that way in the West.

Social democracy was an easy sell in Europe, but the US is worse classwise than any European country. In the US we almost have a celebration of inequality and that’s somehow been accommodated with the Christianity, which seems weird. The Gospel of Wealth the Evangelicals practice here strikes me as downright heretical though. If Jesus was around, he’d reject it.

Feudalism lasted a long time in Europe, and early capitalism in England was horrible from the 1300’s-1800’s. England is terribly classist even today, but there’s a huge backlash. Thatcher was burned in effigy all over the UK when she died. Can you imagine that happening with Reagan in the US? The class hatred in the UK is pretty raw.

Classism in France was awful, but they killed their rich, and now it’s socialist.

Germany never had a vicious capitalist class. The Kaiser put in the first social democracy in the late 1800’s. It went over easily.

Italy’s never been all that classist, nor has Greece. After World War 2 in Italy, Communists were set to win local elections all over Italy but the US CIA got involved and there was massive election fraud that cheated them out of a victory. But Eurocommunists have been running states in Italy for decades, especially in the North. They’ve had a heavy emphasis on small business at the expense of big business and it’s worked great. I had a commenter on here who owned a small factory in a northern state and he loved the local Communist government. And he was a capitalist! In Greece, the Communists almost won a revolution.

I don’t think Eastern Europe has been classist. Communism went over easily there.

Communism went over easily in Yugoslavia too, though it was a modified form. It was also very popular. I know people who lived there, and they loved it. They almost won in Turkey too.

The Baltics are not classist and neither is Scandinavia. That area is all based on egalitarianism.

Spain and Portugal were classist, but there was a civil war in Spain, and it’s a pretty socialist country right now.

There was a Leftist Carnation Revolution in 1974 that overthrew Salazar’s fascism and a Leftist regime was nearly installed. It was very popular.

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: Trotsky on Fascism: One of the Best Analyses of Fascism Ever Written

Brian: Leon Trotsky, as far as I can tell, held the view that fascism is a capitalist phase that occurs when capitalism needs to be rescued from rising discontent among workers.

He wrote:

The Nazis call their overturn [of Social Democracy] by the usurped title of revolution. As a matter of fact, in Germany as well as in Italy, fascism leaves the social system untouched. Taken by itself, Hitler’s overturn has no right even to the name counterrevolution.

But it cannot be viewed as an isolated event; it is the conclusion of a cycle of shocks which began in Germany in 1918. The November Revolution, which gave the power to the workers’ and peasants’ soviets, was proletarian in its fundamental tendencies. But the party that stood at the head of the proletariat returned the power to the bourgeoisie. In this sense social democracy opened the era of counterrevolution before the revolution could bring its work to completion.

However, so long as the bourgeoisie depended upon social democracy and consequently upon the workers, the regime retained elements of compromise. All the same, the international and internal situation of German capitalism left no more room for concessions. As social democracy saved the bourgeoisie from the proletarian revolution, fascism came in its turn to liberate the bourgeoisie from social democracy. Hitler’s coup is only the final link in the chain of counterrevolutionary shifts.

In Trotsky’s view, social democracy overturned socialism after 1918, promising compromise between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and then Nazism overturned social democracy so as to end the need for compromise between the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

Nazism, in his analysis, and fascism in general is an expression of the petty bourgeoisie, which is hostile to economic and social development because such development in the current era necessarily favors either capitalists or workers.

So the petty bourgeois start making a commotion when economic and social conditions turn against them, and when the big bourgeoisie feels sufficiently threatened by the Left, they ally with the petty bourgeois elements and fascism begins. The primary objective is to throttle the workers so that both the big and petty bourgeoisie can be relatively comfortable in their socioeconomic positions.

However, the big capitalists prefer not to be in alliance with the petty bourgeoisie and to rule on their own, so such an alliance is merely convenient, and the big capitalists are not fully comfortable with it since it, like social democracy, limits their autonomy.

So during the capitalist stage of history, the upper class naturally prefers laissez faire capitalism or libertarianism, the middle class naturally prefers stasis and to hinder development so as to preserve themselves, and the working class naturally prefers socialism.

Perhaps it can be thought of like this: Fascism occurs when both the upper and middle Class agree that workers’ power threatens to grow too starkly, and they ally. Social democracy, perhaps, occurs when the middle and working class feel acutely threatened by the upper class, and they ally. Laissez faire capitalism occurs when the upper class is firmly in control. And socialism occurs when the working class is firmly in control.

Moreover, social democracy tends to pave the way for the upper class to regain much of its diminished power by maintaining the social system of the capitalist stage of history in general. This is why Trotsky thinks only a full proletarian revolution can safeguard against the return of an anti-worker regime, whether that regime is laissez faire or fascist.

Of course, Marxism in general holds that capitalism must reach a certain level of development before a true and lasting proletarian revolution can occur.

What do you think of all this?

Trotsky’s take on national socialism and fascism.

Thank you very much for this comment. Anyone want to argue against this or expand on it.

Yes, I read that essay. Written ~1930, right? It’s perfect. Trotsky is unjustly maligned, though his position on WW2 was unconscionable. His murder by Stalin was a serious crime. Need we remind ourselves that Leon Trotsky was the leader of the Red Army itself? That’s pretty impressive right there.

Trotsky’s essay, though written 90 years ago, remains one of the finest analyses ever of the phenomenon of fascism, which surprisingly is a very hard concept to figure out, mostly due to its chameleon-like and ever-mutating nature which tries to hide its fascist nature by saying a fascist project is not fascist. Fascism can and does call itself just about anything. In fact, there are fascist movements that have called themselves antifascists!

I recall there was this anti-Semite on the Jewish and Israeli newsgroups who often posed as an antifascist. He called actual antifascists fascists and called fascists antifascists. So he ended up railing against fascism while actually promoting it! He was pretty confusing for a while there until a I finally figured out his game after a few months. He sure was sneaky though, I’ll give him that.

The ever-mutating nature of fascism mirrors that of capitalism itself. Following Marx, I agree that capitalism is an amazing thing. I stand in awe at its capacity to continuously innovate and suit itself to most any material conditions. Think about this: A capitalist can literally print up t-shirts with Che Guevara’s face them and Revolution! written across the fronts, sell them and make a million dollars from them! That’s amazing. A capitalist making a bundle by selling anti-capitalist products. This is why capitalism is such a formidable foe.

 

 

Alt Left: Woke Militarism and US Imperialism, Liberal Democrat Variety

And you guys keep wondering why I’m a socialist. Well, I could always be a liberal, but then I would have to buy into the “woke imperialism” of the US Democratic Party. We may be slaughtering brown Venezuelans, Syrians, and Iranians by the hundreds of thousands, but as long as the trannies get to play high school girls’ track and field, it’s all good.

Seriously, how do US liberal Democrats sleep at night? I’ll never get it.

I guess it’s just capitalism though. The “social democrats” in Europe are just about the same as US liberal Democrats. There’s a limit to how leftwing a capitalist party can get. At the end of the day, it’s always about what’s good for the country’s corporations, and that’s always Western imperialism, every single time. I’m starting to think capitalism is unreformable. Of course that was the reluctant conclusion of Karl Marx himself, if you read him correctly, as almost no one does.

Exactly. Rainbow colored phosphorus. Let’s make those smart bombs more inclusive, dammit!

The foreign policy of the Democratic Party of the United States: Woke Imperialism!

Woke imperialism FTW! I feel so much safer now that BLM bombs and LGBTIA bombs are blowing up brown people! If they don’t want gay rights or transsexual bathhouses for all ages, drop a bomb on their heads! It’s the liberal Democrat way!

 

Russian real soldiers versus US rainbow “soldiers.”

Ok, I get to take my pick between homophobic, Eastern Orthodox, male chauvinist, lifelong frat boy Russian soldiers or the US Marine Pride Corps with ready-made queer war criminals just waiting to be inducted into the Hall of Infamy, I think I’ll stick with backwardness, barbarism, and obscurantism, thank you very much. At least it’s tried and tested, unlike this Woke crap that doesn’t even work.

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 Roots of World War 2 and the Holocaust: The Scapegoating of German Jews after World War 2

Polar Bear: Jews and Gentiles are conditioned to side with Jews. A dead horse beaten to bone dust, used as justification for present day evils. No one in the West is taught the other side by their school, media, etc.

Even I enjoyed killing Nazis in videogames at a very young age. I felt I was killing “evil.”

No one is taught the other side? What other side?

I’ve studied the Holocaust forever and for the life of me, I’m having a hard time seeing what the Jews did that was so horrible that it was necessary to massacre millions of them. And I’ve tried to see it from the Nazi point of view. Trust me.

They were scapegoated by the war veterans and the Freikorps. As World War 2 was heading towards its latter half, the Germans started losing and the country started getting very restless. There was never much justification in them getting involved in the first place in what was more than anything a war of conquest by the kaisers. They were losing a lot of men. Their troops were in retreat. The whole thing seemed hopeless.

Yet the army would not surrender and the meat-grinder in the West in Verdun and other places continued apace.

Poison gas was used in warfare, one of the most awful wartime events in the last 110 years. Those weapons should never be used. Many people were damaged for life by them. With a bullet you can often recover, but not so with gas. After the war, poison gas in war was outlawed, but some scofflaws like Saddam and Winston Churchill in Iraq and Iran continued to use them. There are rumors that the Syrians used poison gas to clear out Hama during the Muslim Brotherhood uprising of 1983. It wouldn’t surprise me if they did. Assad Senior was a brutal man.

Anyway, an antiwar movement sprang up made of liberal and leftwing types analogous to the ones that sprung up in the US during the Vietnam War. Many journalists, pundits, intellectuals, artists, movie people, entertainers, comedians, etc. got involved in this antiwar movement. Quite a few of them were Jews, but keep in mind that Jews were only 1% of the population, and the antiwar movement became quite popular.

As in World War 2, the goodhearted antiwar people were accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There’s not much evidence that that is true. The German army started losing because the US got into the war, not because they lost the will to fight.

After a while, Germany surrendered and the terrible punishing conditions laid on Germany after the war helped lay the groundwork for World War 2 and even the Holocaust. After Germany was defeated, rightwing nationalist war veterans, many of them wounded or hurt by gas, including Adolf Hitler, developed the typical scapegoating that “we would have won if the Jews had not stabbed us in the back.”

