Alt Left: The “Roosevelt Knew” Bullshit

There has long been a strain of conspiracy theory, which had significant evidence in its favor nonetheless, that Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and allowed the attack to go ahead anyway.

This has long been a favorite of rightwingers then and now. Conservatives at the time thought Roosevelt was a traitor who had deliberately filled his Cabinet with many Soviet spies to whom he gave much classified information.

This is the Commie spy network that Joe McCarthy, etc. set about going after in the 1950’s during the Red Scare. There doesn’t seem to be good evidence for this.

To this day, standard anti-Semitism is almost always rightwing or far rightwing and is heavily tied in with anti-Communism among other things such as anti-modernism and anti-liberalism, two movements that the Jews were seen leading.

Anyway, there were many hard conservatives in the Pentagon around the time of World War 2, and quite a few of them were starting to imbibe the “Jewish Communist threat” line.

Winston Churchill himself was one of the originators of the Jewish Bolshevik hysteria when he made some paranoid and agitated statements along the lines that the Bolshevik revolution was a Jewish one soon after the October Revolution was through.

It was these nutty reactionary anti-Communist anti-Semites in the Pentagon who were responsible for the “Roosevelt knew” line.

Revilo Oliver had worked in intelligence at the Pentagon during the war and later said that Roosevelt had allowed the Pear Harbor attack. Two very conservative admirals stated after the war that Roosevelt should be tried for treason for allowing the attack. These two admirals did not have good evidence for their charges.

Oliver is apparently lying. He was an extreme anti-Communist, a White nationalist racist, a Nazi sympathizer, and a hardcore anti-Semite who later became very active in the early days of the National Review, to show you how tainted the early days of Buckley’s journal were.

Oliver is of course also a Holocaust denier who railed about the bombing of Dresden (which he exaggerated as such types are wont to do) and the Nuremberg trials, which he regarded as an outrageous orgy of murder. Which in some ways it was, unfortunately.

It doesn’t take long to deeply review the case of the Pearl Harbor advance knowledge theory to show that it is nonsense. We never cracked the main code that the Japanese used in the weeks before the attack. The Japanese fleet turned off their radios as they sailed to the attack, a brilliant move.

Radar was in its infancy and worked poorly. Nevertheless a radar operator noticed large blobs on the screen and notified his superiors, who laughed and told him they were clouds. Early radar has a hard time distinguishing between ships and clouds. His observation made it up to a general nevertheless, but the general laughed the blobs off as clouds too.

It is certainly true that Roosevelt was trying to push the Japanese into a corner and many thought he was trying to bait them into a war. I believe that’s pretty uncontroversial. In fact, the US was alarmed at how upset the Japanese were at the US’ moves such as the embargo on oil sales to them.

In fact in the months leading up to the attack, the US increasingly felt that the Japanese were getting ready to attack the US. They weren’t sure it was going to happen, but they thought it likely. What they didn’t know was where and when it would take place, and Pearl Harbor was not considered to be a likely a target. The large US garrison the Philippines was considered a more likely target.

Roosevelt definitely wanted war with the Japanese. He had made statements along the lines that no way was he going to allow the Japanese to run amok all over the Pacific, conquering lands and slaughtering the natives while brutally colonizing them.

There was a telegram sent to the Japanese ambassador in Washington the night before the attack telling him that the Japanese government was going to break off relations with the US. It was in an earlier code that had already been broken.

The Pentagon felt that that meant that a Japanese attack may be imminent. However, a warning to that effect sent out to US forces in the Pacific got lost in the shuffle and was only read too late by most of its recipients.

There were 10 full investigations of the Pearl Harbor attack. No foreknowledge of the attack by Roosevelt or anyone else in the administration was ever demonstrated.

Although there is some interesting evidence in favor of this conspiracy theory, at the end of the day it doesn’t seem to hold water and simply seems to be one more club that the Right uses to bash Democrats along with one of the Right’s most hated Democrats of all, Roosevelt.

Furthermore the people who traffic in this theory are pretty unsavory. It is a favorite of a variety of conspiratorial rightwing types, including fanatical anti-Communists, hardcore anti-Semites, neo-Nazis/Nazi sympathizers, Holocaust deniers, White nationalists and other charming folks.

Alt Left: The Jewish Bolshevism Nonsense

This theory is not only nonsense, but it’s also very dangerous nonsense because this really is Nazism in a nutshell at its very essence. People don’t realize that Nazis hated Communists as much as Jews. When the Einsatzgruppen were ravaging the Baltics and the USSR, two types of people tended to be killed on sight by these assassination squads in many cases:

  1. Jews
  2. Communists

And neither was favored over the other. Furthermore the lines were blurred, as the Nazis’ main enemy was Communism, and Nazi theory held that Communism was a Jewish plot, and essentially all Jews were Communists who had to be killed to snuff out the Bolshevik threat.

Of course they had other reasons for hating Jews, but most folks don’t Trealize how important the Commie Jews theory was in the annihilation of the European Jews.

This line went along with growing anti-Semitism on the Right in the US and elsewhere along the lines that the Bolshevik Revolution has been a Jewish revolution and that Communist Jews posed a threat to the so called Free World, which was always anything but.

This line held basically that all Jews were Communists. It wasn’t true, though most European Jews in the 1930’s were definitely on the Left, especially in places like Poland. Many were just liberals and social democrats though. An old line says that maybe one out of ten Jews is a radical, but five out of ten radicals are Jews. So you do the math.

While there were many Jews in the leadership positions of the early Soviet government, most Jews were not Bolsheviks. In the 1917 election before the Bolsheviks seized power, 70% of Russian Jews voted for the Zionist party.

They may have supported the Bolsheviks after they seized power, but the majority of people in the country did anyway, including a lot of the military, especially the military intelligence of the Czar’s army, most of whom went over to the Reds.

I did some research on the makeup of the early Bolsheviks and there were people from all ethnic groups of the USSR. Yes there were a lot of Jews, but there were just as many Latvians, of all people, and possibly more. So I guess the Bolshevik Revolution was a Latvian Revolution, right?

There followed short lived Communist revolutions in the several years after the October Revolution, one in Hungary under Bela Kun, a Hungarian Jew, and another in Bavaria under Rosa Luxembourg and some others, all German Jews.

Kun’s regime lasted only a few months, but he did kill some people, though the death count, which may be as low as 300, is much exaggerated by anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers. But he killed just enough to scare the European middle classes.

The Bavarian government was overthrown after a few months, but the fact that it existed at all spread horror throughout the German petit bourgeois.

It was this early revolution on German soil that cemented the Nazis’ belief in Jewish Bolshevism, which held that all Jews were Communists intended on overthrowing all non-Communist regimes and seizing power for the Jews over the Gentiles the world over. The theory said that the main reason the Jews wanted to do this was to get rich by exploiting the Gentile masses when they had established World Communism.

As anyone knows, nobody goes into Communism thinking of getting rich. And Communists don’t exploit workers to make a profit anyway. That goes right against Marxist theory. It’s nearly on the level of a transgression.

So this part of the theory was so nonsensical it is almost laughable.

But many to most hardcore anti-Semites continue to push this line to this very day, that Communist Jews are a threat to the world, want to take over all countries and convert them to Communism, thereby finally ruling over their hated Gentile enemies, while at the same time ruthlessly exploiting the Gentiles so that these Communist Jews get filthy rich under this world Communist system.

The theory is so absurd that you would think it would have no more than a limited shelf life, but its recrudescence seems eternal and vigorous. Perhaps the theory’s staying power speaks more about the essential irrationality of obsessive, paranoid, conspiratorial anti-Semitism than anything else.

The Holocaust was largely driven by this belief in subversive Jewish Bolshevik Communists out to overthrow the established governments of Europe. It was a paranoid argument with no basis at the time, and it still is.

European Jews in the 1930’s had little power. They held quite a few high positions in some countries, especially in Hungary and Germany, and in Germany they had acquired quite a bit of money, but they had little power in either country. What Jewish power existed was quickly overthrown by the Nazis when they came into power.

Many of the East European Jews, especially the Polish and Russian Jews, had become terribly poor in recent decades. They lived in ignorant, backwards, poverty-stricken villages called stetls. They were pathetic but they were hardly world-controlling wealthy Jewish profiteers and oligarchs. It’s hard to see how they were a threat to anyone, but Polish anti-Semitism was very high anyway.

These Jews were poorly assimilated and this is offered as a reason for Polish antisemitism, but many Jews in Western Europe were much more assimilated (indeed assimilation was the laudable goal of most West European Jews).

The German Jews were the most assimilated in all of Europe. Lot of good it did them. In the previous century the assimilation was so thorough that many Jews had left Judaism and converted to Christianity, especially Protestantism.

This caused no end of problems for Nazis trying to figure out who was a Jew and who wasn’t. To this day you can find many German Protestants who will tell you that their ancestors were Jewish converts to Christianity. Even in Marx’s time this was quite common.

Alt Left: A Puzzle Solved: The Main Reason for Antisemitism Uncovered

Antisemitism is caused by Jews. Antisemitism follows Jews like day follows night. A lot of antisemitism simply boils down to the fact that the Jews are intellectually superior to the White Gentiles they have always lived among.

Hence you get situations like Jews, 2% of the population, owning 32% of the wealth of Germany. No nation is going to put up with that, no matter if the money-hoarders got it fair and square or stole every nickel of it. And indeed not coincidentally, Adolf Hitler assumed power as the dictator of Germany that very next year after gaining the most votes in the prior election. Not that I am excusing the monstrosities and horrors of the Nazis. I’m no Nazi. More like the opposite. But the Nazis did not engage in their horrors for no reason at all. Most terrible things are done for reasons, usually not very good ones but reasons nonetheless.

But the sad fact is that anti-Semitism is simply the “normal”, though regretfully so, reaction of of non-Jews towards Semitism, or Jewish behavior in the societies in which they live.

I will credit the much-maligned Kevin MacDonald with that particular insight. In the sense that he finally figured it out, right there, this particular antisemite, MacDonald (he wasn’t one at first but he’s surely one now), is smarter than every Jew who ever lived combined because he finally solved the theorem that the Jews have been pondering for 1,500 years.

Please note that when I say normal I don’t mean good. Many terrible things are sadly normal, death and taxes being two that immediately come to mind. I mean normal in the sense of common as wifebeating is common and therefore “normal” while still being reprehensible.

And as I noted, much anti-Semitism simply derives from the outrage, offense, envy, and sour grapes attitude of whatever Gentiles the Jews happen to be competing with at the time. The Jews are simply a superior race, perhaps the most superior race on Earth, hence they tend to out-compete most if not all other races, obviously provoking outrage and sore-loserdum among the defeated.

The Jews’ crime is being too successful! In fact, they are so successful that the races they beat get so mad about the Jews always winning the gold that they go to the envious retaliatory extreme of murdering Jews simply because they won the race and showed up the defeated losers. Jews then are so successful that they actually get murdered for their success by the envious and outraged races that they defeated!

Alt Left: Book Review: “The Negro in Jamaica: : Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London”

Book Review: The Negro in Jamaica: Read before the Anthropological Society of London, February 1, 1866, at St. James’s Hall, London, by Bedford Pim. 1868. London: Trubner & Company.

Great for the first half, the second half is rather boring. It concerns a report to a British anthropological society about the uprisings of the Blacks in Jamaica in the 1800’s when it was a British colony. The portrayal of Blacks here is not complementary at all, and it would be called racist in modern terms.

However, this portrayal is not racist at all. I believe it was simply observational with keen eye of objectivity. The Black man in the Caribbean and in Africa for that matter was a forlorn specimen, barbarous and savage in the worst possible way.

I will briefly add that the book is racist in the way it patronizingly defends colonialism and says the Blacks of Jamaica were not mistreated when obviously they were. The report also says that Blacks cannot govern themselves, which is dubious.  They can govern themselves. Not very well, but they can do it. They do it in the Caribbean, in Africa and even in large US cities. The only solution to this problem then was that Blacks should be put under permanent supervision of Whites until they had gradually become civilized.

By the way, this was also the colonially stated beneficent rationale for apartheid. For all I know, they may have been honest about it. South African Whites felt that Blacks had to be held under apartheid bondage until such time as they had achieved civilization enough to live on equal terms with Whites.

Be that as it may, apartheid was still immoral and had to be done away. Why? Because it was simply the right thing to do and for no other reason. The fact that South Africa has gone seriously downhill under Black rule is irrelevant. Humans have a right to self-rule, and whether they do so well or not so well is strictly up to them.

The solution advocated in this book is to continue to bring Blacks from Africa and work them on five year contracts for White plantation owners, after which they would be returned to Africa. One cannot help but notice that the endless insistence here that the Black man cannot rule himself just so happens to provide a rationale for Britain to retain the colonial possession of Jamaica. Wink win.

Although of course you can see shadows of this barbarous behavior in modern day Africa, the Caribbean and the US Black underclass, what is shocking is the growth of the Black middle class since the Civil Rights era and how they do not resemble the degraded race portrayed here in any way, shape, or form. A large percentage of the Blacks have become, in a word, civilized. The problem was not so much genetic or biological as cultural.

Via exposure to White society over 150+ years, a large percentage of Blacks, the Black middle class, have become civilized people. They bear no resemblance to the barbarous brutes in this book at all. One would be shocked if they were told that they were of the same race. Indeed the difference is so profound that the only sane conclusion is that we are talking about two different races, which is of course not true.

The message here is that integration is the way to go. The deficiencies of Blacks are not so much biological as cultural. All Blacks needed was the guiding hand of the civilizing impulse, as is the case with so many other human groups.

The other message is that White people are good for Blacks. I should amend this to say that good White people are good for Blacks. Obviously, White slavers or enforcers of Jim Crow in the US and elsewhere in the Americas was not good for Blacks, athough this book tries to make the case that it is.

It’s good for Blacks to mix with good, decent Whites or even to marry with said Whites. Left on their own to congregate in large cities, they act like crabs in a barrel, pulling down anyone who tries to escape and driving each other down to the lowest common denominator in a race for the bottom behaviorally. Large groups of Black people don’t seem to work. Blacks act best as a rather small minority, 20% or less, in a larger group of Whites, Hispanics, or Asians.

The Blacks don’t have any numbers, so they don’t influence each other much. Further, the same Blacks who would obviously degrade quickly in the hood do much better when integrated, as they try to mimic the behavior of the races around them, races which tend to set the bar higher behaviorally.

Integration works. The way to ameliorate the Black problem in the US or any other land is to thoroughly mix them in small numbers with Whites, Hispanics or Asians. This brings out the best in the Blacks. It’s good for us, for them, and for society. Everyone wins.

Integration today, integration tomorrow, integration forever!

From Le Bon to Mussolini to Trump, a Single Unbroken Strand

DpFzByQUYAAeh-4
Le Bon -> Mussolini -> Trump.

DpFzHeYV4AA3Mdy
Le Bon -> Mussolini -> Trump.

And those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, of course.

The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.
– William Faulkner

And…There’s something to be admired about the way the Chinese always take the long view of history and reality itself for that matter.

Interviewer: What do you as Chinese premier, think of the French Revolution [that took place 200 years ago]?
Chou en Lai, Premier of the People’ Republic of China: It’s too soon to tell.
– Interview with Chinese premier Chou en Lai, 1970’s

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Feminism and Marxism and Between Marxism and Identity Politics

Rod Fleming: Hmmm…Gloria Steinem took most of her political thinking straight from Marx, and Steinem is at the root of modern feminism, along with Dworkin, another disgrace to the species and the most overtly sex-negative of the credible 20th-C authors. There were other prominent socialist thinkers than Marx who are also reflected in Steinem but the identitarianism inherent in modern feminism seems to come from Marx. We can argue as to whether their interpretation of Marx was accurate or not, but it’s clear that they are reflecting his influence.
Essentially, Marx depends on identities — proletariat, bourgeoisie –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.
Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there. I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally. It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms, since it is impossible to think outside the Logos and the Jewish Logos is conceived on the notion of an essential and heritable Jewish identity that is independent of belief.
That is why atheist Jews are still Jews; being Jewish is not about theology but about an unimpeachable sense of identity that exists through blood. An interesting sidelight is found in the US, where people whose families, for generations, were born in the US and who are themselves indistinguishable from any other modern white American, still claim to be Scots, even though they would understand hardly a word of any Scottish dialect, archaic or modern and have not a scoobie about Scottish culture. I have never, ever, encountered a person of US birth who claimed to be English. Identitarianism is much deeper than one might think.
Whatever, identitarianism, repackaged by feminists as ‘intersectionality’ is the curse of modern life in the West.

Dworkin never talked much about Marx. She just talked about how much she hated men.  Radical feminists say they are Communists and they are, but they never talk political economics. All they ever talk about is how much they hate men. Incidentally, Socialist Feminists would have thrown Dworkin out of their movement for that because Socialist Feminists forbade feminists from hating men and said men and women workers had to struggle together against capitalism.
I haven’t the faintest idea if any of this is true. I have read quite a bit of those early feminists, and I rarely hear them quote Marx. I have read Steinem quite a bit, and I can’t remember her quoting Marx. More importantly, is Gloria Steinem a Marxist? Hell no.
Radical feminism came out of Marxism in a sense, but they substituted class struggle for the struggle between the sexes. Instead of proletariat and bourgeois, you have women and men, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class.
The Socialist Feminists completely reject Radical Feminists on this question and accuse them of substituting class struggle with gender struggle. For Socialist Feminists, the primary struggle is a class one. Further, both Marxist and Socialist Feminists officially state that men and women workers need to work together to battle capitalism and establish a more just society, so neither wing is much into man-hating, although on the Western Left, you find an awful of lot of quoting of radical feminists. Radical feminism formed the theoretical base on the whole 2nd Wave and much of the 3rd Wave.
Marx was not an Identitarian at all. In fact, many socialists and Marxists have strongly opposed modern Identity Politics as basically bourgeois politics that does nothing but divide the working class. Many of the worst critics of IP have come out of the Left. They really hate dividing the working class into all of these micro-identities.
Marx never discussed IP in any form.
He barely talked about the Woman Question. Engels talked about it more.
Marx and Engels were both backwards on race, and neither liked homosexuals.
Both of them were rather socially conservative men by our standards.
Proletariat and bourgeois are not identities. Those are classes. Identities are generally things you are more or less born with – race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, etc.

Rod Fleming: –and identities are obviously the core of modern Identitarian or ‘Intersectional’ feminist thinking.

This is correct.

Rod Fleming: Marx, along with Engels and later Lenin, of course, was a Jew who had left Germany because of antisemitism (specifically, the problems over Jewish emancipation) there.

I don’t think so. Marx was an atheist Jew. In 1844, he wrote a tract called On the Jewish Question which bashed Judaism to Hell and back. It has been labeled an anti-Semitic tract forever now, but I don’t think it was. He didn’t like any religion and he hated Christianity and Islam just as much.
Marx left Germany because he was a journalist and editor of small newspapers and journals and a political organizer who founded some of the first Communist organizations in German or in Europe for that matter. These organizations were shut down and raided, and a number of their members were imprisoned. Marx fled political persecution and imprisonment to Paris and then to London.
I think it’s likely that the experience of actually being a scapegoat did have an influence on his thinking and the progress of Marxist political philosophy generally.
Except that to my knowledge, Marx never experienced much anti-Semitism. As an atheist Jew, Marx had all but left the Jews. Marx also called for the assimilation of the Jews, and many Jews consider that to be antisemitic. There was a not a huge amount of anti-Semitism even in Germany in the 1840’s and 1850’s. People were too busy worrying about other things. Germanic, especially Austrian, antisemitism really took off in the late 1800’s when racial antisemitism first got started with Mars and the rest. Mars founded the first Anti-Semitic League in Germany in ~1880. However, by that time, he had already married and divorced three different Jewish women. Perhaps this is why he turned anti-Semite? Just kidding.

Rod Fleming: It’s probably not possible to be a Jewish author and not think in identitarian terms,

This is probably true but no one gets more outside of the Jews than Jewish Marxists, and no Jews have criticized the Jews as strongly as the Marxist Jews. They are widely considered to be self-haters. For instance, Trotsky, when asked if he were Jewish, described his nationality as “working class.”

Alt Left: Praise for the Conservative Left

Although the SJW author of the piece that quotes Selbourne in the New Statesman attacks Selbourne, what Selbourne describes is nothing less than the Alt Left itself.
In a very early bulletin board post, a poster described my Alternative Left as conservative Leftists.” When Norman Mailer ran for mayor of New York in 1969, he called himself a left conservative. Mailer has continued to describe himself as a left conservative to this day.
Well, that’s exactly what we are.
We are somewhat socially conservative on the Cultural Left Freakshow, but we are Left on everything else. According to our dispensation, Selbourne would be Alt Left, as he despises the moronic SJW Left. And as he brilliantly points out, the unlimited freedoms (not really unlimited though as look at how SJW Feminism wants to stop heterosexual flirting, dating and sex) to be as weird and crazy as you want are really the freedoms of neoliberalism.
This is radical individualism taken to its ultimate without any regard for the good of society. And radical individualism in Culture goes right along with radical individualism is business and the rest of society. If government has to get out of the lives of all the SJW freaks, then obviously it has to get out of the lives of US business and the rich too, right?

Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also.

Capitalism runs on a culture of individualism, and radical individualism is the ultimate capitalist society. Capitalists say, “There is no such thing as society.”
And in a Cultural Left world where everyone is running around flying their freak flag du jour, there’s no society either. Everyone has a different hair color. Everyone has a different sexual micro-orientation and gender micro-identity.
Everyone is divided against everyone else. The women workers are egged on to hate the male workers. The Black workers are egged on to hate the White workers. The gay workers are encouraged to hate the straight workers. The tranny workers are prompted to hate the cisgender workers. Everyone hates everyone. No one works together on any societal goals because everyone hates each other too much.
Now that the working class is divided into factions at each other’s throats, society is demolished, all humans are atomized, and the capitalists can go on their merry rapacious way, destroying everything in their path, including whatever is left of society, like they always do.

In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence.

I like how he describes the Cultural Left as the free market of culture. That’s exactly what it is!

David Selbourne, in the left-of-center New Statesmen, writes::
With socialism at the end of its historical evolution, the “Left” now lacks a coherent sense of what progress is. It has only a ragbag of causes and issues, rational and irrational, urgent and idle: a politics of personal rights and ‘lifestyle choices’, of anti-racism and environmental protection, of multicultural separatism, individual identity and gender, and much else besides.
Neither rhyme nor reason — and certainly not socialist reason — can be made of it, especially when mere transgression is confused with progress.
In fact, we are now landed with a “Left” concept of freedom which is little different from Milton Friedman’s “right to choose”, a Libertarianism that has overshadowed the social in what used to be socialism. It is itself a market freedom; after all, self-restraint has less market worth than self-indulgence. Nor is today’s ‘freedom’n’liberty’, whether Right or ‘Left’, the freedom fought for in the Reformation or in the revolutionary overthrow of the anciens régimes. It is not the freedom for which the 19th-century emancipationists and the suffragettes struggled. It is the freedom to do what one wants and the devil take the hindmost. No wonder that the far Right is advancing.
There is ignorance too in this pseudo-Left Libertarianism. It is reactionary, not progressive, to promote the expansion of individual freedoms without regard to the interests of the social order as a whole. Those who want the right to choose, and who object to moral or social restraint as ‘authoritarian’, cannot logically object to the rights of Capital to do whatever it wants also. The rapacious equity trader has as much right to be free as you or me; these ‘rights’ differ only in scale and consequence, not in essence.