This was just a classic projection defense whereby humans blame others for things that they do. People do this all the time. I live with someone who does nothing but this. He never admits he’s wrong. He just gets furious and projects away if you point out that he did anything wrong in any way.

It provided an excuse similar to that offered by rightwingers after the Vietnam War that the antiwar movement had effectively “stabbed us in the back” and “wouldn’t let us fight” and “made us fight with one armed tied behind out backs.” None of it was true but it’s better to blame other people than to admit you lost a war.

Instead of blaming the antiwar movement per se, for whatever reason, the Freikorps chose to blame Jews and possibly also socialists and Communists, possibly because prominent Jewish intellectuals, pundits, entertainers, musicians, comedians, and  movie people ended up being the well-known faces of the antiwar movement. Nevertheless the antiwar movement was very popular and it soon swept the land.

It made no sense to blame Jews for the antiwar movement as they were only 1% of the population and the antiwar movement had a mass following. If you wanted to blame anyone, blame liberals and possibly socialists and Communists. The movement was led more by liberal artsy types similar to the US antiwar movement in the 60’s instead of being nothing but a bunch of Jews.

But maybe blaming liberals wasn’t so easy. Not that the Freikorps didn’t target them too, and socialists and Communists. The sad part of this was that, sure, a lot of Jews were in the antiwar movement, but it is shocking how many Jews fought very bravely for the Fatherland, for Germany. Probably far more Jews fought in the war than sat is out.

One of the most tragic images I have of Kristalnacht in 1933 is the many Jews who put on their WW2 uniforms, badges and all (many were decorated veterans), and stood in front of their stores bravely as the Nazi mobs roamed through the streets. But even these great patriotic Jewish men were not spared. That image makes me so sad.

“The stab in the back” – a myth – then got married to the horrible conditions imposed on Germany in the 20’s. As in, “the Jewish traitors stabbed us in the back, made us lose the war, and saddled us with these terrible conditions.” Don’t blame the warmongering Kaisers. Blame the Jews. People like to scapegoat others. During trying times, people want something to project the blame for the problem on because people always have to blame someone. Usually the scapegoats don’t have much to do with whatever crisis is going on.

If you want to do some research on the Holocaust and what exactly happened in those years, please do so. Those German Nazis were very bad people. Just terrible.

And most of those Jews had done nothing wrong at all. They were just families of men, women, and children. In Poland and the Ukraine, many were poor.  Elsewhere they tended to have some money. But it’s hard to understand what sort of crimes they might have committed that would make it legitimate to kill them.

Jews in Europe seemed to be on pretty good behavior in the 1920’s and 1930’s, certainly as opposed to today. Someone needs to show me what was so terrible about them that they deserved getting massacred. Those Jewish family people could have been you, me, or anyone. They were just Mom and Pop and the kids and often grandparents.

It was absolutely sickening what the Nazis did to those people and to a lot of other people too for that matter. It’s gross. It’s sick. It’s disgusting. It makes you want to vomit. I doubt if even one Jew out of those six million did something so terrible that they deserved to die for it. As such, I can’t support the killing of one Jew during World War 2. Or any of the other Nazi victims either. None of those people did the slightest thing wrong.

Jewish behavior now is an order of magnitude worse than it was in the 20’s and 30’s, and I’m still not advocating killing them en masse. Well, ok, I don’t mind killing Israeli soldiers. Kill them to your heart’s content. Please. And I don’t mind killing any of these adult kleptomaniac settlers living on stolen land. Kill em all for all I care. I can’t support killing kids because kids are kids. They don’t deserve killing and they had no choice that their parents decided to be kleptomaniac squatters.

Game/PUA: How the Patriarchy Oppresses Womyn: All Their Money’s for Them, and All Their Money’s for Them

I am womyn, hear me whore
In numbers too big to ignore

Variation on lyrics from a popular song by Helen Reddy, “I Am Womyn” 1971, long ago in another world.

From a comment from our illustrious co-blogger:

Alpha Unit: Biologists, anthropologists, and the like have written for a long time about the practice observed across animal species of giving nuptial gifts. From an article by the Royal Society:

“Nuptial gifts are widespread in the animal kingdom. Snails, squid, crickets, ladybirds, bedbugs, butterflies, fireflies, and humans have all been known to deliver gifts to their prospective mates in attempts to improve mating success.”

It is almost always the male of the species who presents the gift. Males seem to realize instinctually that sexual access is going to come at a cost to them.

As far as humans are concerned, I think women have evolved to expect or demand something in return for sexual access. As these anthropologists and others will tell you (and as we all can see), the burden of reproduction falls mainly on women. She’s the one who has to carry a child to term, deliver that child (sometimes at risk to herself), feed the child from her own body, and spend most of her day tending and watching over this defenseless child.

Giving a man sexual access was a huge deal for a woman, with the potential for a huge downside for her. I think women evolved to secure something from a man in exchange for it. And nothing has really changed. When a woman is sexually involved with a man, she naturally expects his favor, time, attention, help, resources, etc.

Some women are open about the transaction they’re making with a man. They specify right upfront that it’s his money they want. And plenty of men are okay with that!

“All women are whores” is a very blunt, crude way of acknowledging these things.

Typical woman. You’re defending it. But I believe you told me you don’t do this stuff? If it’s so great, why don’t you do it? You’re defending the scam because your tribe (the womyn) is making out like bandits on it.

My Mom defends it to the hilt too, even though she thinks whores are lowly, disgusting women, assuming they weren’t coerced into it. She also thinks they’re incorrigible. “You can take the womyn out of the whorehouse, but you can’t take the whorehouse out of the womyn,” is one of her favorite sayings. She also says the the prostitute with a heart of gold is a lie made up by Hollywood.

I told her that actual prostitutes, including porn stars, strippers, etc. were basically the worst women on Earth, and she nodded her head and said, “Well, of course.” 45% of womyn prostitutes are diagnosed psychopaths. If you ever get to know any prostitutes, you will understand what I mean. To me, a prostitute and a thief is more or less the same thing.

As a rule with humans, once a group of humans gets in on some sort of a scam, they defend it to the hilt. Almost all the Punjabis around here are high caste – jats or landowners. I’ve asked many of them about caste. As a general rule, all jats – nearly 100% of them – defend caste to the hilt. And why not? They’re making out like bandits on this scam. What’s funny is that caste has supposedly been declared illegal by the Indian government. Yet everywhere you go in India, there it is.

Nowadays they make just as much money as we do. But if we want to get laid, we have to give all our money to them. I they want to get laid, they had a pocketful of cash. Must be awful tough to be a womyn, huh?

All their money’s for them. All our money’s for them*. The evil patriarchy sure is oppressing those womyn!

Screw that noise.

I’m an older man and I’m supposed to have a bunch of money. I don’t, but maybe I’m an aberration. Anyway, I may well have more money and resources than a young woman. I’ve dated young women aged 18 and 19 recently who had no car, no money, no real job, and no place to live other than their parents’ house. Neither knew how to drive a car. We would go out to eat or for coffee and I always paid for everything. On the other hand, there was a 40 year age difference between us and they didn’t have a dime. And I did have more resources than they did. I had my own place and a car at the very least. And I knew how to drive.

I don’t mind the idea of an older man with resources sharing some of them with a very young woman just starting out in life who doesn’t have a nickel.  That’s just socialism, the people with money sharing it with the people who don’t. Also with a 40 year age gap, I’m aware I’ll probably be paying at least some money. I’m willing to  pay for dates, but $400/week? “Give me $100 so I can buy a new outfit?” Hell with that. I can buy a real whore cheaper than that instead of a pale imitation who doesn’t even know what she’s doing in bed.

Are you familiar with the Ache? Primitive tribe in Paraguay living in the Chaco, a near uninhabitable region of nasty jungle. In the 1950’s, they were still living primitive lives and had had barely any experience with civilized life.

There were no STD’s. Everyone screwed everyone, all the time. Note that the prior two sentences may be connected.

Mom typically had a few kids by her 30’s, usually from a few different men. I’m not aware if they had any abortifacients. All of the different men helped raise all of the kids. None of the kids was the slightest bit damaged by being raised by a single Mom or not particularly knowing or caring who his father was. Of course all of the men helped raise the kids, so it’s not like there wasn’t a father around.

But I’m not sure about the best family environment being one man and one woman in a family structure. Maybe a village can raise a child after all. However, notable attempts by socialists and Communists to destroy the family structure in kibbutzes and communes in the USSR in the 1920’s and in Israel didn’t seem to work very well for whatever reason.

Couples would take off and go into the jungle to have sex all the time. Adultery was commonplace. Monogamy was rare. None of the women charged the men a nickel for sexual access.

*To be clear though, in recent years, women my age haven’t charged me at all, and in fact some of them even paid my way everywhere because they had more money that I did. But that never lasts long. And recently women my age (60’s) don’t demand money. I had a date with a 63 year old woman a few weeks ago, and she insisted on buying her own coffee. They usually insist on paying their own way for some reason. I guess when you can’t really sell your body anymore as it’s past its sell-by date, a lot of womyn quit charging.

Alt Left: Repost: Mao Messed Up

I think an assessment of Mao ought to be made on a scientific basis, beyond politics. Anti-Communists and rightwingers have an extremely poor record as far documenting this sort of thing, so I almost want to dismiss everything they say.

Probably the best sources would be leftwingers or even Communists who also happen to be some sort of China scholars. To the detriment of Mao, a number of Leftists, socialists and Communists who are also China scholars are starting to contribute some very negative things about Mao.

The good side is quite clear. Life expectancy doubled under Mao, from 35 to 70, from 1949 to 1976, in only 27 years. Supporters of fascism and Hitler are challenged to provide evidence that Hitler’s rule benefited anyone. Nazism was at core a death cult. Life expectancy collapsed in Germany under Hitler and in all of the regions that were occupied by Nazis. Nazism wasn’t about improving life for the common man at all; it was about war and endless war and endless extermination of the less fit.

Communism, with the exception of Pol Pot’s rule, where life expectancy collapsed in Cambodia and 1.7 million died, has been quite a bit different. Most Communist regimes have killed people, but at the same time seem to have saved many lives, often millions of lives. So it gets hard to tally things up.

I suppose pro-Communists would say that the many deaths were necessary in order to save so many lives. That’s an interesting argument and ought to be taken up. Was there a way to save so many lives without killing millions of people? I hope there would be, but I’m not sure.