I would actually agree with the following, and this is why I am an extreme statist at heart because face facts, socialism is statism taken to its ultimate ends.
From the Libertarian author:

It grabbed the methods of conservatism, embracing state power as the means of planning permissable changes and preventing others.

We don’t hate the state. We love the state! The state is the people personified as a single governmental entity, acting in the interests of the people to whom it serves, as Mao points out.

“The effort to escape from State control has always been the sign of liberty; the effort to enforce State control has always been the sign of Conservative reaction.” For this reason: “Socialism, in so far as it postulates State control, is Conservative in thought.”
Oliver Brett, Defense of Liberty, 1922

Fine. We are conservatives then. We are the Conservative Left!

Professor E. Harris Harbison of Princeton, concurred: “The truly ‘radical’ movement of the later medieval and early modern period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, ‘radical’ is today almost synonymous with ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’. …It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, ‘progressive’ and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward.”
Socialism and Modern Life, 1952

Fine, not a problem! I was always wondering when the Rightists and Libertarians would reclaim the word liberal.

Walter Lippman wrote: “…I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word.”
Carl A. Keyser, Spare None: the Federal Octopus: How it Grew and Other Tales, 1972
 

Sounds good.
Liberal historically has never meant anything like US social liberalism. In most of the world, liberal is a dirty word. It’s synonymous with neoliberalism. Liberalism in economics means classical liberal or neoclassical economics. It’s Ricardo and Smith all the way to Mises and Hayek, without stopping.
In the rest of the world, it tends to mean the “free minds and free markets” garbage that American reactionary foreign policy claims to support in their lying propaganda. Note once again the tie-in of social freedoms with freedom of Capital. You want free elections, gay rights, feminism, porn, civil liberties and the rest? Fine, you have to let the market run free with no restictions from the state whatsoever.
According to this nonsense, you can’t have free minds without free markets, and you can’t have free markets without free minds. Any restrictions on the free market are automatically symptomatic of a dictatorship or authoritarian regime.
This is why every Left government on Earth immediately gets called a dictatorship by US foreign policy. Because to the sick American way, socialism in any way,  shape or form is automatically undemocratic and dictatorial by its very nature.
This nonsense places economics over politics as Economics Uber Alles. Here economics determines the nature of the state.
If the market is free, you have a democracy automatically, no questions asked. Never mind the death squads that just murdered 200,000 people and all the peaceful opposition, the election that was just stolen, the US sponsored coup to “restore democracy” that resulted in the 17 year long “democracy saving” dictatorship, the politicized police, army, judiciary, the rich owning all the media and rendering freedom of speech a sick joke, the money-based elections giving rise to the “democracy of the dollar” and the dictatorship over the people.
And if  you have any type of socialism, you automatically have a dictatorship. I suppose Norway and Sweden must be dictatorships then. Never mind that you have the freest and fairest elections on Earth as they have in Venezuela. No matter. Elections can never be free enough in a socialist country. Even if they are the freest and fairest elections on Earth, it’s automatically a dictatorship simply by dint of being socialist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Magic in the Celtic World from Antiquity to the Middle Ages

New from Francis Miville.

Francis Miville: There was a reason why the Celtic cultural world crumbled and was ready to assimilate into the nearest conquering empire passing nearby. Gauls literally begged the Greeks to conquer them, and as they proved too self-interested as merchants, they turned to the Romans as to the second best choice long before Cesar came.
The Celtic world was more and more definitely with the centuries passing a culture based upon the preeminence of magic and of magic of a very malevolent kind. Druidic civilization was no fun at all. Celtic civilization was quite like the Brahmanical one in its worst aspects but without any encompassing universalistic cosmogony.
It was a universe without any power above that of the elite of all-powerful manipulators having been selected through proof of their psychopathic mind before being taught any bit of initiation knowledge. Above the stage of a mere brute, you spent your own life dodging evil spells and casting ones in return.
The only late exceptions which explain their further survival were Ireland, Scotland, and Brittany on both sides of the Channel. This is because it was rather the invention of something radically new by a certain kind of Christians together with a new kind of Celtic languages that bore very little relationship to the original.
But Celtic Christianity as it was called came to be later on considered as heretical from the point of view of more classical theology, as it was based on much magic too, though of a more seductive than warlike kind. In the case of Ireland and Brittany, the magicians proved to be oligarchically-minded to the worst degree as all magicians are. These magicians offered their services to the best payers, that is to say the Norman and French invaders. In exchange, the oligarchs were given as a natural resource the whole populace that the magicians controlled as a  passive herd.
In Scotland the whole people succeeded as magicians to enter the British Empire as mafia-minded dominants of a worse kind than Anglo-Saxons proper, while playing a key role in the setting up of Masonry.
Magical cultures are all social horrors.

On Black Women and Prostitution

I am getting an awful lot of blowback on writing about my recent discovery that Black women are far more likely to be prostitutes or quasi-prostitutes than other races of women. This is something that finally dawned on me after six decades of living. It has been suggested that my observation, admittedly not made on a scientific basis but instead on intuition, is simply false.
Well, here are some facts.
Black girls are 13% of all girls in the US. However, 55% of girls arrested for prostitution are Black. So Black girls are 13% of the population but 55% of the girl prostitutes. That’s almost as bad as the outsized homicide rate, where Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 53% of the homicides. The homicide rate is starkly elevated and caused many to sit up and take notice with shock in part because it confirms what they always suspected anyway. The prostitution rate is even more elevated and once again confirms what people suspected based on intuition.
The linked article offers many possible reasons. 49% of Black minors do not graduate from high school. That is an extremely high dropout rate of almost half of all Black minors. However, 75% of Black girls arrested for prostitution dropped out of high school. So the Black girl prostitute population is a population of school dropouts who grew up without significant parental figures.
The article also said that 75% of Black girls arrested for prostitution grew up in homes without either a mother or a father.
From the article:

The fact that more than half of girls who end up turning to lives of prostitution have grown up without fathers, suggests a need for male attention and acceptance. Additionally, the fact that more than ¾ of the girls who end up selling themselves grow up missing one of their parents is a sign that we need to rally behind our children as a community and support our single-parent families, remembering the notion that “it takes a village to raise a child….We need to teach our girls to value themselves and create a culture that supports that value.

Another possible reason for the high numbers of Black females working as prostitutes is the possibility that prostitution is tolerated in the Black community as no big deal. However else they feel about it, prostitution is definitely not tolerated or considered a legitimate job in White, Hispanic, and Asian communities. It is considered a shameful and lowly way to make a living. If prostitution is seen as a legitimate way to earn a living in Black communities, it should be no surprise that Black women are so over-represented among prostitutes.
From the linked study above:

For example, in their study, Carmen and Moody intimate tolerance of prostitution by
the Black community:
Prostitution was no alien thing to black women, who have been sexually exploited since slavery. In every Southern city in the 1920’s and ’30’s, the red-light district was on the other side of the tracks in the black ghetto, and young white boys “discovered their manhood” with the help of the two dollar whore.” Prostitutes were integrating blacks and whites long before there was a civil rights movement.
Arlene Carmen and Howard Moody, “Working Women: The Subterranean World of Prostitution.”

Pimping may also be seen as no big deal or as a reasonable way to make a living in the Black community. This is suggested by anecdotal evidence that almost 100% of street pimps are Black, and these Black street pimps are some of the most horrible human beings you will ever meet.
From New York City. In Brooklyn, Black women make up 1/3 of all women in the borough, but they are 94% of the women arrested for prostitution. This shows how few non-Black women wish to work as prostitutes. Non-Black women make up 2/3 of the population of Brooklyn, an area where prostitution is rife, yet make up almost none of the very common prostitutes on the street, almost all of whom are Black.
One reason that Black women are so commonly arrested for prostitution is that they are far more likely to be streetwalkers than other races of women where women tend to see streetwalking as the lowest of the low.
Here a Black woman who traveled around Europe and Africa as a single traveler was mistaken as a prostitute everywhere she went in Europe. In Barcelona, she was told that there were certain streets she should not walk down after 8 PM because everyone would think she was a prostitute. She goes walking down a street in Barcelona, and every hundred feet there is a new Black woman prostituting herself on the corner. They are all from Africa. How many people in Spain are Black? The number must be very low, maybe 2%. Yet they are 100% of the prostitutes on a major street in Barcelona. A Black female commenter discusses how she was walking down a street in Greece at night, a street filled with African prostitutes glaring at her as if she was one of them.
Twelve women on a tour in Dubai try to get into a bar. They are all barred except for two of them. Later we find out that the other ten were barred on the grounds that they were suspected prostitutes.
As you can see this problem of Black women being seen as prostitutes is related to the fact that so many of them are just that. Among other reasons why this is bad is that Black female travelers get mistaken for whores everywhere they go, much to their consternation. So this harms the Black women who are not prostitutes too.

Dysgenic Breeding Has Been around Since Antiquity

Greg Rambo:
“The current dysgenic behavior of the African-American community is a complete and absolute result of the government subsidizing pregnancy and desertion.*
* Professor Thomas Sowell.
Agree or disagree?

Sowell is a conservative, so I don’t like him as I am a Leftist. However, he is right on it regarding a number of issues. I don’t mind his theories. I just dislike his politics. You see here he makes an argument about dysgenic breeding and high illegitimacy rates, he turns into a damned anti-welfare argument because he’s a conservative ideologue first and a sociologist second.
Breeding is dysgenic anyway.
It’s dysgenic among Whites and Hispanics too.
For Chrissake, even the Romans wrung their hands and wrote about dysgenic breeding in Ancient Rome. So dysgenic breeding has gone on forever. I doubt if it seriously harms the gene pool since it’s been around since Antiquity.
Scumbags, especially psychopaths, have lots of kids. Which is probably why sociopathy stayed in the gene pool. The women keep breeding with the bad boys, and they either became tribal leaders, or they managed to make a few babies before the other tribal members murdered them or cast them out, which was actually the fate of many psychopaths in primitive society.