Pre-China Mao was vastly deadlier than China under Mao. The life expectancy figures make this clear. Czarist Russia was 3 times deadlier than the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. This is where this “greatest killers of all time” crap runs into the mud. If the death rate was 3 times higher per year under the Czar than under Stalin, just how was Stalin the worst killer of all time?

Same with Mao. I don’t have good figures, but once again, it looks like Nationalist China in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s was 3 times deadlier per year, or maybe more, than Maoist China. If the death rate collapsed under Mao, how was he the worst killer ever?
The truth is there are plenty of ways to kill a man. You can kill him with a bullet or by sending him to a camp, or you can kill him by disease and lack of food, the silent and uncounted method that the capitalists prefer.

Nevertheless, an accounting of deaths under Mao needs to be done. Just glancing at the data here, it’s already looking like Mao was way worse than Stalin. Way worse.

The initial consolidation of power in China was brutal. Whether the landlords were killed by the party or by the peasants is not that relevant. Mao said that 700,000 landlords were killed, and even he thought that was too many. China scholars think it is higher, from 1-4 million. I would dismiss the 4 million figure, but anywhere from 700,000-3 million is possible. Further research is needed here.

The Anti-Counterrevolutionary Drive of 1950 followed, an attempt to uncover supporters of the Nationalists and counterrevolutionaries. Tens of thousands were killed, or possibly up to a million, let’s call it 20,000-1 million. Further research is needed.

Anti-Christian Campaigns of the 1950’s. These were launched against mostly Christians, but also other religions. “Many thousands” are said to have died. Definitely some further work is necessary here.

Anti-Counterrevolutionary Campaign of 1953. Mao said, “95% of the people are good.” The Party assumed that this meant 5% were bad. Hundreds of thousands died.

The Great Leap Forward Famine happened between 1959-1961. Unlike the fake Holodomor of 1932-33, it’s looking more and more like most of the blame for this horrible catastrophe can be laid at the feet of Mao himself. The man was a fanatic. He was told that there was a famine, and in early 1959, he backtracked on some of his crazy ideas, while he blamed subordinates for the famine.

Then there was the Lushan Conference in May 1959. Mao accused Peng Dehuai, a critic of the Great Leap, of conspiring against him. Peng was purged, and the Great Leap went was ordered to go ahead full speed. If there had been no Lushan Conference, there would have been no famine. There followed two years of catastrophe, in which there was overprovisioning of grain from the peasants which was then stored in warehouses in cities, where it rotted or was exported for scarce foreign currency.

Much of the problem was that local officials were wildly exaggerating harvests, hence the overprovisioning at the state level. They thought that with bumper harvests, they could take grain from the countryside to the cities without problems. But there were no bumper harvests. Harvests had collapsed.
Finally in 1961, the state figured out that it had screwed up royally and started mass importing grain. Caravans of grain trucks flowed to the countryside, and the famine was over. But many were too weak to even walk to the trucks to get the food.

Mao is blamed for an atmosphere of terror that led underlings to fake bumper crops where none had occurred. With no democracy in the party, no one wanted to contradict Mao. Mao himself had some utterly idiotic ideas, which he was allowed to implement due to lack of party democracy. After the Great Leap, the party realized it had screwed up bad. Even Mao knew that. The Cultural Revolution was in a lot of ways Mao’s attempt to regain face after getting egg on his face in the Great Leap.

As far as deaths during the Great Leap, this is still up in the air. Even Maoists admit that there were 15 million excess deaths in the period. Some of the higher figures use preposterous accounting techniques whereby people who had never even been born were counted as “deaths.” Tell me how that works. Nevertheless, the figure may be higher than 15 million. At any rate, it’s the worst famine in modern world history, and it’s a permanent blot on Mao’s record.

The Cultural Revolution was sheer insanity. Many received poor educations as schools were shut down. Many cultural relics and buildings were destroyed, and a good part of China’s cultural heritage was smashed up.

People were killed and hounded all over China for little or no reason. Red Guards rampaged all over China, torturing, humiliating, imprisoning and murdering all sorts of people, including local party officials, teachers and even university professors. When someone was hounded, the humiliation went on every day and there was no escape. No one would dare to come to your side, not even your spouse. Deng Xiaoping’s son was tossed out of a window and paralyzed from the waist down.

Red Guard factions battled each other in cities across China with weapons looted from local Army depots. Sometimes Army units joined in. Red Guards in one city would attack Red Guards in another city. Women and children were murdered and kids were even buried alive. Enemies were cannibalized in one area. Ridiculous, insane and anarchic, right? Sure.

In some parts of China, victims of the Red Guards are still angry. The Red Guards are still around, older now, but still living in the villages alongside their victims. Their former victims hate them. Lawsuits have been brought against former Red Guards, but the courts have thrown them out.

From a Communist POV, one of the most tragic things about all of these persecutions and killings, when one reads the details of the individual cases, is that many of the victims were not even counterrevolutionaries. Many were dedicated, hard-working Communists and revolutionaries, often devoted Maoists. Lord knows why they were purged and victimized.

The insanity and anarchy of the Cultural Revolution is one reason why the Party wants to keep a tight reign on power. China descends pretty quickly into wild and deadly anarchy.

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of Chinese Communist Party publications and the theses and dissertations by students at Chinese universities, which tend to toe the party line. As a rule, the Cultural Revolution is regarded as a big mistake by ultra-Left forces, and the Party definitely wants to avoid such messes in the future. I’ve even some some Party critiques of the Great Leap, though not much is said about that. It’s clear that the high ranks of the Party regard the Great Leap as a disaster.

There continue to be some very serious human rights abuses in China, as this 89 page report from Human Rights Watch reports. Even from the POV of a Communist, some of the abuses of these petitioners seem just flat out wrong. There doesn’t seem to be any legitimate Communist reason to be attacking a lot of these poor petitioners.

Surely in a Communist system, petitioners should have the right to protest uranium pollution of rivers, corrupt officials abusing their posts and stealing land, etc. In what way are these folks counterrevolutionaries?

But it’s not true that everyone who protests in China goes to jail. There are around 100 public protests every single day in China, often involving large groups. Only a few of them get arrested, harassed, beaten, tortured or jailed. But I guess you never know when your card will come up.

The fact that some of the harshest critiques of Mao’s crimes, excesses and stupidities are coming out of the Chinese Communist Party itself shows that slamming Mao can be done within a socialist, Leftist or Communist framework.

Can it be done in a Maoist framework? This I’m not so sure of.
The Party will not come out and make public its findings on Mao as the USSR did with Stalin because the party continues to wave the banner of Mao and practically rules under his name and visage. It’s possible that slamming Mao would so delegitimize the party that it might be fatal for the CCP. It’s a tough call.
For the anti-Semites, I have a homework assignment for you. Since Mao was a Communist and Communism is Jewish, obviously Mao was a Jew. Please uncover the secret Jewish connections of Mao and his closest supporters in the CCP.

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: The Assassination of Politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in Colombia in 1948

This is the information contained in the huge update I just made in this post. I just updated the post with a lot of information about the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in 1948 which led to the massive riots called The Bogotazo, after which a decade of mass killings called La Violencia took place. The assassination of Gaitan, even more than the banana workers strike, jump-started the movement of the armed Colombian Left in the form of the Colombian guerrillas.

In 1948 in Colombia, a very popular presidential candidate, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán of the Liberal Party, was assassinated for the same reason that given for the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala seven years later. The Liberal Party was one of two fascist parties of the oligarchy, along with the Conservative Party. See below for more on them.

The Liberal Party was anything but. Yet Gaitán was an interesting figure, part of a socialist movement in the party who advocated very popular candidate who promised major changes in Colombian society a battle against social, political, and economic inequality. He was also a feminist who advocated the uplift of the status of Colombian woman in society. In addition, he broached the subject of land reform, a hot button issue in Colombia.

In fact, as in so many other places in Latin America such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, the endless Leftist guerrilla war against the government is more of a fight over land than anything else. To this day, the Colombian oligarchy has refused to do a land reform, in part because this is where most of their money comes from.

Even Venezuela has had only partial success at a land reform, as it has proven too difficult to break up the big estates or latifundias. Instead, since much of the land lies idle and fallow, peasants have conducted land invasions of fallowed land in the latifundias, which has resulted in a lot of conflict.

Death squads funded by the latifundia oligarchs have murdered over 150 peasant leaders since Chavez came in over the last 20 years. Parts of the Chavista Movement have been aligned with the rural rich for whatever reason, and they have been involved in repressing these peasant movements also.

He was murdered by the Colombian oligarchy or ruling class, which has stayed in power by mass murder for 75 years now. They were even massacring people earlier, as there was a mass slaughter of striking workers at banana plantations in the northwest in a place called La Magdalena in 1928.

Even this early, the US was waging a Cold War against the USSR. The US became very alarmed by the strike, as the plantations were owned by the US United Fruit Company. United Fruit and the US government described the strikers as subversives and Communists. The US threatened to invade if the strike was not put down by the Colombian government.

Under orders from United Fruit, the Colombian military attacked the workers. Many striking workers were killed. The event was memorialized by Gabriel Garcia Marquez in his famous novel 100 Years of Solitude. The event was a watershed in Colombian politics, as an actual Colombian Left was formed around this time.

Gaitan was an excellent speaker and his rallies drew large crowds of union members and poor people. He was characterized as a demagogue, like Juan Peron, who was already rising to power in Argentina. He was also a budding nationalist. He was criticized by the Conservative Party, the right wing of the Liberal Party, and even the Communist Party, which regarded him as a competitor for the interests of the workers.

In 1933, he split with the Liberal Party and formed the Unión Nacional Izquierdista Revolucionaria (National Leftist Revolutionary Union). In 1946, he proposed a Gaitanista Program. It advocated many things:

Development agencies for the advancement of the social, political, and economic advancement of peasants in the countryside. Policies to redistribute wealth in Colombia. Nationalization of public services, a progressive income tax, and the development of a national economy. A land reform and new pro-labor laws.

In terms of foreign policy, it advocated an economic union of Latin American countries so they could serve the interests of their people instead of that of the oligarchies and foreign carpetbagging corporations. His project could be best described as anti-plutocratic and anti-imperialist.

He was assassinated in 1948 by a “lone gunman,” Juan Roa Sierra, along the lines of Lee Harvey Oswald. Two ex-CIA agents have confessed that it was really the CIA that was behind the operation. The assassin took orders from two named CIA agents and the assassination plan was called Operation Pantomime.

This was probably one of the first of countless assassinations of liberal and leftwing figures the world over by the CIA undertaken as part of the Cold War. Sierra visited Gaitan in his office in  the morning and at 1 PM, he shot Gaitan dead.

An enraged mob then set upon Sierra, who was protected by an Army colonel. He was chased to a store where  he holed up. The mob smashed into the store and dragged him outside. He was beaten and stabbed so many times that his corpse was unrecognizable.

At the time of his assassination, a meeting of the Pan-American Conference led by US Secretary of State George Marshall. At this meeting, all members of the group agreed that fighting Communism was their number one concern.

The despicable Organization of American States or OAS, a fake organization of Latin American countries that is actually run by the US and serves to promote the interests of the US and its neo-colonies in Latin America.

At the same time, the Latin American Youth Congress was taking place. It been organized by Fidel Castro of Cuba and was funded by Juan Peron of Argentina. A young Gabriel Garcia Marquez was a law student at the time and was eating lunch at the time  Gaitan was killed. He rushed to the scene and arrived just in time to see Sierra lynched by the mob. He memorialized the event in his book, Living to Tell the Tale.

It is possible that Gaitan, like Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, was a patsy for an assassination carried out by the US Deep State in the case of the former and by the FBI itself in the case of Ray. Gaitan suffered from schizophrenia, could not fire a gun properly, the gun in his hand was not capable of firing accurately, and he was standing quite a distance away from Gaitan while the murder occurred at a short distance. Further, Sierra was not seen anywhere near the assassination. The first time  he was spotted, he was in between two police officers.

The Colombian government quickly blamed the USSR and the Colombian Communist Party for the murder. They also tied in the young Fidel Castro with the plot. This version seems very unlikely.

Notice that this CIA assassination took place under “liberal Democrat” Harry Truman.

The murder of this candidate was followed by a wild  riot known as the Bogotazo. Many of the rioters were armed and the riots left much of downtown Bogota in ruins. The riots left 1,800 people dead. This was part of a larger reign of violence in the countryside which had started in 1930. By 1948, Bogota was full of peasants fleeing the violence in the countryside.

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: Updated: How the Armed Colombian Left (the FARC and the ELN) Came to Be

I just updated this post with a lot of information about the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán in 1948 which led to the massive riots called The Bogotazo, after which a decade of mass killings called La Violencia took place. The assassination of Gaitan, even more than the banana workers strike, jump-started the movement of the armed Colombian Left in the form of the Colombian guerrillas.

In 1948 in Colombia, a very popular presidential candidate, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán of the Liberal Party, was assassinated for the same reason that given for the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala seven years later. The Liberal Party was one of two fascist parties of the oligarchy, along with the Conservative Party. See below for more on them.

The Liberal Party was anything but. Yet Gaitán was an interesting figure, part of a socialist movement in the party who advocated very popular candidate who promised major changes in Colombian society a battle against social, political, and economic inequality. He was also a feminist who advocated the uplift of the status of Colombian woman in society. In addition, he broached the subject of land reform, a hot button issue in Colombia.

In fact, as in so many other places in Latin America such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, the endless Leftist guerrilla war against the government is more of a fight over land than anything else. To this day, the Colombian oligarchy has refused to do a land reform, in part because this is where most of their money comes from.

Even Venezuela has had only partial success at a land reform, as it has proven too difficult to break up the big estates or latifundias. Instead, since much of the land lies idle and fallow, peasants have conducted land invasions of fallowed land in the latifundias, which has resulted in a lot of conflict.

Death squads funded by the latifundia oligarchs have murdered over 150 peasant leaders since Chavez came in over the last 20 years. Parts of the Chavista Movement have been aligned with the rural rich for whatever reason, and they have been involved in repressing these peasant movements also.

He was murdered by the Colombian oligarchy or ruling class, which has stayed in power by mass murder for 75 years now. They were even massacring people earlier, as there was a mass slaughter of striking workers at banana plantations in the northwest in a place called La Magdalena in 1928.

Even this early, the US was waging a Cold War against the USSR. The US became very alarmed by the strike, as the plantations were owned by the US United Fruit Company. United Fruit and the US government described the strikers as subversives and Communists. The US threatened to invade if the strike was not put down by the Colombian government.

Under orders from United Fruit, the Colombian military attacked the workers. Many striking workers were killed. The event was memorialized by Gabriel Garcia Marquez in his famous novel 100 Years of Solitude. The event was a watershed in Colombian politics, as an actual Colombian Left was formed around this time.

Gaitan was an excellent speaker and his rallies drew large crowds of union members and poor people. He was characterized as a demagogue, like Juan Peron, who was already rising to power in Argentina. He was also a budding nationalist. He was criticized by the Conservative Party, the right wing of the Liberal Party, and even the Communist Party, which regarded him as a competitor for the interests of the workers.

In 1933, he split with the Liberal Party and formed the Unión Nacional Izquierdista Revolucionaria (National Leftist Revolutionary Union). In 1946, he proposed a Gaitanista Program. It advocated many things:

Development agencies for the advancement of the social, political, and economic advancement of peasants in the countryside. Policies to redistribute wealth in Colombia. Nationalization of public services, a progressive income tax, and the development of a national economy. A land reform and new pro-labor laws.

In terms of foreign policy, it advocated an economic union of Latin American countries so they could serve the interests of their people instead of that of the oligarchies and foreign carpetbagging corporations. His project could be best described as anti-plutocratic and anti-imperialist.

He was assassinated in 1948 by a “lone gunman,” Juan Roa Sierra, along the lines of Lee Harvey Oswald. Two ex-CIA agents have confessed that it was really the CIA that was behind the operation. The assassin took orders from two named CIA agents and the assassination plan was called Operation Pantomime.

This was probably one of the first of countless assassinations of liberal and leftwing figures the world over by the CIA undertaken as part of the Cold War. Sierra visited Gaitan in his office in  the morning and at 1 PM, he shot Gaitan dead.

An enraged mob then set upon Sierra, who was protected by an Army colonel. He was chased to a store where  he holed up. The mob smashed into the store and dragged him outside. He was beaten and stabbed so many times that his corpse was unrecognizable.

At the time of his assassination, a meeting of the Pan-American Conference led by US Secretary of State George Marshall. At this meeting, all members of the group agreed that fighting Communism was their number one concern.

The despicable Organization of American States or OAS, a fake organization of Latin American countries that is actually run by the US and serves to promote the interests of the US and its neo-colonies in Latin America.

At the same time, the Latin American Youth Congress was taking place. It been organized by Fidel Castro of Cuba and was funded by Juan Peron of Argentina. A young Gabriel Garcia Marquez was a law student at the time and was eating lunch at the time  Gaitan was killed. He rushed to the scene and arrived just in time to see Sierra lynched by the mob. He memorialized the event in his book, Living to Tell the Tale.

It is possible that Gaitan, like Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, was a patsy for an assassination carried out by the US Deep State in the case of the former and by the FBI itself in the case of Ray.

Gaitan suffered from schizophrenia, could not fire a gun properly, the gun in his hand was not capable of firing accurately, and he was standing quite a distance away from Gaitan while the murder occurred at a short distance. Further, Sierra was not seen anywhere near the assassination. The first time  he was spotted, he was in between two police officers.

The Colombian government quickly blamed the USSR and the Colombian Communist Party for the murder. They also tied in the young Fidel Castro with the plot. This version seems very unlikely.

Notice that this CIA assassination took place under “liberal Democrat” Harry Truman.

The murder of this candidate was followed by a wild  riot known as the Bogotazo. Many of the rioters were armed and the riots left much of downtown Bogota in ruins. The riots left 1,800 people dead. This was part of a larger reign of violence in the countryside which had started in 1930. By 1948, Bogota was full of peasants fleeing the violence in the countryside.

The Bogotazo led eventually to La Violencia, a truly crazy 10 year period from 1954-1964 in which Liberals and Conservatives, which ideologically are both simply fascist parties, with the Liberals masquerading as social democrats to the extent that they are even members of the Socialist International, massacred each other in huge numbers for no particular reason at all.

The Liberals and Conservatives typically trade off running the country. Although they hated each other to the point of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of each other, the odd thing is that despite their names, ideologically and in governance, there is little difference between. They are both far rightwing parties of the oligarchy.

The armed Left in the form of the ELN, which was created in 1964, theorizes that La Violencia was simply a way for the elite to slaughter the politically active working class.

After La Violencia ended in 1964, a small group of people tired of being massacred settled in some property in West-Central Colombia and declared themselves a semi-autonomous republic. They were also heavily armed. They said that and armed themselves mostly to keep from being massacred. And they did set it up as a “Communist republic” but it was only a small patch of land of no particular consequence and the group’s numbers never numbered greater than 200.

They named this place Marquetalia. Manuel “Sure Shot” Marulanda, the leader of the FARC for the next 40 years, was one of the founders of this commune. The Colombian government became very alarmed that 200 people had called themselves Communists and settled some lands that they freaked out and called for Uncle Sam to come help.

This was under the “liberal Democrat” Johnson Administration. The US also became very alarmed and we sent several generals and a troop of Green Berets down there.

At this time, the Green Berets were advising the Guatemalan government in putting down a Left insurgency that began there in 1960. They put it down via massacres of the civilian population. There’s nothing noble about the Green Berets. They’re simply the US government version of a Latin American death squad.

Anyway, a significant army detachment was mobilized and Marquetalia was attacked with US advisors by their side. There are suggestions that the US and Colombia even used chemical weapons against the commune.

The Marquetalians fought back but were defeated, suffering many casualties. The survivors retreated into the mountains of Colombia. These are really mountain jungles as the mountains are covered in a jungle-like near-rainforest and it’s impossible to find anyone or anything in there.

There they decided that all peaceful attempts at change, including setting up a semi-autonomous commune, were impossible, so they could either sit in the villages and wait for the government to come murder them or they could take up arms so they could at least fight back when the army and death squads came.

The group was called the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), and they are still active to this day, 56 years later. At one time around 2000, they controlled ~50% of Colombia and formed an actual threat to the regime.

The ELN (National Liberation Army) was formed at the same time, in 1964, in Eastern Colombia under obscure circumstances that I’m not aware of.