A Look at the Chinese Model of Communism – Market Socialism

You are starting to see a lot of articles in the capitalist press bashing China now, saying their economy is not as good as they say, that it cannot be sustained, and that it is headed for crash. They base this on a comparison to other Communist countries, but those economies fell behind far before China’s did.
China has sustained Communism under various forms, including presently under market socialism, for 70 years now. That’s as long as the Soviet Union, and the Soviets started stagnating a long time before that. China is an example of a smashing success for a Communist country, and the capitalist press is freaking out because that shows that their anti-Communist propaganda has been crap for all of these years.
Incidentally, Deng Xiaoping emphatically stated that he was a Communist. Deng’s idea was to create “a rich Communist country.”. In an interview in 2005, a top party official was asked if China was still committed to spreading Communism all over the world.
“Of course,” the minister beamed. “That is the purpose of the Communist party (CCP).”
Incidentally, China still has 5-year plans and the whole economy is planned. The business sector has to go along with the plan, and if you do not go along with it, they can confiscate your business. A party committee sits on the board of all large corporations. The government owns every inch of land in China. The state invests an incredible amount in the economy and also overseas where it makes vast investments. This is because some Chinese government companies are very profitable. A number of Chinese government companies are on the list of largest companies in the world.
Capitalists in the US openly complain that they cannot compete with Communist Chinese government  corporations, crying that they get subsidies so it’s not fair. So here we have US corporations openly admitting that they can’t compete with Chinese government Communist state-owned companies.
45% of the economy is state owned and it is very profitable. 87% of all investment in the economy is made by the state. This figure includes all Chinese private investment and all foreign investment.
Much of the state sector is owned by small municipalities, and this works very well. Further, cities compete against each other. For instance, City A’s steel mill will compete against City B’s steel mill, and both will compete against a private sector steel mill, if there is one. Successful enterprises bring in a lot of money to the city, which it uses to upgrade the city, which results in more workers moving there, which grows the economy more with more workers and more demand.
There are also still a number of pure Maoist villages in China that are run completely on a Maoist line. Everything is done as it was right out of the Mao era. I understand that they do very well, and there is a huge waiting list to move to those villages.
I did a lot of research on China recently, and the party is literally everywhere you look every time you turn around. The party itself still runs many enterprises all over the country, especially in the rural areas. There are party officials in every village and city, and they take a very active role in developing the municipality in every way, including culturally. They have an ear to the ground and are typically very popular in the villages and cities.
Party officials lobby the state to try to solve any urgent problem in the area. The government is always spending a lot of money all over China on public works, on fixing various environmental problems, or on really any societal problem or issue you can think of. This of course includes economic development, which tends to be state-led. I read synopses of many dissertations coming out of Chinese universities, and most were on how to deal with some particular societal problem or issue. Many others dealt with technology and industry. So a lot of the research on technology and industry that is driving economic development is coming straight out of state universities.
Instead of leaving it up to the private sector to deal with the problems in society, create public works, and even plan the economy, the government does all of that. Incidentally, the way the US leaves the planning of the economy, such as it is, up to the private sector is insane. All sensible economic planning in any nation will always be done by the state with a view towards allowing the country to prosper. Capitalists have no interest in whether the country profits or not, so they engage in no economic planning at all. Leaving economic planning up to the whims of the capitalists is economic malpractice.
There are 1,000 protests every day in China. Yes, there is corruption and there are government abuses, but if protests last long enough, the party usually gets alarmed and tries to do something about the problem because they don’t want serious unrest. This is party that does everything it can to serve the people and try to remain popular with citizens by giving them as much as they can and doing as much for them as possible. The party spends every single day of its rule literally trying to buy off unrest and keep its citizens satisfied.
It’s illegal to be homeless in China. If you end up homeless in China, they will try to put you in a homeless shelter, or if they cannot do that, they will send you back to your village because most homeless are rural migrants who moved to the city. The state is now investing a vast amount of money in the rural areas because these places have been neglected for a long time. The state still wants to own all the land because they want to keep the rural areas as a secure base where rural migrants to the city can always return if they fail in the city.
How can a government in which 45% of the economy is publicly owned, 87% of investment is done by the state, and every inch of land is owned by the state possibly be called as capitalist country? No serious political economist anywhere on Earth considers China to be a capitalist country. The only people who say that are ideologues and liars, which includes almost all political conservatives and most businessmen.
The state spends an unbelievable amount of money on public works all over the country all the time. Many projects that in the US have “conclusively proven” to be too costly to be implemented have been done in China quickly and easily. And China’s per capita income in less than 10% of ours.
Most ethnic minorities are still allowed to support their culture, and in most cases they are allowed to have education in their native language. In these areas, the native language is co-official with Mandarin.
In recent years, the Chinese government has begun to support a lot of the Chinese dialects, of which there are over 2,000 main ones, many of which are actually separate languages. Cantonese is still an official language in Hong Kong, and it is widely used in Guangdong. The other major Chinese languages or macrolanguages still have millions of tens of millions of speakers. Lately the Chinese government is telling people they can preserve their dialect as long as they also speak Mandarin. Many schools now have classes in the local dialect.
Cheap medical insurance is available and it covers 85% of costs. State medical centers are still very good. However, if you have a serious medical condition in China, you will quickly run out of money with no recourse.
This is a serious problem but it is much better than earlier in the Deng Era when millions were dying from lack of health care. However, the state still need to cover everyone. They got away from universal coverage  when they moved away from Maoism early in the Deng era. In addition, tens of thousands of schools, many of which were built during the Cultural Revolution, were closed early in the Deng era.
The introduction of a market had a lot of problems in the early days. The capitalist press was cheering wildly as thousands of schools were closed all over China, medical care was cut off from or reduced for hundreds of millions of people, while millions of Chinese died from lack of medical care. This was all cause for celebration! Isn’t capitalism wonderful? What’s millions of humans dying from lack of health care as long as a few rich people can buy ridiculously expensive, useless items that they don’t even need?
A recent good survey done by a Western polling firm found that 87% of the population supported the Communist Party.  The excesses of the Mao era, especially the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, have been widely discussed and the party has admitted that many errors were made and resolved not to do this again. These excesses are being blamed by the party on what they call “ultra-Leftism.”
The economic model of China is called Market Socialism and a lot of modern day Leftists and even Communists support it and agree that this is the way forward for the left and Communist movement. Like all words, the word Communism has no inherent meaning. It means whatever people who use it say it means. So the definition of Communism can clearly change with the times as Communists update their definitions of what the word means.
China cannot be called capitalist in any way. Their model is far more socialist than anything in any European social democracy. It also goes far beyond the US in the New Deal and of course beyond beyond the social liberalism and its more left analogue in Canada, not to mention beyond social democracy in Australia or New Zealand.
Interestingly, Japan is not a capitalist country. They don’t have neoliberalism. That country does not operate on the capitalist mode of development. Instead the resemblance is, I hate to say, to Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany also did not have a capitalist mode of development. I’m not sure what you call it, but it’s not capitalism. For instance, in Japan, the commanding heights of the economy, including almost all of the banks, is owned by the state.
The state still plans the economy. They plan the economy together with the business community and the state allocates a lot of funds and loans to areas of the economy it wishes to develop. There is probably a similar model in South Korea, which also is not capitalist and instead operates on a series of monopolies that are owned currently by large corporations and the government. The South Korean economy is also planned, and the plan is worked out by the government and the business sector working together.

Alt Left: How the Cultural Left Privileges Gay Male Sex Over Straight Male Sex

Most gay men are sexually degenerate, and they probably always have been. There are reports from large European cities like Paris and Florence of men prowling the city parks at night for surreptitious homosexual sex. These reports date from the 1500’s and 1600’s. Yep, gay cruising was a thing way back in the Middle Ages.
I think the wild promiscuity and sexual degeneracy of gay men is part of what I call the Gay Male Syndrome. Male homosexuality is not a mental illness, but it is a psychological syndrome in that certain mindsets and behaviors almost ubiquitous among gay men across time and space. These common behaviors probably have to do with deep truths about male homosexuality that are part of the package it is delivered in. In other words, as with so many things, they have to do with Natural Law. Mother Nature getting her two cents in.
You don’t have to like gay male degeneracy to support gay rights. I figure this is just the way they are, and there’s nothing we can do about it.
Prominent gays have been screaming about gay promiscuity for decades now since the Gay Plague hit. Promiscuity did drop a lot, but it went down from stratospheric to the cloud layer. Gay men still have very high rates of HIV – in the US, 20% of gay men are HIV positive. Gay society and public health folks wage endless propaganda campaigns to try to stop gay men from turning themselves into Typhoid Mary’s, but they continue to acquire dangerous and deadly diseases at a high rate.
At some point you wonder if gay sex itself is a death wish – Eros and Thanatos, supposedly opposing forces, instead perversely wrapped in a deadly embrace, tumbling to the gallows. And I wouldn’t be the first person to suggest that. Many gay writers have hinted at something similar going on.
In other words, gay men still screw anything that moves and probably a lot of things that don’t. A lot will even screw a woman not because they like to but because gay guys fuck anything. Quite a few will screw an animal, gerbils for one. Even if you don’t like gay decadence, you probably ought to shrug your shoulders and leave them alone to sleep in the dirty bed they made. Their stupid lifestyle cuts a full 20 years off their lifespan. It’s death by a hundred self-inflicted cuts. They won’t stop, there’s no way to stop them, and they’re mostly hurting themselves. Leave them alone to the consequences of their misbehavior.
Anyway, here we get to the SJW Left. Of course the SJW Left loves everything gay men do, presumably even eating each other’s shit (practiced by 6% of gay men). There’s no such thing as gay sex that is too sick or fucked up gay sex for the Cultural Left.
Instead the Cultural Left mostly rages at straight men for looking at women or asking them for their phone number. I call that trying to get laid, but the Cultural Left calls it sexual harassment and says it is a form of violence and rapey behavior somewhere on the rape spectrum. Yep, you can rape women with your eyeballs now, but only if you’re a straight man. You can rape women with your mouth if you ask them for a date, as long as you are a heterosexual man. Of course dykes get to to whatever they want to women because they are a privileged victim class on the Cultural Left, and their victim status vastly proceeds that of straight men who are on the bottom of the heap.
So gay men can take 100 bareback Black cocks up the ass a year and acquire three different subtypes of HIV, and that’s all fine and dandy. But we straight men apparently don’t even have a right to get laid because that’s called rape, and we don’t even have a right to try to get laid because that’s harassment, which is a mild form of rape! SJW’s are like this because modern feminism is an essential pillar of the SJW outhouse, and modern feminism hates men, especially straight men, and hates us mostly because we dare to have sex with women, which feminists see as a form of violence and oppression against these precious and frail damsels.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The Roots of the Modern Conservative Movement, or What Happened in 1992?

Most people date the beginning of the modern conservative or actually reactionary movement. Eisenhower and Nixon were conservatives – the Reaganites+ have been reactionaries or now even fascists. While it is true that Reagan kicked the ball first, it had already been ready for the kicker for a good 15-20 years.
The seeds of Reagan were planted in the Hostage Crisis in 1979 where Democrats came to represent weakness, spinelessness, wimpiness, and lack of masculinity. So Reagan was in part a toxic masculinity backlash.
The movement was truly birthed, as a birth defect, by Goldwater and the Birchers back in the early 60’s, but it never got much off the ground.
It rose again after the two Israeli wars, especially the 67 War, where American Jews, who had been lackadaisical about Israel, suddenly felt that all Jewry was in danger. They’ve been rallying wildly around Israel ever since. The 73 War was even scarier, as Israel was nearly overrun. Many US Jews went rightwing on the military and Israel and turned hard against the counterculture, especially the antiwar movement, as traitors.
In the early to mid 70’s, a large heavily-Jewish group of these newly-minted Jewish conservatives coalesced around Democrat Henry Jackson (the senator from Boeing), one of the worst militarists we have ever had. However, this movement was very small and had little to no power through the 70’s, and most Jews remained liberal as always.
It was in this swamp that the neoconservatives were born and fostered through Reagan’s various anti-Left contra adventures in various countries. Remember General Haig and Jeanne Kirkpatrick? The neocons then grabbed the country after 911 to install their neo-imperial project. Nevertheless, most US Jews remained liberal, and neocons only represent the 20% of Jewish conservatives who vote Republican. But the Bolsheviks proved how powerful a small and determined minority could be.
If you look at the Congress, Congress has been democratic since World War 2 all the way up until the early 90’s. People say Reagan changed everything, but Congress stayed democratic under him. From 1992-2018, a period of ~25 years, Republicans have often been in control of Congress. So the last 25 years have been more reactionary than the previous half-century 1945-1992. They’ve been on a rampage ever since, and it seems like every year they get even more insane and reactionary and move the Overton Window a bit further to the Right to create endless crazy New Normals that aren’t normal at all.
So I am wondering what happened in 1992 that made the country lurch to the Right and stay there ever since? Bill Clinton was elected and the Culture Wars of the 1960’s were reignited, with Hillary and Bill representing the 60’s Left and concurrent Liberation movements, and the conservatives representing the very large portion of the Boomers who hated and rejected the Counterculture. Most people don’t realize that about 50% of Boomers hated the Counterculture and sat it out, seething. War was declared as much on Hillary than on Bill, which leads me to think that the Billary thing was attack on the gains of the feminist movement as reflected by Hillary.
Anyone else have any other theories?

Male Homosexuality Is Compatible with Conservatism and Religious Fundamentalism

Male homosexuality is certainly compatible with fundamentalism.
There is a lot of male homosexuality in Pakistan, but it’s all undercover and hidden. This is especially true in the very fundamentalist western part where the Al Qaeda / fundamentalist types exist.
Of course Afghanistan is one of the gayest countries on Earth in addition to being one of the most reactionary, so homosexuality is compatible with Reaction. Nazism was full of gay men, and Sparta was essentially a reactionary fascist state, while being one of the gayest societies known to man.

The Rich Only Support Democracy when the Elected State Serves their Class Interests, Otherwise They Try to Overthrow It

Zamfir: Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.
Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it.
I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).
As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself.
I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc.
So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)
You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view?
Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along.
A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.
So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)

The Communist view is that seeking power peacefully would be a great idea except the ruling classes will never allow it to happen. They say that power never gives up without a fight, and I believe that they are correct. Nevertheless, most Communists support Venezuela, Nicaragua and only leftwing democratic countries. But the Communists would say, “Look what happens why you try to take power peacefully. You get Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, and even Argentina.”
The ruling class will just overthrow the democratic Left state any way they can, always using anti-democratic means to do so. That’s why Lenin called people who supported the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.” He thought it was a great idea but it would never work because the rich would never allow the Left to take power peacefully.
The Communist view is also that you never have democracy under capitalism anyway, as the capitalists and the rich always ending ruling the state one way or another through all sorts of means. And yes, the rich and the capitalists always take over all the media in any capitalist country as you said, they use it to shape the view of the people to support the class politics of the rich. Such support being called false consciousness.
Gramsci said that the ruling class took over the entire culture in capitalist countries and brainwashed the masses into supporting the project of the rich. They did this via cultural hegemony. Marx said that the culture of the rich is always the popular culture in any capitalist country. So the ruling class turns all of us into “little rich people” or “little capitalists” to support their project. They brainwash us into thinking we are the same class as the rich and that we are all capitalists ourselves, so we should support Capital. These are lies, but most Americans are easily fooled.
Ralph Nader called this “going corporate” or “thinking corporate.” He says that in the US, most people adopt the mindset of the corporations and think of themselves are part of the corporate structure whether they are or not. If everyone is part of the corporate structure, then what’s good for corporations is good for all of us, which is the project of the Republican Party, neoliberalism everywhere, the Latin American rich, etc. It’s a big fat lie, but people want to be rich and a lot of workers want to think of themselves are busy little capitalist money-making, go-getter, can-do, Bossterist entrepreneurs because it seems to cool to own your own business.
And the Communists would call this false consciousness and their argument would be that under capitalism, most people adopt false consciousness.
I think in the US, the rich see the tide coming and the rule of the rich is going to end so they want to lock in as much of the state as possible by stacking the courts, gutting the safety net, massive tax cuts that will be impossible to get rid of, and that Constitutional Convention they are two states away from getting where they want to rewrite the whole US Constitution to lock in rule by the rich for as long as possible. The rich see the writing on the wall. That’s why they came up with the computerized elections scam, so they could steal elections as long as people kept voting against the rich.
The gerrymandering of districts now makes it almost impossible to get rid of Republican majorities on state representatives in the House and in Senators and Assemblymen in the states. It’s all locked in.
So as the rich saw the tide turning and demographics moving against them, they instituted a full court press to do all sorts of extremely anti-democratic stuff to stay in power. If the people would just vote for them anyway, they would not have to do that, but apparently most Americans have now turned away from the politics of the rich, so the rich will have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power from now on.
Also they elected Donald Trump, by far the most corrupt, authoritarian and even outright fascist leader this country has ever had. And this follows too. Whenever there is a popular movement against the rich and the capitalists, the rich and the capitalists always, always, always resort of fascism to stay in power. This has been proven endlessly over time, even in Europe. Trotsky had some great things to say about this. Check out “Thermidor.” Trotsky truly understood what fascism was all about. It is a desperate last ditch move by the ruling class to seize power in the face of an uprising from the Left.
The rich and the capitalists are determined to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill as many people as they have to just to keep the Left out of power. They simply will not allow the Left to rule. They must rule and if they are out of  power, they will use any antidemocratic means to get power back.
Which is the story of the CIA, the Pentagon and 100% of US foreign policy since 1945 and even before then. Read Samuel Butler.
I mean, we on the Left generally allow the Right to take power if they do so democratically. Sure they destroy everything like they always do, but most of us are committed to the democratic means of seeking power. Even most Communist parties will not take up arms against any rightwing government, saying they prefer to seek power by peaceful means. Typically, the CP will issue a statement that the nation is not in a revolutionary situation right now. There are objective conditions under which a nation is said to be in a revolutionary situation. I’m sure you can recall a few. It is then and only then that most CP’s will go underground and issue a call to take up arms.
Frankly, almost all Left insurgencies postwar were defensive. The Left allowed the Right to take power and then the Right started running around killing people. Usually the Left sat there for a while and let themselves get killed before taking up power. I know the Viet Cong just sat there from 1954-1960 while the rightwing Vietnamese government ran amok in the countryside, murdering 80,000 Communists in six years. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms, but the North kept denying it.
The Colombian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan guerrillas only took up guns after the state had been running about murdering them unarmed for years. The Salvadoran guerrillas said they got tired of sitting in their homes waiting for the rightwing state to come kill them, and they decided that if the state was going to come kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves. They also took up arms because the Right kept stealing elections by fraud.
The Right had cut off all methods of seeking power peacefully, so the Left picked up guns. The message is if you elect a leftwing government, sooner or later the Right will overthrow it and then there will be a reign of terror where many Leftists will be murdered. Knowing that, if you were a Leftist in some country, would you not be afraid to put the Left in power knowing you stood a good chance of being murdered once the inevitable rightwing coup took place?
The Colombian and Honduran governments only stay in power by killing people. Lots of people. The Greek Communists only took up arms after the government had been killing them for some time.
Also once a Left government is overthrown by the rich and the capitalists, the new Rightist government institutes a reign of terror where they slaughter the defeated Left for many years. This went on for decades after 1954 in Guatemala, and it goes on still today. After Aristide was overthrown, the rightwing government murdered 3,000 of his supporters.
After Allende was overthrown, Pinochet murdered 15,000 people over a decade and a half. A threat from the Left prompted the Indonesian government to fake a Left coup and murder 1 million Communists in a couple of months. Even before the Korean War broke out, from 1948-1950, the South Korean government killed hundreds of thousands of Communists in the South.
As they withdrew when the North attacked, the South Koreans killed South Korean Communists everywhere they went. After the fascist coup in Argentina, the government decimated the Left, murdering 30,000 mostly unarmed supporters of the Left. The same thing happened in Bolivia with the Banzer Plan when Hugo Banzer took power after the tin miners briefly sought power. The new rightwing government in Brazil is already starting to murder members of the former Left ruling party. They’re not going to stop.
After the fascist coup in Ukraine, the Communist Party was outlawed and many of its members were murdered. War was declared on labor unions. Workers in one union were chained to a heater inside the building and the building was set on fire.
The party supported by half the population (the Russian speakers and their supporters) the Party of Regions, was outlawed, a number of its deputies were murdered and there were attempts to murder the leader of the party, lastly by setting his house on fire which set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. He fled to Russia. Now half the population and all of the Russian speakers had not party to represent them, which is why they took up arms. They were locked out of power.

A Chinese Man Looks at Africa


How many times have we heard this before? This video is being condemned in the comments as racist. It’s not. Anyway, how many times have you heard similar things about Africans? There’s no end to anecdotes like this.
That said, I think the Chinese will be very good for Africa. People do not understand the Chinese Communist Party. They really are Communists. I know this. There’s no need to argue about it.
This notion that they have all turned into radical neoliberal laissez faire capitalists is wishful thinking on the part of the capitalists. Their system is called Market Socialism or the Social Market, and that is exactly what it is. 88% of investment in China comes from the state. 45% of the economy is publicly owned. All of the banks are publicly owned. The private sector is severely regulated. They still have a planned economy all the way down to actually existing five-year plans. And they have admitted that they are still committed to the goal of spreading Communism around the world. They are spending a lot of money at US educational institutions to promote socialism.
The Chinese effort in Africa is not neocolonialism or imperialism. China is not an imperialist country. It can’t be. They work on the basis of solidarity, not neocolonialism and imperialism. A Communist country can’t be imperialist anyway. Social imperialism was a made up thing that never existed. Soviet imperialism was a notion invented by the Cold War.
The Chinese do and will operate in Africa on a win-win basis. We win, you win. Exactly the opposite of the way the US and other imperialist countries operate – my way or the high way, do as we say or else, we exploit you while you lie back and enjoy it, etc.

Setting the Record Straight About Pre-Contact Africa

John Engelman: Agriculture and civilization select a race for intelligence. Caucasians began agriculture about eleven thousand years ago. We began civilization about five thousand years ago. Negroes only adopted agriculture about four thousand years ago. They never developed their own civilizations. They have only recently been exposed to White civilization.

Agriculture was probably developed by Africans before it was developed by anyone else. There is evidence for agriculture or pre-agriculture in Africa (West African Guinea Highlands) as early as 12,000 YBP. You must realize that Africans originated many things that we as humans do. The next to develop agriculture were the Mayans (corn), the Chinese (rice) and the Papuans (yams), all at 9,000 YBP. The Egyptians and Mesopotamians were not far behind. Africans even had plantation agriculture as early as 900 CE in Tanzania.
I doubt if Caucasians developed agriculture 11,000 YBP. Are we referring to Mesopotamia, the Levant or Egypt here?
Animal husbandry was also developed very early on in Africa. It may have been developed in the Western Sahara before anywhere else on Earth. A figure of 9,000 YBP is suggested for animal husbandry in the Sahara. However, pigs may have been domesticated in Papua around this time also. Animal husbandry was widespread in Africa, particularly in the Sahara, the Sahel and Ethiopia, on contact. I don’t know much about animal husbandry further south, but I have heard there was a shortage of animals to domesticate.
At any rate, the invention of the hoe and subsequent hoe agriculture along with the spear played a major role in the history of Africa. Both derived from the early development of metallurgy in the form or iron. Indeed, the Iron Age came to Africa before it came to Europe. The development of iron metallurgy and the subsequent creation of those two iron tools allowed the Bantus to expand massively all over Central and South Africa in only the last 2-3,000 years.
Africans definitely had civilizations, that’s for sure. Mostly in West Africa but quite a few in the Sahel too. There was even a civilization in Rhodesia. Early European explorers drew drawings of large African cities. Looks like civilization to me. Civilizations were especially common in Nigeria. They had manufacture, trade, agriculture for export, all sorts of things.