The original philosophy was Liberation Theology and their leader was Camilo Torres, the original “priest with a machine gun.” Liberation theology can be thought of as “Jesus with a machine gun” and in fact there are murals in Latin America showing exactly this. The idea is that Jesus supported “the preferential option for the poor” and that even armed struggle to achieve this goal was not only valid but very Christian.

One of the original theorists was an educator named Paulo Friere in Brazil who published a famous book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed – also published in the same year that the ELN and the FARC were formed in 1964 -along these lines, advocating a liberation theology component to be the focus of the curriculum in Latin America. Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez could be considered the father of Liberation Theology. He wrote a book called The Theology of Liberation around this same time.

To this day, although the ELN are Leftists, they are still officially a Christian organization and they have many supporters among the Catholic clergy in Colombia, as does the officially atheist FARC.

Alt Left: About That Long Electricity Outage in Venezuela in March, 2019

Found on the Web: When I first read this story, I thought of the power outages in Venezuela the past year. Those attacks must have hit hard, especially patients in hospitals or care residences.

Last year there were a number of attacks against the Venzuelan electric system. The system runs via hydropower from dams. The hackers somehow had access to the software that ran the dams. They took the dams electricity production capability out, so Venezuela had little no electricity for 3-4 weeks.

Of course the despicable Western media played this up as yet another failure of Venezuela’s perpetually mismanaged “socialism.”

The message: All forms of socialism, including (or especially) social democracy, lead to utter failure and a collapsed economy, sort of like the way that we associated the Soviet model of Communism with abject economic failure. In other words, install social democracy in your system like 98% of the world has done and watch your economy collapse.

In reality, Venezuela is barely a socialist country as almost the entire economy is in private hands and is run by the capitalists, who of course have been waging economic war on the economy since 2002. Just about the only thing the state runs is the oil industry, and that was nationalized in 1976, long before Chavez took and during the period that the Western press crows about being the Golden Age of Venezuela.

It is important to note that like in the fake Roaring 20’s, when only 20% of Americans actually increased their income and 80% of Americans saw their incomes decline, the Golden Age of Venezuela was a mirage. It only enriched the top 20% upper middle class and rich and possibly some of the middle class.

Most people were poor and they had no running water, no safe housing, no secure employment, no sewer systems (the shit from the toilets simply ran downhill in the gutters of the slums of the big cities, few education choices as education funding was starved, and no access to medical or dental care at all, as all of this was privatized and public medicine was starved for funds.

For much of this time, Venezuela was run by “social democratic” parties which were actually members of the Social International such as AD (Accion Democratica or Democratic Action). In Latin America, don’t be fooled. Just because a party calls themselves socialist or social democratic doesn’t mean jack.

Many Latin American social democratic parties simply enforce elite rule, which their leaders and members benefit from. To give you an example, Juan Guaido’s political party, probably the farthest righting party in Venezuela, calls itself social democratic and they have actually joined the Socialist International. The International is rapidly becoming meaningless. They need to start throwing out rightwing parties and parties that govern from the right while using the fig leaf of socialism. They’ve started to a bit of that lately.

I know quite a bit about those outages in Venezuela. The attack against the hydroelectric system was very well-planned. The people who did it were Venezuelan exiles in Canada and Houston, Texas (a lot of the opposition moved to Houston in addition to Miami). The opposition is very, very good, and they sit up there in the US plotting schemes to destroy the economy.

For instance, for a long time the fake exchange rate was being set by an opposition person in Houston who ran his own exchange rate site. He always deliberately inflated the street exchange rate in order to cause a currency crisis, which would devastate the economy. A lot of things caused that exchange rate crisis, but that guy sitting in Houston sabotaging the exchange rates to cause a monetary crisis was no small part of that.

The attacks were staged out of Canada and Houston. The people who did it had very intimate knowledge of those systems, mostly because those systems were using software made in Canada. The people in Canada had access to the source code of that software.

Perhaps the company itself was in on the sabotage in the same way that the voting machine companies are in on rigging the voting machines to steal elections for Republicans. In that case, Republican operatives have taken over the voting machine companies, and the election hacking is done by those companies like E S & S themselves in coordination with people like Karl Rove and the Bush and Romney families. All of those computer machine companies are owned by the Bush and Romney families, and Karl Rove also has a huge stake in them.

So it’s quite possible that that Canadian software vendor that sold the software which ran on Windows XP, was taken over by Venezuelan opposition people to gain access to the source code so they could hack those systems. With knowledge of that code, they hacked the systems from Canada and Houston. They were very good, excellent hackers. It’s not known if they had state help from the US and Canadian governments, although I definitely would not rule it out.

The civilian programmers who did this are criminals in the literal sense. Ideally they ought to be caught and tried for murder for the death of all of those Venezuelans in hospitals and nursing homes who died due to the power outages.

The information about how the attacks were done from Houston, Texas and Canada came via Russian intelligence. Notice the Canadian connection. Trudeau in particular has gone full fascist in his fanatical support for the Venezuelan opposition fascists.  Even worse, his foreign secretary, who is actually a member of the actual social democratic party in Canada (the liberal party is not officially social democratic), a fairly leftwing political. She has been a full-throated supporter of  US imperialism and Canada has supported all of the recent fascist coups undertaken by the CIA.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov stated at the  time:

According to the country’s legitimate government headed by President Nicolas Maduro as well as information from other credible sources, the electricity sector of Venezuela came under attack from abroad on March 7 of this year. We provide all necessary assistance to Venezuelan friends on the basis of requests from the legitimate government.

This attack was done via comprehensive remote influence on the control and monitoring systems of the main power distribution stations where the equipment produced in one of the Western countries has been installed. They and the instigators of sabotage are responsible for the deaths of people, including of those in hospitals which were left without electricity.

Alt Left: How the Cold War Against Communism Ended up Being a War against Nationalism, Social Democracy, and even Liberalism

All of these liberal Democrats signing on to this media war on Venezuela need to recognize that the corporate media is using the Venezuelan example as part of a “war on socialism” to discredit the very word socialism and everything associated with it.

Remember when Trump said before Congress that the US will never be a socialist country? Here, socialism refers to social democracy in either in name/action, which exists in 95% of the countries in the world in the form of ruling parties, strong opposition parties and governmental structure/programs/ideology either in writing or action.

Remember how the entire Congress, including the vast majority of Democratic Congressmen, gave that fascist a standing ovation when he said that? And liberal Democrats dare to claim that they are on the left! They’re not on the left of anything, except maybe the left wing of Republican Party.

The corporate media and the US money/government elite (The Deep State, basically) despises anything that even smacks of socialism, especially social democracy which they truly hate because it is most likely to be implemented. This started during the Cold War but it was already going on in the Depression, when US fascists nearly staged a military coup against FDR, who they said was a Communist.

But during the Cold War the demonization of anything smacking of socialism, no matter how mild, really got under way with two bloodthirsty killers, the Dulles Brothers, who initiated the policy of Containment and created the CIA out of the wartime US intelligence agency, effectively turning the US into a militarized, national security state.

In other words, they initiated what boils down to the US Deep State or the foreign policy establishment of the United States. Note that the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about is absolutely part of this Deep State too, as it and the national security state are each part of each other.

It was during this era when the US overthrew countries all the time for the tiniest movements towards social democracy and a lot of times simply for implementing social liberalism, the ideology of the US Democratic Party!

For instance, Aristide in Haiti was overthrown for the simple reason that he raised the minimum wage.

The US Democratic Party gave complete support to both of these coups, without a single dissenting member. My “liberal Democrat” father, actually a “Cold War liberal,” a truly awful group of people, gave his complete support to the fascist coup that overthrew Aristide. Why? Because Time Magazine told him it needed to be done. My father foolishly believed that Time Magazine was a liberal or at least Centrist project though it’s never been either.

So the Democratic Party supports raising the minimum wage, sure, but overseas, if you do it, the Democratic Party will call you a Communist and overthrow you in a fascist coup! Disgusting or what?

Nationalist, Social Democratic, and even Liberal Governments Overthrown by the CIA in the Last 70 years

Arbenz in Guatemala was overthrown in 1954 simply for implementing a mild social democracy. About 3% of his administration was made up of Communists, and this was the stated reason for overthrowing him. United Fruit also played a huge role because he nationalized their banana plantations.

Juan Bosch came to power in the Dominican Republic in 1965 and started to implement a mild social democracy. The US media demonized him as a Communist, and soon LBJ staged a fascist coup to overthrow him.

The Mossadegh government in Iran was elected in 1953 for electing a nationalist who nationalized British Petroleum’s oil and set about to implement a mild social democracy with nationalist overtones. He was overthrown by the US and UK and a fascist monarch called Reza Shah was installed and held power for the next 26 years.

A leftwing government was elected in Guyana around 1970, and the Western media went into hysterics. In reality, he was just a social democrat. The “liberal” UK soon overthrew him in a fascist coup.

The US waged economic war against Manley’s government in Jamaica in the late 80’s and early 90’s. He was never anything but a social democrat.

The Left took power in Brazil in 1964 after they won an election. In truth they were just social democrats. They were quickly overthrown in a fascist coup by generals in the military a year later.

A social democratic government that contained a few Communists was elected in 1960 in Iraq. The CIA overthrew that government in a bloody coup and installed Saddam Hussein with specific instructions to get rid of and crack down on the Communists.

Patrice Lumumba in the Congo came to power in 1964. I believe he was never anything more than a social democrat. Nevertheless, the Western media went insane, calling him a Communist. A year later he was overthrown with the help of US intelligence. It is a proven fact that Donald Rumsfeld, then working for the Defense Intelligence Agency, helped set up his arrest and subsequent execution by being tied to a tree and shot.

Alt Left: The US Has Always Supported Fascism Except for a Few Years in the 1940’s

America loves fascists, that’s the bottom line. And it’s worse America loves fascists, that’s the bottom line.

And it’s worse than that. Capitalists love fascism. Capitalists have never opposed any fascist state or rightwing dictatorship. Nor have any conservatives ever opposed a single fascist state or rightwing dictatorship.

Now that does not mean that the US is a fascist country, at least in its domestic policies.

Its foreign policy is a lot harder to figure. The US been supporting fascism overseas ever since US corporations started migrating overseas, first in Latin America, in search of greater profits, as capitalism demands that they must do. We may well be a fascist country at the moment. Trump is a fascist and the Republican Party is now a full-fledged fascist party, whereas before this aspect of itself was somewhat submerged, hidden, or put on the back-burner.