"From the Mississippi Delta to South Australia," by Alpha Unit

Don Morrison salvages old galvanized sheet metal from sheds and farms throughout Australia. The older the metal, the better, he says; some of this reclaimed metal is over 100 years old. He takes it to his workshop in Summertown, South Australia, where he fashions it into metal-bodied acoustic guitars. Of his material he says:

Galvanised iron, or Galvo, is now an integral part of the Australian landscape and it seemed natural (to me at least!) to try it in a resonator guitar. The result is a truly awesome sound, very loud but with a surprisingly rounded tone. I should call it the Transcontinental guitar – genuine Aussie material, genuine Delta sound!

That “Delta sound” refers to Delta blues, one of the early forms of blues. This music arose in the Mississippi Delta, which, despite its name, is not a part of the actual delta of the Mississippi River. Rather, it is located in the northwestern part of Mississippi, bounded by the Mississippi River on the west and the Yazoo River on the east.

This alluvial floodplain is one of the most fertile agricultural regions in the world. It was here that Black field hands created the music we call blues, using chants, “field hollers,” and songs to make their work go faster. Ed Kopp writes:

While blues lyrics often deal with personal adversity, the music itself goes far beyond self-pity. The blues is also about overcoming hard luck, saying what you feel, ridding yourself of frustration, letting your hair down, and simply having fun.
The best blues is visceral, cathartic, and starkly emotional. From unbridled joy to deep sadness, no form of music communicates more genuine emotion.

Although the sound of a resonator guitar is iconic to blues, blues musicians didn’t start out playing the resonator. The earliest bluesmen played an instrument called the diddley bow.
The diddley bow has been called “the godfather of American roots instruments.” It is the simplest form of the guitar and is the first type of slide guitar used in America. It was very easy to make, consisting of a string of wire tensioned between two nails on a board. A bottle or can wedged under the wire would create tension for pitch. The player would pluck the string while sliding a piece of metal or glass on it to produce notes.

One-stringed bow instruments date back to antiquity and developed in various parts of East Asia and in the west coast and Congo regions of Africa. Rural Black Southerners crafted these instruments and taught their children to play them. They would sometimes build one-stringed zithers on a wall, “with a strand of baling wire, two thread spools for bridges, and a half-pint whiskey bottle for a slider,” as slide guitar player Big Joe Williams recalled to one researcher.

Boys who showed promise on the diddley bow could graduate to a guitar if they were lucky enough to get a hold of one. Musicians such as Lightnin’ Hopkins, Elmore James, and B. B. King all first learned to play on the diddley bow.

Once musicians could afford guitars they quickly abandoned the diddley bow. And when the resonator guitar came along, they had a way to present their music to even larger audiences. The resonator, with its crisp metallic ring, created the signature sound of Delta blues. When you listen to Charley Patton, Robert Johnson, Son House, or Bukka White – among many others – you’re listening to Delta blues. Others, such as John Lee Hooker and Muddy Waters, started out playing Delta blues.

This Delta sound is what craftsmen like Don Morrison aim to re-create. His resonators, like the very first of their kind, have built-in amplification – a feature that came about by demand.

Back in the early 1920s guitar players performing with dance orchestras couldn’t really stand out from the other players. Since there were no amplifiers, guitars were considered a part of the rhythm section instead of lead instruments. A vaudeville performer and promoter named George Beauchamp wanted an acoustic guitar that could play melodies over the orchestral instruments. He turned to John Dopyera, a violin repairman and luthier whose workshop was close to Beauchamp’s Los Angeles home.

John Dopyera and his brother Rudy experimented with various designs to achieve a smooth and balanced amplified sound and decided to mount cone-like aluminum resonators, similar to speaker cones, inside a metal guitar body. Dopyera found that using three smaller cones instead of one big cone gave the guitar the sound he’d been looking for. The tri-cone resonator guitar was born.

Beauchamp was impressed with the new design and proposed a business venture to Dopyera, who agreed. They created the National String Instrument Corporation in 1927. National guitars quickly became best sellers. The company soon created a wood-bodied model.

There were differences, though, between Beauchamp and Dopyera. Beauchamp preferred a single-cone resonator, not only because it was louder but because it was cheaper to make. For Dopyera, excellent sound and quality were top priorities. The two men finally went their separate ways when Dopyera found out that Beauchamp had claimed the patent for the single-cone resonator. In 1928 Dopyera quit National, with the intention of manufacturing his own single-cone resonator. John and his brother Emil formed the Dobro Manufacturing Company (named for the Dopyera Brothers).

Because National held the patent for his single-cone resonator, John Dopyera had to develop a new style of single-cone resonator. The single biggest change that he made was to the bridge of the guitar.

On a standard acoustic guitar, the bridge is glued directly to the top of the guitar. It has several functions: it holds the strings securely, sets the spacing of the strings, and acts as an external brace to the guitar body. Its other important job is transferring vibrations from the strings to the soundboard of the guitar. On a resonator guitar, the bridge is a part of the resonator cone.
For single-cone resonators, the cone has either a “biscuit” bridge or a “spider” bridge.
The National resonator used a biscuit cone, which is convex (pointing outward). Inside the tip of the cone sits a round wooden bridge (the biscuit), and set into the bridge is a small piece typically found on a guitar bridge – the saddle. The saddle keeps the strings elevated at the preferred height above the fretboard. The saddle transfers the string vibrations to the bridge and the bridge transfers them to the cone. The cone in turn vibrates, moving the air volume inside the guitar out through the sound holes.

For his Dobro resonator, John Dopyera decided to make his cone concave (pointing inward) and used an eight-legged “spider” bridge which straddled the cone. The vibrations from the strings travel from the saddle and down the spider “legs,” providing the cone with eight contact rods for vibration. The result is a loud, full-bodied tone.

Resonator guitars became popular in both blues and bluegrass. Dobro-style guitars, especially wood-bodied ones, were preferred by many bluegrass players. Blues players tended toward National-style tri-cone resonators. But plenty of guitarists break with tradition and use resonators in their own preferred ways.

Players liked resonators because, being louder than regular acoustic guitars, they could play for larger crowds in rural areas that didn’t have electricity for amplifiers. Street musicians, who had to set up without amplifiers, liked resonator guitars for the same reason.

Don Morrison makes both single-cone and tri-cone resonators. For his popular Rustbucket model, he says he flattens the corrugated steel sheets by walking on them so he can fit them through his ancient set of sheet metal rollers. Some of this old metal will still bear the makers’ stamps: Trademark Redcliffe, for example, or Lysaght Queen’s Head Australia or Emu Best. You’ll see these stamps on the backs of his guitars.

On some Rustbuckets he takes naturally weathered Galvo and adds an artificially rusted cone and sound holes, giving the guitar a distinctive, vintage look.

When he isn’t building resonators, Don Morrison is performing music, often Delta blues. During the ’90s his band, The Elmores, played blues classics by Elmore James and John Lee Hooker. He and his band Prawnhead are also a part of a “roots revolution” in popular music.

We honed our style on the streets and markets of Adelaide. We found the faster we played, the more money we made. We don’t play blues or folk, we don’t play country, we don’t play bluegrass, nor do we play rockabilly. But we play a mixture of all of those. We call it bluebilly.

Image courtesy of Slide Guitar for Beginners

Is It True That the Number of LGBT People Is Growing More and More by the Year?

Answered on Quora.
Studies in the US show that 3-5% of the population is gay or bisexual. The rate has been flat for several years.
However in the most recent poll in the UK, the rate of homosexuality and bisexuality has increased dramatically among the youngest generation (18–30). In all other age cohorts, the rate was flat or near-flat.
Now whether the rate is really going up or not will be the subject of an endless circular argument because no matter how high the rate goes, the PC people will always insist that these are just more and more people who would have been counted gay in prior years except they were closeted.
All increases will be hand-waved away as “people coming out of the closet.” Because of this tautological argument the PC types always trot out of all increases being explained by people leaving the closet, we may never be able to determine if the rate of this sort of thing is increasing or not.
I have had also had PC people explain increases in the rate of homosexuality as “those people were already gay anyway.” Hence the rate never goes up or down. Once again we see an argument circling around itself. In fact, an argument like this fails falsifiability and hence it is not only inherently false, but it’s not even wrong! In parts of Ancient Greece, 95% of the male population were bisexual. That rate is the highest recorded rate on Earth. Instead of saying that homosexual behavior showed an explosive increase in Ancient Greece, the argument is “those men were already gay anyway?” What?!
The rate of bisexuality among young women in the West is skyrocketing in recent years, from 1.5% to 12%. Obviously this is a real increase, and many of these women are simply choosing this orientation. There’s no way that all of those women were “born that way.”
It is absolutely certain that the rate of transgenderism is skyrocketing in recent decades. In the 1960’s-1980’s, the rate was 1/90,000. It was quite rare all through the 1970’s. In recent years the rate has exploded to the point where in Generation Z, an incredible 2% of the population claims to be transsexual.
Therefore the rate of transgenderism has gone up 1,800 times (!) in recent years. It’s pretty obvious that there that that 180,000% (!) increase cannot possibly be explained away on an organic basis. Clearly many people are simply choosing to be transsexuals for whatever reason. Either that or it is a mental disorder, which is my position. In that case, the rate of this mental illness is going through the roof.
If it is a choice, it doesn’t seem like a good one to me, as the rates of psychiatric morbidity and mortality among trans people are extremely high. Transsexuals commit suicide at fully 18–57 times the rate of the rest of the population. Their overall death rate is 2.5 X higher than the rest of the population. Rates of heart disease and cancer are double to triple that of the rest of us. 41% of transsexuals attempt suicide. Their life expectancy is cut short, possibly by decades.
The usual PC argument here once again is that no matter what the transgender rate is, the rate was the same in prior years, except these transsexuals were all closeted. I am sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that 2% of the people in my or my parents’ generations were transsexual. Doesn’t pass the smell test. Furthermore, the argument is tautological and hence not only is it not correct, but it’s not even wrong!

Anti-Germanism in a Nutshell

Anti-Germanism is a Left philosophy started by, you guessed it, Germans! They hold that Germany has been rotten from the start, that German culture is evil and irredeemably poisoned, and that Germany needs a complete Cultural Revolution to destroy German culture and replace it with something humane. There are only a few Jews in Germany right now, but there are quite a few Jews in the anti-German movement. The percentage of Jews in the anti-German movement is much higher than in the population. However, most anti-Germans are not Jewish. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Jews want to pick a fight with the Germans. Haven’t Germans and Jews fought enough and wreaked enough destruction on the world?
I came across this on Facebook and I think it sums up anti-Germanism quite well. I removed some crap about Communism, Frankfurt School, and postmodernism because this is some weird Alt Right crap that got tacked onto what is otherwise a Leftist discourse. It is interesting to see Leftist anti-German theory adopted, modified, and warped by some weird sort of Alt Right types.

The country that I despise the most is Germany. Germany has had only a history of destroying what is right and civilized, not to mention their Germanic love of totalitarianism.
During the days of the Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire, the Romans were spreading civilization throughout Europe, bringing technology and civilization to wherever they conquered. However, the greatest enemy of the Romans were the barbaric and savage Germanic tribes, who later spread all over the Roman world, plundering, destroying, and raiding wherever they went. They eventually managed to destroy the Roman world, annihilating its advancements, and pushing Europe into a Dark Age for nearly 1,000 years.
During this period of the Dark Ages, a new power, Prussia, emerged on the European theater. Born from Germanic knights slaughtering an entire ethnic group and enslaving Poles, they brought nothing of merit into the world, bringing only tyranny, militarism, and terror.
Once Europe fully recovered from the first large scale attack on civilization, a new Germanic Empire took hold, even surpassing the Roman world, with the spread of new ideas such as Protestantism. This empire was the Holy Roman Empire – which was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire; but in fact a Germanic tool to fight civilization and anti-totalitarianism. The empire waged brutal wars of religion in an attempt to reinstate corrupt Catholic rule all over Europe. This finally culminated in the 30 Years War, the bloodiest European War until the next European-wide war, also commenced by Germany. However, the German plot was stopped.
Finally, a bit later, in a book called Von Krieg (On War in English), the Germanic elite of Prussia revealed their plans, which are still being implemented to this day. Here are a couple of quotes from the book:
Just as Prussia has been fated to be the core of Germany, so Germany will be the core of the future German Empire of the West..Conquered people shall be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with.
The Germanic states then clamped down further upon liberalism and liberty, maintaining an absolute monarchy until unification. Otto von Bismarck was their leader – an absolute monarchist/militarist. He then started three aggressive wars: against Denmark, against Austria, and against France. He created Germany as a brutal, totalitarian monarchy, hell bent on conquering the world. Prussia had become the core of Germany, and a new leader now needed to make it the future German Empire of the West.
That new leader came – Kaiser Wilhelm II. Plotting to destroy all other nations and achieve a worldwide German Reich, he took the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian archduke, Franz Ferdinand, as his opportunity. Knowing full well that the Habsburgs, his fellow Germans, would use the assassination carried out by one man, who just so happened to be a Serb, to carry out an aggressive war against Serbia, despite knowing full well it would lead to war with Russia and the rest of the world, Wilhelm promised to unconditionally support Austria-Hungary.
The Kaiser of Germany singlehandedly began the most destructive conflict the world had ever seen in an attempt to annihilate all non-Germans. He invaded neutral Belgium, raping and massacring innocent civilians; began using poison gas, which was banned by the rules of war; and sunk without warning merchant shipping. However, liberty and civilization won, and totalitarianism and barbarism lost.
 
After the war, the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Ferdinand Foch had the correct analysis, “This is not a treaty, this is a 20 year armistice.” The way that quote is taken in our pro-German history books is that those evil Allies were so cruel, and those evil Allies forced the evil Treaty of Versailles upon those poor Germans. However, the quote meant what the real case was: this treaty was no hard enough, and why is Germany still allowed to exist? Unfortunately, we learned the hard way that it was not harsh enough. Worst of all, we didn’t even enforce the treaty and allowed Germany to expand and attempt to conquer the world again.
During the Weimar Republic, there was another Germanic ideology that was created in attempt to utterly annihilate the West – Nazism.
As we all know, the Nazis won at first, and with the power they had, they created one of the most totalitarian regimes ever been created in the world, and the Germans marched across Europe and spread genocide, tyranny, terror, and barbarism. However, the world finally managed to destroy the 3rd German Reich and discredit Nazism forever. We thought we destroyed Germanism, however, once again, we were wrong. We made the fatal mistake of feeling sorry for the Germans, and allow the continual existence of the German state.

Congressmen Push for 20 Years in Prison for Any US Citizen Who Even Supports a Boycott of Israel

Look up at that headline. I can’t even believe I wrote that. How could this even be happening in the land of the free (sic)?
Here.
Senators of both the Republican and Democratic Party incredibly are introducing a new law that would make it a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison for any US citizen to even support boycotts of Israel.

It was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC].

Well of course. One of most evil PAC’s in America would obviously be behind one of the worst criminal justice bills in memory. It’s already illegal, incredibly enough, for any business in the Unites States to boycott Israel for any reason. Heavy fines are laid out on a regular basis.
Even requesting information about boycotts of Israel would carry up to $250,000 civil fines and up to 20 years in prison and $1 million in fines. Unbelievable.

If passed, this tyrannical bipartisan bill would blatantly violate the constitutional rights of every United States citizen by punishing individuals based on nothing but their political opinions and decisions as consumers.
There is no coming back from that.

No shit.
A man who has now anointed himself king named King Donald is already tearing up the Constitution and getting ready to declare himself Dictator for Life, and the 40% of America that are now open traitors (also called Republicans) are backing this project by a percentage of 85%.
This is where democracies go to die.
Not that we ever had one anyway, but we came close there for a while.
Republicans obviously all hate democracy, as democracy is the direct antithesis of the aristocratic hierarchical oligarchic rule (not much different from royalism) that they all support.
Conservatives hate democracy because conservatism itself, otherwise known as aristocratic rule, is the complete opposite of democracy. Democracy and conservatism (aristocratic rule) can only be enemies forever. Well of course the Rich hate democracy.  Democracy hates the rich. You would think the feeling would be mutual. And of course their foolish, masochistic supporters who are middle class and below are Stockholmers. They’re literally worshiping their class enemies, the very aristocrats who oppress them.  It’s nuts, like the serfs worshiping their lords. Wait, that’s what it actually is. Why not just take some broken glass and cut up your arm? At least you would be a faddist then.
As if Republicans who are currently driving a stake through the heart of democracy for good now to fulfill their lifelong dreams were not enough, we also have to deal with (((certain people))). It’s obvious (((which people))) are behind this diabolical bill. Ahem. (((Those people.))) I’ve got some news for you. (((Those people))) hate democracy too. (((The Chosen))) are literally aristocrats by dint of God’s golden touch alone. How can a (((people))) obviously superior on every level to everyone else support any sort of democracy? It’s not even possible.
These (((people))) have a naturally totalitarian style. Kevin MacDonald makes this clear in his essays and books, and that for that crime, (((certain people))) launched a years-long totalitarian campaign at my alma mater to get him fired for the profound crime of telling the truth. Totalitarian people are allergic to the truth. Truth and totalitarianism are like oil and water. They don’t mix. Hell, they won’t even be in the same room with each other.
(((These people))) have always lived under totalitarian rule the whole time, hundreds or thousands of years, when they lived under the dictatorship of the rabbis. The community would decide on a party line, and the dissenters would be fiercely pummeled over time to the point where the whole community was united on any cause they get behind. Dissenters were treated as aliens and worse as traitors to their own people.
This lasted even after the ghettos were liberated starting with Napoleon. This sort of rabbinical totalitarian rule where the community had to speak with a united voice on issues of great importance continued in the shtetls of Eastern Europe all through the 18th Century. In this sense, the people who were liberated from their ghettos promptly went and created new ghettos called shtetls. And they have now created the biggest and worst ghetto ever. It’s called Israel. The ghettos are portrayed as a bad thing, but (((these people))) often love living in the ghettos. In many cases, (((they))) built them themselves. They were very useful in preventing the worst enemy of (((their people))), assimilation.
Israel is anything but a free country. It’s as free as the Apartheid South Africa which it is modeled on. Israel can never be democratic due to the nature of the (((naturally totalitarian people))) who reside there.
We are digging our own grave. Having (((these people))) in your country is one thing, but once you let (((them))) take over like this idiot country has done, you can just kiss your nation, your country, your democracy, the whole ball of wax, goodbye. (((They’ve))) been thrown out of most countries (((they))) ever lived in. You think that was a coincidence? You know why? Because of crap like this. They kept pulling crap like this, and finally the rest of the people had it up to here with them, and they booted them out the door.
Letting (((these people))) run our country is a suicide pact of the worst order for the rest of us or for any Gentile people. It is folly of the worst order, and dangerous folly at that.
What are we are thinking?

"Fishing on the Big Black," by Alpha Unit

The Big Black River, flowing southwest across Mississippi, is the site of a pivotal battle during the Vicksburg Campaign of the Civil War. After a decisive loss at Champion Hill, the Confederates reached the Big Black River on the night of May 16, 1863, under the command of Lt. Gen. John Pemberton, commander of the Confederate Army of Mississippi.

The Confederates constructed earthworks on the river’s east bank and placed 18 guns behind the works. Large sections of Pemberton’s line were protected by a bayou of waist-deep water. A planked-over railroad bridge and another makeshift bridge provided access to additional artillery overlooking the river on its west bank.

Union forces led by Maj. Gen. John McClernand encountered the Confederates early on the morning of May 17. It just so happened that the men led by Brig. Gen. Michael Lawler actually got to the Rebels first, wading through the bayou to overrun the Confederates on the east bank of the river. Inspired by Lawler’s attack, other Union formations surged forward.

Overwhelmed, the Confederates broke for the makeshift bridges to get to the west bank. Most of Pemberton’s men made it across, but Pemberton’s chief engineer set fire to both bridges to cut off any Union pursuit. Many of the Confederates tried to swim across the river and drowned. About 1,700 Rebels were stranded on the east bank and subsequently captured. It was the final battle before the Siege of Vicksburg.

After floods you can still sometimes find artifacts from the gunboat battles that took place on the Big Black River during the War. But most people on the river nowadays aren’t really interested in Civil War artifacts. The big payoff during springtime on the Big Black are flathead catfish – also called tabby cats, shovelhead cats, yellow cats, flatties, and who knows how many other names. The Big Black River will overflow her banks that time of year. As Cliff Covington tells it:

Foraging catfish move into the flooded timber in large numbers. Catfish anglers take advantage of this feeding frenzy by setting multiple trotlines in likely spots along the main channel. Chicken livers, cut skipjack, live goldfish, and pond perch are the baits of choice when a boatload of catfish is the big objective.

Muddy and slow-flowing due to the large amount of sediment it carries, the Big Black River is renowned for yielding blue, channel, and flathead catfish of what Covington calls “mythical proportions.” It is one of the premier handgrabbing destinations in the South. A handgrabber catches fish by placing his hands directly into a catfish hole, and some anglers are very good at it. Covington refers to Woodie Reaves, who says there is no better place for handgrabbing catfish than the shallow waters of the Big Black.

While Reaves’ personal best is a 93-pound whale of a catfish that he wrestled from its underwater bed just a few years ago, his group routinely lands up to 25 big cats, averaging 50 pounds each, every time they venture out on this stream.

Sportsmen say that the Big Black River is also a good place for bowfishing. Bowfishers use highly specialized bows to catch fish, usually on a boat set up just for bowfishing. Hunting fish using a bow and arrow isn’t new at all and is a traditional way of fishing all over the world. Bert Turcotte of Vicksburg has been an avid bowfisher since high school and says that anyone with a regular bow can also fish this way. As he told Phillip Gentry:

All kinds of bows can be used for bowfishing. People who like traditional archery can easily equip a recurve bow for fishing. Any compound bow can also easily be set up, but the range of draw weight is the key. Forty pounds of draw weight or less will get the job done here in Mississippi.

Unlike hunting bows, fishing bows come with reels for retrieving your prey.

In Mississippi you can legally catch carp, buffalo, gar, shad, bowfin, and catfish with a bow. There are restrictions, however, on when and where you can catch catfish in this way.
Gentry says that nearly all bowfishing is done at night when carp, buffalo, and gar can be found hiding in extremely shallow water. Buffalo and carp feed on aquatic vegetation and are especially fond of newly planted areas that have recently flooded from spring rain. Gar are the most commonly sought daytime species, he says, and can be found “sunning” in shallow water or lurking near the surface in deeper water.

Sean Ford of Madison, Mississippi, uses a gas generator on his bowfishing boat to power either sodium or halogen lights for night fishing. He says:

The platform will allow two of us to fish at the same time from the front as we ease along in shallow water with the trolling motor, looking for fish to shoot.

An angler will use a trolling motor on his boat in order to move quietly through the water. You don’t want to spook the fish.

The Lie of the 20 (or 40, or 60, or 80, or 110) Million: How Many People Did Stalin Kill?