But the US has always been a pro-fascist country. We supported fascism from 1910 all the way through the 1930’s. The New York Times praised Hitler when he took power. Corporations in the UK felt the same way. He was killing and imprisoning the Left, and making the country safe for wealth and capital. Which is all any capitalist ever wants.

It is only when fascism became racialized, expansionist, and colonial in part due to rage at not being invited to the party when the European powers were racialized and expansionist as part of the divvying up, enslavement, and looting of the word outside of Europe by the European powers.

Japan and Germany were left out of this block party, so they decided, “Hey it’s our turn now. You guys have your colonialism, now we will have ours.” As the West continued to hold all of its colonies, the Axis powers were correct. Indeed we had to be forced into the war by the Japanese attack that we literally provoked and forced them into.

World War 2 was the only time in history that the US has ever used its military might to attack fascism, mostly because fascism had been getting rather out of hand, uncontrolled, chaotic, and destructive.

Right before the war, the US was pro-fascist, and no sooner was the ink dry on the surrender papers when the US started recruiting former Nazis, Mussolinists, and fascist Axis collaborators in Eastern Europe, but also in Italy, Greece, and Turkey. We immediately hired these Nazis to be our army for the dirty war we declared on the Soviet Union probably a day after the Yalta Agreement.

And no sooner were the Japanese fascists defeated that we started funding and training the Japanese fascist collaborators in South Korea to fight communism. The truth is that no one hates Communists more than fascists. Fascists think they should be killed on sight. More non-fascists are a bit more squeamish or at least not as extremist. So we recruited this brutal and amoral fascists to be dirty-fighting (Nazi-like) soldiers in our war against Communism. The first fascist armies funded by the West started operations in the Baltics and Ukraine only a few months after the Armistice.

So we only fought fascism for four years, from 1941-1945. Before that until 1910, we had supported it. And from 1945-on, the US supported any and all fascist countries or guerrillas everywhere on Earth.

After 1989, US liberal Democrats said this fascist dirty war was the lamentable but sadly necessary policy of the Cold War. Now that the Cold War was over, we didn’t need to be so evil anymore, and now we could go back to being the shining city on the hill.

Except the fascist Cold War didn’t end in 1989. It’s still going on to this day in the sense that it has reverted to the pre-World War 2 policy of supporting rightwing authoritarians and attacking any and all manifestations of the Left. All of the Left countries that were targeted in the Cold War remained targets after Gorbachev.

So the Cold War was never about fighting the evils of Communism in the form of the USSR. The Cold War was simply another phase of the fascist war on the Left everywhere on Earth that the US has waged since 1910. The enemy was never the USSR. The enemy was always socialism, or in many places, even social democracy or social liberalism.

So while we have traditionally not been a fascist country, we have always been a pro-fascist country. We didn’t practice it, but we supported itself everywhere it appeared on Earth.

Alt Left: The Basis of US Foreign Policy: Worldwide Total War on the Left

US foreign policy has been to attack the slightest manifestation of socialism anywhere on Earth but particularly in Latin America, “our backyard,” in other words, our colonial possessions. And indeed, official US policy is that all Latin American states are US colonies.

This goes back to the Monroe Doctrine, after which we stated that we will not allow any European (or other, as updated) country to interfere in Latin America. They’re our babies. We will fight to the death for them.

After 1900, with the rise of US economic power and formal US imperialism, which uses the US military and intelligence power to make sure US investors and corporations get the upper hand everywhere they wish to invest on the planet. In other words, the whole planet is a casino for the US rich and corporations.

And effectively that means that all nations under the boot of US imperialism (most countries, that is) are effectively colonies of the ruling class, the rich, and the corporations of the United States.

This effective colonialism is backed up by the might of the US military machine and increasingly, US economic power (control over international banking), which has now been weaponized to the point where the US Treasury Department is for all intents and purposes an arm of the Pentagon.

And indeed, US economic and military power work hand, with the first being utilized and at first and then the second utilized, if at all, only when the economic power seems to be fading as a coercive tool. But they definitely work together such that US economic and military power can be seen each one being a part of the other. It’s one entity. Call it the Deep State. The Deep State is simply “the foreign policy establishment of the United States. Its intelligence arm, the CIA is the head of the snake so to speak.

Alt Left: People Wonder Why I Am a Socialist

All of the governments above are at least somewhat socialist because the action that they took right there is a socialist action.

Being a socialist, to me, at the very least means supporting the actions of the first seven countries and opposing that of the lasst, the shameful US. No capitalist country would ever do anything like that. If they did, they would no longer be a capitalist country. America is a much more capitalist country than a socialist one, as exemplified by the last figure in the list. People should not be surprised. The US is basically a capitalist country with a very weak socialist layer, and it is acting just like one in this and so many other ways. Why is everyone so shocked?

Of course there are many definitions of socialism, but here I refer to social democracy. The nations above other than the US are all social democracies (socialist) in one form or another. In fact, nearly the entire world is some form of social democracy (socialist). In much of the world, social democratic (socialist) parties either run the country or are large opposition parties with large support in Parliament.

The US, in ferociously rejecting even the suggestion of social democracy (socialism) and regarding it as the worst horror known to man, is actually completely out of step with the vast majority of nations on Earth.

Alt Left: Why Must All “Whites” Be Extreme Rightwing Reactionaries?

RL: “Why all “Whites” have to be ultra-rightwing fanatics is something I will never understand.”

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: You’re right. I have some support for a White or mostly white Western world, and I also have strong fascist tendencies. You could say I’m 40/40/20 fascist/libertarian/socialist. Hey, the National Socialist fascists were, well, socialists lolz.

I like the White West too, but I just don’t think it has to stay that way. White people can do whatever they want with their White countries. Keep them White, mix them up, drown them in a sea of color – it makes no difference to me.

I don’t care who a man lets in his home. He can invite in half the neighborhood for all I care as long as he keeps the noise down low enough. Who am I to say who he can let in his house? His home is his castle.

Well, same with White countries. White peoples’ countries are their castles. As far as residents, they’re perfectly free to let in or restrict anyone they want for whatever the Hell reason they want, and there’s not necessarily anything racist about it. It’s their country, Goddamn it. You don’t have to make friends with anyone. You don’t have to hang out with anyone. You don’t have to let anyone in your home.

I don’t support a White state, but if one existed, why on Earth everyone there had to be an ultraright reactionary is beyond me. You could have White fascists, reactionaries, conservatives, centrists, liberals, progressives and out and out Leftists, socialists, and communists as long as they all rejected racial liberalism. What’s wrong with a White Left? What’s wrong with White Socialism? I’m not a White nationalist at all, but as long as there are tendencies like that, there might as well be things like White Socialism and a White Left.

Why not?

Alt Left: About That White Ethnostate The White Nationalists Want

She’s in Parties: All White state/country

Good luck attracting White liberals or Jews. How many Whites would support an all White state? 5%? 1%? Are most of them gonna be xenophobic, racist rightwing reactionaries? Count me out. An all-White nation would blow.

Can I get an amen?

Amen!

I think maybe 6-9% of Whites might support a White state. Nobody ever polls it for some weird reason. Maybe they are afraid of the answer.

They will all be xenophobloic racists, that’s for damn sure.  And extreme racists as far as racism goes. Say racism is on a spectrum, especially nowadays with theses fool definitions. These White nationalists are ultra-racists. They’re wildly racist. They’re so racist that they are so dramatically out of touch with everyday society as to be near cartoon caricatures.

The overwhelming majority of them will be reactionaries too, and particularly crazy ones at that. Not only that but almost all of them will support Jim Crow, the Confederates in the Civil War, apartheid in Rhodesia and South Africa, and the Nazis in WW2. They will all say slavery is no big deal. They will all oppose Brown vs. the Board of Education, and the Civil Rights, the Voting Rights, and Housing Rights Acts.

They will all support legal segregation and oppose all integration on the dubious basis of freedom of association. They all (even the White nationalist liberals, and there are a few) want to wipe out all social programs, which they call welfare. To them all social programs just means taking the hard-earned money of Whites and giving it out in freebies to a bunch of stupid, criminal, worthless niggers and beaners. They don’t see that many Whites use these programs too. In fact, if you mention that Whites use these programs, they will all say you are lying and laugh at you.

And they will be anti-liberal and especially anti-Communist fanatics. They will basically be fascists, in other words. Almost all White nationalists are pretty much fascists.

In a word, these people are wildly, cartoonishly ultra-racist fanatics. They are not good for Black people! They are not good for most Hispanics. They are not even any good for Asians. They are especially bad for Black people, for whom they reserve much of their ire. No Black person should have anything to do with these maniacs.  They hate you. Every single one of you. Trust me. I know these people very, very well.

TIL that everyone who likes being White, like the commenter and me, has to be an extreme rightwing fanatic! Can’t you like being White and be a Centrist? Or a liberal? A progressive? A socialist? Hell, even a Communist? Why not?

Why all “Whites” have to be ultra-rightwing fanatics is something I will never understand.

Alt Left: Patti Smith, “People Have the Power”

Patti Smith, 1979. From her debut album,”Horses.” With Fred “Sonic” Smith, late of the great MC5.

All right, that does it. Enough of this slacking off and lollygagging around.

Time to get back to some serious leftwing politics, back when that meant something sane and worthwhile. But beyond whatever Left distortion, contortion, freakshow, or Clown World du jour is playing in the Current Year, what is the Left really all about, since its very inception in the French Parliament, on the left side of the room, natch?

Left politics is about the spirit. The spirit of the Left. The dream. The dream of a better world. The dream of liberation. The dream of freedom. The dream of something resembling justice. And and even smaller something resembling equality. No matter how badly it was implemented, it was always the spirit that mattered.

Everyone likes to dump on East Germany. For all I know, maybe it did suck. But what was important about East Germany? It was the spirit, the dream, the rebellion, the fist on the air, the power of the people. Sure, it all came crashing down. But that’s not the point. The point was the death of the East Bloc was the death of a dream. These people dared to dream of a better world. Something we in the capitalist world don’t even bother to do because better worlds aren’t possible under capitalism. All you can is paint the turd, polish it up, put some fancy decorations on it. It’s always still capitalism and it always still blows in exactly the same way, like clockwork. Or physics, almost.

The only time it’s halfway ok is when it’s shot through with a huge dose of socialism to smooth out the shittiness and polish up the considerable good things.

Capitalists: A better world is not possible. This is capitalism we’re talking about, guys! Come on! This is as good as it gets. And it works. It sucks, it’s shitty, it’s evil, but it works.

The Left: A better world is possible. And if it’s not, we will dream anyway. Because the purpose of the Left is not the achievement itself but the spirit. And the dream. We at least dared to dream enough to try to create a better world. At least we tried. No matter what, you always had a roof, clothes, a job, and food. We let people survive. For this, the crime of letting, nay demanding, that people have the basics to survive, we are condemned as Pure Evil itself. It was good and it didn’t blow, nor was it shitty in the capitalist sense, but it doesn’t really work.

Pick your poison, boys.

Something evil that works.

Something good that doesn’t work.

And you only get to pick one, although I think right now the capitalist model is not only evil but it doesn’t even work. So as usual, we get the worst of both worlds.

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: No, Of Course Socialism Has Not Been a Failure

Transformer: Hey Robert, I would like your opinion about black libertarians Thomas Sowell and Walter E Williams. Do you think they make arguments that are difficult to refute? Here is Sowell saying Socialism is a failure.

I’ll get to Williams in a bit.

Of course I don’t agree with Thomas Sowell. I’m not even sure that Communism has been such a failure, or socialism if you will. I really like the Chinese Communist Party’s new definition of Communism or socialism or whatever. The words Communism and socialism don’t have any meanings. They mean whatever people who use them say they mean. In other words, people can keep changing the definitions of these things all they want to and say, “Well, Communism and socialism used to mean this, but now it means this new thing.”

Anyway, I really like the Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics model of Communism and I believe China is absolutely a Communist country and I would say that they have figured out how to make Communism actually work. The Vietnamese model is quite similar and even that works quite well. So does the Laotian model.

I will admit that I am not sure if the classic model of state socialism or Communism is capable of producing a functional economy. I worry that it doesn’t. But that’s why I say redefine the word and decide that socialism and Communism are these new things that the  Chinese and the like are doing instead.

We decided the old model didn’t work, so we went back to the drawing board and made a new model. And everybody screams and yells and says you can’t do that because the only way to do your model is the old way, so the new model isn’t even the model anymore and instead it’s something else. I think these people are engaging in magical thinking.

What’s wrong with that?

Iran has a very socialist system and it works great. So does Belarus. Russia is a lot more socialist than you think, way more. I like the new Cuban model too.

And I think the Venezuelan model works great too. The problems they are having down there have to do with sanctions and an embargo that are completely wrecking the economy. Just to give you an example of how evil the US is, Iran shipped four ships of gasoline to Venezuelan and the US intercepted them on the high seas and out and out stole the cargo. They brought they ships to Houston where they are stealing the cargo right now. So you see, we’ve made it impossible for them to make their own gas and when anyone tries to send them gas, we seize the ship and steal the cargo.

Almost every single country on Earth is on paper at least some form of social democracy. I think only the US and Botswana are not. I’m not sure about Canada, but it’s way more SD than we are. The Democratic Party’s social liberalism and its cogener in Canada are not social democracy. Social democracy is rather to the left of both of those things.

Why even read those guys unless you are still figuring out your basic views on political economy? Well, if you are still figuring that stuff out, by all means, go ahead, read the right, read the left, read everyone. But that rightwing stuff is very brainwashing, and almost all of it is a lie in some form or another.

Alt Left: Viewing the Kurds through the Left-Right Prism

Turkey itself is a fascist state, and probably 80% of Turks are open fascists. They’re also some of the nicest people you will ever meet. People are funny that way.

The Grey Wolves are at the extreme end of Turkish ultranationalist fascism. Basically Turkish Nazis. There are many outside of Turkey in Europe, especially Germany, but there are many more in Turkey, including vast numbers in the military. Even worse, I am convinced that there is more than a little Grey Wolf in 80% of Turks. Turks are brainwashed into the most toxic ethnic nationalist fascism from the time they are mere babes.

A lot of Kurds are Communists and Leftists, but not all of them. The PKK is Leftist and has 68% support in Turkey, but there are also Kurdish Islamists and even Kurds who vote for the “Grey Wolves” Kurd-hating Turkish nationalists!

“Kurd” isn’t a racial classification in Turkey. Turks don’t do ethnic nationalism in a racial sense like that. Turkish nationalism is more assimilatory. Quit speaking Kurdish and give up Kurdish culture and speak only Turkish and embrace Turkish culture, and wa-la! A Kurd becomes a Turk. See how that works?

The PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) started out Marxist as a typical Marxist revolutionary group seeking independence. If you look at revolutionary nationalists all over the world, you will see that they come in two varieties – a hard left, socialist or Communist type; and a hard right type which looks like some form of fascism. Those are the two directions revolutionary nationalists seeking self-determination can go.

If a group is very repressed, they often go for Left revolutionary nationalism because this logically appeals to them. Examples are present in the West where the Hispanic and Black ultranationalists are basically Commies because they see themselves as repressed. White ultranationalists in the US are basically fascists because they are on top.

Fascism is about preserving the interests of the ruling class and the capitalists in a time of extreme pressure from the Left. It is “a popular dictatorship against the Left” and its basis is “palingetic nationalism” (MAGA, anyone?) – picture the Lazarus bird rising from the dead. Fascism promises a return to the blood and soil glories of the past during a time when the nation has badly deteriorated. The claim of resurrecting the greatness of the ancestors is very appealing.

The PKK were formed in 1986 out of a long history of Kurdish Leftism as a typical Left revolutionary nationalist independence group. Their leader, Abdullah Ocalan or Apo, was a Marxist. They’ve recently renounced Marxism but they are pushing some sort of Libertarian socialism that looks pretty communist.

The Syrian Kurds are Leftists of the Libertarian socialist type.

The Iraqi Kurds are divided into a more typical Left and Right, neither of which is extreme and both of which are frighteningly corrupt. The Right is more traditionalist and the Left is more modernizing. They’ve sold out their own people to the Turks and have let the Turks set up bases in their land and bomb their own people all the time. All for money apparently. Or possibly fear. Or probably both.

The Iranian Kurds are also Leftists.

The Iraqi, Syrian, and Iranian Kurds are already with the US, and we are with them. Just to show you the insanity of geopolitics, the same group we support in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, we label terrorists when they happen to be in Turkey, where we help Turkey kill them. When this group is fighting our enemies, they are good guys and get our support. When they make the mistake of fighting our friends, they are our worst enemies.

There are no good guys in geopolitics. There are bad guys and worse guys, and that’s it.

Antifa loves the Kurds because antifa are anarchists. The Syrian Kurdish project was seen by anarchists as close to anarcho-socialism (Libertarian socialism) or anarcho-communism. That’s why they support them.

People claim, falsely, that the Kurds and Turks have been fighting forever. They must either have short memories or they never bothered to open a history book. I’m not sure that the Kurds and Turks fought much during the Ottoman Empire. The fighting all started with the breakup of the empire and Ataturk’s ultranationalism. In the last 100 years, Turkey has literally massacred hundreds of thousands of Kurds. Of course, genocide is something the Turks do very well. Hitler is even said to have modeled the Holocaust on the Turks’ genocide of the Armenians.

Alt Left: Trump Is Actually One of the Worst Neocon Presidents Ever

Trump isn’t dangerous at all. He’s an anti-neocon. And you hate neocons!

He just said this against the military industrial complex.

This is only the start. It shows how Trump is actually an extreme neocon, possibly one of the worst neocon presidents ever. Part of the problem is that Trump is a sworn foot soldier for the Jews. All of the wars we have been involved in in the Middle East are Wars for the Jews in one way or another. I don’t want to say that Trump is controlled by the Jews,  although perhaps that is the case. He is simply, like almost all US politicians, a fanatical supporter of the Jews and their shitty little hate state.

A military industrial complex that he pumped full of lots of money with massive hikes in the defense budget. An MIC that he did the bidding of in Saudi Arabia by selling them billions of dollars of weapons.

He is a neocon. His administration has been horrific.

Palestine/(((That Shitty Little Country)))

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the Jews and ratified the Jews’ theft of the Golan Heights.

He supported the Jews in every crime they committed against the Palestinian and other Arab people.

He is allowing the Jews to steal the West Bank.

His (((son in law))) offered the Arabs the worst peace deal they have ever been offered. Trump upped that with a “settle or else” threat.

Lebanon

He helped the Jews drop a nuclear bomb on Lebanon, then he overthrew the Lebanese government with a color revolution in an attempt to get rid of Hezbollah, also done for the Jews.

Iran

He lied that Iran fired missiles at Saudi Arabia when it was the Houthis in order to frame Iran.

He did a false flag attack against two merchant ships in the Gulf, shooting them with drone missiles from a US drone, and then lied and said that Iran did it with “limpet mines.”

He tricked Iran into shooting down a Ukrainian jetliner, killing almost 200 people. He did this by turning off the transformer in the jet somehow and at the same time jamming the radar operator’s radio. By turning off the transformer, the jet looked like an enemy aircraft in a passenger lane.

Iraq

He killed Soleimani and Muhandis using the Jews’ intelligence agencies.

He dropped supplies to ISIS every day in Iraq for many months. Regional politicians complained about this every day in the Iraqi Parliament for months. The British helped us drop supplies to ISIS, and they were even caught doing it once. After the dust-up with the Iraqi government, he started dropping supplies to ISIS in Iraq again.

He’s threatened the Iraqi government because we told them to take a hike. He unleashed US Marine snipers to shoot at demonstrators in those anti-government demonstrations and he started those demos in the first place. He threatened to have the President of Iraq killed if he didn’t go along with Trump’s orders. He threatened to attack many of the Iraqi army’s bases.

Syria

He trained ISIS to fight in the Bukmal quarter in Syria, an area of Syria that the US conquered and occupied against all international law. He brought in ISIS fighters, gave them new uniforms and a new name for their army and then sent them out again to fight the Syrian army. ISIS used to the Quarter to stage many attacks against Syria. When Syria tried to fight back, ISIS ran back to the US protected quarter. When Syrian militias tried to pursue ISIS in the Quarter, we bombed them.

He tricked 200 Russian mercenaries into taking over an oil field so he could attack them, killing most of them while Pompeo crowed about it.

He’s in Syria stealing oil, wheat, and cotton.

He killed 20% of the chickens in Syria.

He’s trying to stop the Syrian government from rebuilding itself.

He conquered and occupied a large area in Northeastern Syria using a proxy army of the Kurds.

He participated in two fake chemical weapons attacks in Syria that blamed the Syrian government. There were no chemical weapons released in either attack. In one attack, many Al Qaeda hostages were simply murdered and said to have been killed in a chemical weapons attack. In the other one, people killed in a bombing strike were passed off as chemical weapons victims. The OPCW came in and wrote up report saying there was no chemical weapons attack, and Trump threatened the OPCW and got them to rewrite the report. So Trump actually succeeded in corrupting the UN itself.

He pulled a fake attack against Russia by telling Turkey when a US jet was going to be in the area. The Turks lied and shot it down, saying it was over their territory when it wasn’t. Both pilots were killed by Turkish Al Qaeda. They could not have known where that jet was going to be unless the US told them.

He helped ISIS kill two Russian generals. ISIS could never have targeted those mortars so accurately without our help.

Russia

He pulled off two fake poison plots against Russia.

North Korea

Trump threatened to attack North Korea itself, a nuclear power. He threatened a “punch in the face” attack.

He increased sanctions against North Korea which include food and medicine. We stop ships that are heading to North Korea with food.

Venezuela

He installed a fake president in Venezuela after a free and fair election which he lied and said was crooked.

Then he tried a number of armed coup attempts against the democratically elected government.

He tried to assassinate President Maduro with an armed drone.

Now he’s running actual death squads.

He started riots for years that killed many innocent people. His rioters set a Black man on fire for being a Black supporter of Chavez.

He put a severe embargo on Venezuela that includes food and medicine.

He stole $21 billion from the Venezuelan government.

He helped the British steal $4 billion in gold from Venezuela.

Sanctions

He put massive sanctions in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon for the crime of opposing the Jews that included bans on food and medicine.

He also put sanctions on Venezuela and Nicaragua for the crime of having socialist system.

Alt Left: Birth of the Cultural Left Analysis: Did the Black Panthers Hate Whites?

I think the Panthers are still around, but they are not very active. I actually don’t mind them. They did a lot of really cool things like free breakfasts and lunches for school children. They have been superseded by the New Black Panther Party, an explicitly racist organization that actively promotes hatred of Whites. The real Panthers recently criticized the NBP for hating Whites, saying that the original Panthers were never about hating Whites; instead they just wanted equal rights for Blacks.

The rightwing recently has published some articles suggesting that the Panthers hated Whites. To my recollection, they did not. They helped the Weathermen break Tim Leary out of prison, and they visited him in Algeria, where some of them (Kwame Ture nee Eldridge Cleaver of Soul on Ice fame) had also taken refuge. A lot of radical Whites worked hand in hand with the Panthers.

The Panthers were Marxists (actually Maoists) of that particular er, which would coincide with the Cultural Revolution period in China. Think of how culturally conservatives the Chinese Communist Party was at this time. That’s what the Panthers were like.

They were strongly against degeneracy of any type as most Communist parties (CP’s) were at that time. Some Panthers were openly homophobic, saying homosexuality was a bourgeois vice, a popular view among CP’s of that time (See the Cuban leadership’s position on this subject in the 1960’s). They certainly didn’t promote Black crime, drug use, or even irresponsible behavior.

I will say that Farrakhan’s (whom I very much dislike) people are huge on social responsibility too, and I appreciate them for that. They are very much into clean living and non-degeneracy, and they despise Black crime.

I came out of the cultural revolutions of the 1960’s, which is why probably why some people are shocked at how leftwing I am. They’re blown away when they figure that out about me. “Wow, I didn’t realize he was so leftwing!” Well, I am. I’m race realist though and hate the Cultural Left. I’m a “conservative socialist.”

Hell, I was on the mailing list for the Weatherman at one point not even long ago! Well, their above ground organization that is (the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee), which frankly has strong links to this BLM movement right now. So, yes, the present Weathermen (now given up arms as a peaceful organization) are very much behind BLM.

My friends were drug dealers who hung out with Tim Leary and the Brotherhood of Eternal Love in Laguna Canyon in Laguna Beach where the BEL made and distributed millions of tabs of Orange Sunshine LSD.I remember my friends telling me about going to parties in the canyon and how they had lookouts high up in the eucalyptus trees to watch out for cops. I did go to a party in the Canyon once, a real hippie party with real hippie chicks and lots of pot smoking. Love was definitely in the air.

I have supported Latin American guerrilla groups. I actually gave to the “weapons fund” for the Salvadoran guerrillas for some time. So I’m actually a real dyed in the wool terrorist supporter or even financier if you will, although I stopped giving them money long ago.

If I did that now, I would be violating the Patriot Act by giving Material Support for Terrorism (Whatever the Hell that means!), and I could be looking at 10 years. But alas, those were different times. Even the 80’s were far more laid back, relaxed, and anti-authoritarian compared to now when we seem to be on some weird authoritarian trip due to fears over “terrorism” which is about nonexistent in the US.

Anyway, this was a time of peace, love, dope and all that. Everyone was very much into nonviolence to the point of near-passivity. Any aggressive behavior was “uncool.” Every hippie man was your brother, and every hippie woman was your sister. There was magic in the air. And Yoko brought her walrus, don’t forget that.

Plus there was lots of “free love.” I still have fond memories of hippie chicks. I will say it was a lot more loving and friendly than things are nowadays with all this weirdness, antisociality, fear of strangers and single men, “pedophile” hysteria, #metoo insanity, and general fear or even terror of men – and this at a time when major crimes like rape have crashed 63% since  1993.

Sometimes I think the lower the crime rate goes, the more paranoid people get about crime. Don’t ask me to figure it out. I have no idea why humans do whatever irrational thing du jour they happen to be doing.

Bottom line is that humans are basically irrational and illogical at their core and we tend to be driven around all through life by our emotional needs and beliefs, which often seem to be pulling us through life blindly on a leash like a dog ownder, not even why we do or feel certain things.

I can’t tell you how many of my female clients have asked me, “Why do I feel this way?”  The answer was not readily apparent. Obviously it’s happening for a reason, probably an  unconscious one. Then they ask me, “How do I stop feeling  this way (getting dragged through life with their emotions like a dog an a leash)?” It’s hard to answer questions like that. The solutions are there no doubt, but they are more tangled up in the forbidding jungle of the psyche than we want  to admit.

The only answer I would have to taht question would be to develop some “emotional literacy,” to try to develop and cultivate at least some  emotional control. My emotions don’t drag me through life blindly, baffled at why I am doing or feeling  this or that. I

t’s more the opposite. Whereas with many people, including  most women for sure, their emotions are dragging through them through their lives blindly, with me it’s the other way around. I have my emotions on a leash and I drag them around. I’d rather drag my emotions through life in my own leash than the other way around. Control gets a bad rap, but a lot of forms of it

Anyway, the Panthers were just Black hippies. They hung out with the White hippies. Black hippies were “brothers,” or “soul brothers,” if you will. There were some problems with them of course (they are Blacks after all), but most of them were quite well-behaved or at least much  better behaved than they are now. I suspect the demand for nonviolence in the hippie movement weeded out the bad ones. There may have been some self-selection going  on.

Bottom line is I really disagree that the Panthers were White-haters. It’s BS.

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: Communism/Socialism Isn’t the Cause of Latin America’s Problems; It’s the Solution

Transformer: Robert, I was arguing with this libertarian about the vicious cycle of inequality in Latin America and this was his response:

“Land monopoly is the core problem in Central America. Communism is the main reason the problem was not solved.”

I would like your response to his statement please. I personally disagree with his statement.

I think the reason the problem is not solved is because of a deeply poisonous rightwing reactionary elite as well as backward cultural traditions and attitudes that are obstacles to genuine land reform. Moreover, I think American foreign policy support for the rightwing oligarchy as well as the CIA aligning with these interest to overthrow democratic governments that try to correct the problem is a huge obstacle also.

Here.

I am not a supporter of Communism, and I think it is a far leftwing version of far rightwing libertarianism that you write about. Like you, I believe a free market economy with sensible regulations and a social safety net is the best solution. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are both two sides of the same coin.

My response: Sure, he’s wrong. That’s another one of their fake arguments. What the Hell is “land monopoly?” Your arguments of the cause of the problem are absolutely spot on perfect. That’s exactly the cause of all the mess right there in a small paragraph.

First of all, Communism barely exists in Latin America (only Cuba is Communist) so how in the Hell could it be the cause of all of the problems down there? This Libertarian is incoherent and dishonest, like all of them. He’s not only got the wrong cure, but like most rightwingers, he’s not even diagnosing the illness properly. All physicians know that without diagnosis there can be no treatment. As in medicine, so in political economy.

Communism especially of the Chinese variety would work very well down there. The Sandinistas, Evo Morales Movement Towards Socialism, Correa in Ecuador, the Worker’s Party (PT) government in Brazil, Father Aristide in Haiti, AMLO in Mexico, the FMLN government in El Salvador, the Kirchners in Argentina, and the priest who was running the Left government in Paraguay were all on the right track.

I also like very much what the Chavistas are doing in Venezuela. It’s not Communism at all. It’s something completely different, Socialism of the 21st Century. It also works very well when it’s not being sabotaged. Even with continuous coup-mongering and sabotage by the fascist opposition, the Chavistas had great success for many years.

Yes, it’s crashed now because the fascists and the US have really upped the ante. This time they think they can finally pull off the coup they have been trying to have for 18 years now. Yes, things are very bad in Venezuela now, and there are various reasons for that, but it’s not the model that is the problem. The model is the same as Chavez’ very successful one.

Not only that, but Maduro has gone much to the right of Chavez. He keeps caving in to the  fascists and putting in their proposals, but they keep trying  to overthrow him with a coup anyway. He’s being played. He needs to stop talking to the coupmongers. According to the insane law of cause and effect the right claims here, it must be the rightwing economic reforms Maduro has done that has crashed the economy. See how dumb it is to mess around with cause and effect. Just because to events parallel each other doesn’t mean they are causing each other.

The economy is crashing due to manipulation of the monetary system, some dumb mistakes by Maduro (not floating the currency), low oil prices, and lately US sanctions which are now nearly a blockade.

I also think the Cuban model has worked very well down there. The Sandinista model, to the right of both the Cuban and Venezuelan models, works extremely well. The instability recently was due to a violent coup attempt by the fascist opposition. Now they are under sanctions, so that might be hurting them too.

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.