Here.
In 1991, after the Soviet archives were opened, a wild debate raged in the journals for many years. The subject of the debate was how many people did Joseph Stalin kill. Most people assume that Joseph Stalin killed 20 million people at the very least. That figure is considered unassailable. Other figures of 40-60 million are considered to also be possible.
The fascist hero and traitor Solzhenitsyn said that Stalin killed 110 million people. We have little data about how many were killed by early Bolsheviks in peacetime. Much of their time was spent in a brutal Civil War and there were many deaths associated with that. There was also a brutal famine that occurred in the context of war. But all indications are that the Leninists were not responsible for a lot of deaths. I would be surprised if they killed 100,000 people in 10 years. From 1926-1953, we have readily accessible data however.

                     Deaths
Executions           900,000
Anti-Kulak Campaign  400,000
Gulag                1,200,000
Total                2,500,000

I am leaving out deaths during wartime here, as we should not be counting those. However, there were some serious population transfers during World War which ended about 10 years later. The death tolls from these transfers were very high. Populations in the Baltics, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush and other Caucasian people were transferred, sometimes en masse, to gulags in Siberia. Death tolls were extremely high. I am not sure whether to include these totals, so I am leaving them out. Anyway, I do not have a good source for the deaths.
Surely there were executions and deaths in the gulags after 1943, but after Stalin died, the system was very much loosened up under Khrushchev and certainly under his followers. I doubt once again if there were 100,000 people killed between 1953-1989, a 36 year period.
I am also leaving off deaths due to famines because there is no evidence that these famines were artificially engineered. The most famous fake famine of all, the fake Holodomor, simply never even happened. What I mean was, yes, there was a famine, and many people died – 5.4 million in fact. But those deaths were not all in the Ukraine. Many died in the cities and 1 million died in Siberia. The death toll was higher in the fanatically pro-Stalin Volga than it was in Western Ukraine.
Even in Ukraine, the deaths were as high in the pro-Stalin East as in the anti-USSR nationalist West and Center. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that any “terror famine” occurred at all. There was simply a famine that occurred for a variety of causes, mostly a simple harvest collapse. Most died of disease instead of starvation. Much of the death toll was due to the kulaks.
The kulaks killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR to keep them from being turned over to the state. In the famine year, wheat fields were torched all over the Ukraine. Harvests were piled in the fields and left out to be rained on until they spoiled. Much of the crop failure was due to these dumbasses setting their fields on fire or piling harvests in the rain to spoil. They destroyed all their food crops, and then they sat around and said, “We ain’t got no food!” Duh. Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”
There was an armed revolution in the Ukraine with 20-30 armed attacks per day. Collective farms were attacked and set on fire. Workers in the collective farms would be shot and the women would be raped. This went on all through the years around the famine. The state crackdown was very brutal and that is why I listed 400,000 deaths during this time. If you want to count those 400,000 as “Holodomor” deaths, be my guest. But it ain’t no 6 million and there was no terror famine.
Look, if anti-Communists want to go on and on about Stalin killing 2 1/2 million people, please knock yourselves out. But they’ll never do that because it’s not sensational enough. You say the phrase “20 million killed in Communism” and everyone sits up and takes notice. You say Stalin killed 2 million and most will yawn and ask, “That’s all?” and turn back to the TV show.
This crap is all about propaganda. It’s not about real history or social science of any of that. It’s about lying for political purposes, which is what most of modern history is anyway.
How shameful that is.

The Deep Ties Between the Jews and the House of Saud Go Back Over 75 Years

Weizmann_-_Churchill_-_Boss_of_Bosses
In this comment, Churchill got Prince Ibn Saud to agree to let the British put the House of Saud in power in Saudi Arabia in order that they could control Mecca and Medina and to allow the Saudis to become “the Kings of the Arabs.” In recent, Ibn Saud would agree to let Weitzmann invade, conquer and usurp Palestine’s Arabs to create a Jewish Homeland.
It appears to be dated March 4, 1941, but the deep alliance between the British and the vile House of Saud goes way back before that.
 

Thank You, Winston Churchill: The House of Saud and the UK, A Bloody Marriage Begun a Century Ago

White the House of Saud was conquering most of the peninsula for the princes around 1920, British warplanes under Winston Churchill were bombing all of these areas, leveling whole cities and massacring countless civilians. Much of the Hijaz was leveled as this region had always hated and the Najdis now in power as the House. All of the gorgeous architecture was leveled by Saud’s Wahhabi warriors from the Najd because the Wahhabis felt that anything but the most drab architecture was sacrilegious. Hijazis were massacred in huge numbers and piles of bodies lay on the ground.
The Najdis had to impose their will be force as Wahhabism had only been popular in the Najd and was widely disliked everywhere else, especially in the Hejaz where a much more peaceful, tolerant and artistic form of Islam (almost Sufi-like) had long held sway. The Wahhabis conquered that whole peninsula at the point of a sword. Everyone who resisted or imposed them was executed. The  death toll was gruesome. Of course the British helped the whole way, offering needed help to kill more civilians and level more sacreligiously beautiful buildings.
At the same time, Iraqis were in armed rebellion against British colonial rule in Iraq. The charming Churchill responded by bombing them with chemical weapons. Yes, not only Saddam gassed Iraqis. The first man to gas the Arabs was Winston Churchill.
Churchill was a real bastard. He was a mean old coot and a reactionary to boot. He was also depressed most of his fat miserable life. He called it his “black dog.” It descended on him most mornings and lasted most of the day. That sounds like melancholic depression, as that is worse in the mornings. He was also a profoundly racist man. Read some of his statements about Jews and Arabs. Pitiful.
Some hero.

Possible Origin of the Black Plague

Here.
The standard view is that twelve ships from Florence docked at Messina in 1347, bringing the Plague to Europe. It would later kill 1/3 of all Europeans and an incredible 20% of all humans. It would be as if 1.6 billion people died in only seven years or as if 66 million Americans died over a seven year period. Can you imagine? In my city alone, 12,000 people would be dead. Of every five people you knew at the start of the period, one would be dead after seven years. Can you imagine? That would not have left one person unscathed.
A new view though is that the Plague, which had already been active in Asia for a while, came to Europe via a biological warfare attack by Genghis Khan’s raiders on the city of Caffa in the Crimea. The Caffans were probably Turkic speakers at this time, but it is hard to say what Turkic lect they may have spoken. Perhaps a dead language called Cuman.
Khan’s raiders besieged the city and a number of people died of the Black Plague in the conflict. Khan’s men suspected a thing or two about biological warfare, so they loaded up the bodies that had died of the plague and catapulted them over the walls of the city into the population. Can you  imagine the horror of looking out your window and see a dead, bubonic plague ridden corpse fly by in the air at rapid speed to splatter nearby. Good Lord. In due time, this biological warfare killed a lot of the people in  the city.
Khan knew nothing of the  germ theory of disease, but experience with the plague showed that those who came in contact with victims tended to sicken and die. No one knew what was causing it. One European physician posited that plague victims radiated some sort of death vapors or essence out of their very eyes. Without medical science, people had to fall back on spiritual theories.
But people caught on quickly that being around plague victims could quickly make you a victim yourself. Physicians refused to treat plague patients and patients were often abandoned wherever they sickened. Family members even fled from their own sickened members, leaving them to die in the home while countless people fled to the countryside. But even there they were not safe. Even farm animals, cows, pigs, goats and sheep, caught the plague. So many sheep died that there was an acute wool shortage all over Europe for years afterwards. There was no solace or respite anywhere. The epidemic ended almost as fast as it began in 1354, but Europe was ruined. Entire cities had been abandoned as thousands of residents fled to the false safety of the countryside.
Many people escaped from Khan”s raid on Caffa, and survivors fled all over the Mediterranean. This people soon sickened and died. It was possibly from some of this group, fled to Florence, that the ill-fated death ships docked in Messina on that warm October night. The disease was in Southern France the next year and Germany soon after that. Not long afterwards, it hit Paris. And despite the primitive conditions of the day, it was not long in  Paris before London was also hit. People did have ships in those days you know.
Despite the enticing new theory, the medical journal concludes that the entrance of the Plague to Europe was multifactorial and the infection of the Caffa population did not play an important role in the European pandemic.

About That "Stab in the Back"

Many German Jews were very patriotic during World War 1. Quite a few fought and died for their country and its lousy cause. The problem was that the war was a lousy cause, like the Vietnam War and just about every war we ever fought after the Great War.
Germany started losing, and a dissident peace movement similar to the antiwar movement in the Vietnam era sprung up in Germany. Some of these people, but many others were just good Germans sink of junkers, kaisers and disgusting mess that was incipient German imperialism and militarism. The antiwar movement helped end the war, which was a good thing. After the war, which ended in Germany’s defeat, this protest movement began challenging many of the traditional views of the land which had dragged the nation into a stupid militaristic adventure that led to the massacre of a generation of European men. Many liberals, media people, comedians, musicians, show business types, politicians and intellectuals joined this movement.
Of course some were Jews but most were not. Keep in mind that Jews were maybe 1-2% of Germany at this point. The point here is that these Jews were not traitors at all any more than the rest of the liberals were. They were calling for a Cultural Revolution in Germany and challenging the reactionary views that led the nation to war.
This was the “stab in the back” that Hitler referred to. There was no stab in the back anymore than that the Vietnam War Protest Movement was a stab in the back.  Hitler and the Free Officers were reactionary militarists. They were not OK people. They were like McNamara and LBJ on steroids. They were a bunch of lousy killers, militarists fighting for a no good cause. And really the entire liberal intelligentsia stabbed the country in  the back, if anyone did.
But the stab in the back more than anything was self inflicted. Germany was losing a lousy war they started for no good reason. The Army and the militaristic state was stabbing its own self in the back in a form of perverse hari kari.

Trump and Bannon Are Carrying out a Fascist Coup

Here.
And Kelly Ann Conway, a fascist herself, keeps giving it away with her comments.
That’s actually the 100% truth. The Republicans have been moving towards a form of fascism or rightwing authoritarianism ever since Reagan to be honest. It’s been a Long March through the Institutions, so to speak.
The expert quoted is an expert on Italian History and the Mussolini Era.
We are putting you fascists on notice, dammit. We are coming to get you. If not now, later. You bitches have been warned.
The only good fascist is a dead fascist!
I’m not with the Antifa at all on a lot of things, but I am with them on this all right.

A Few Words on Language Endangerment

Carlos Lam: Congrats! However, isn’t language death a rather standard occurrence among societies?

It is, but we linguists don’t really like it. It is quite a debate going on, but the bottom line seems to be that ethnic groups and speaker groups have the right to ownership of their languages. We worry that a lot of speaker groups are being pressured into blowing up their languages prematurely. We like to study these languages and we are not real happy about seeing them vanish into the horizon. On the other hand, is cultural death a natural thing too? Both cultural death and language death are occurring at rates far beyond the normal background rates. English and some of the other major languages are like weapons of mass destruction in taking out languages. You really want a world with one language and one culture? I don’t.
The best position seems to be that speakers have the right to decide the fate of their languages. If speakers wish to continue speaking their languages, then governments and linguists should help them to preserve and continue to develop their languages. Quite a few groups do not seem to care that their languages are going are extinct or they are even driving or drove their languages extinct, and they have the full right to do so. In these cases, we will simply do salvage linguistics. There are many salvage linguistics projects going on in the world today.
You won’t get very far with linguists arguing that language death is a good thing. Most people don’t think so.
Occurring at the same time as language death is a lot of language revitalization. Even fully dead languages are being resurrected from the grave. Also in addition to language death, we are creating new languages all the time. In this piece, I created a total of net 13 new languages. And new languages are occurring on their own.
To give you an example. A group of Crimean Tatars moved from Crimea to Turkey about 200 years ago in the course of the Crimean War. They have been speaking Crimean Tatar in Turkey ever since, for 200 years now. But in that time, Crimean Tatar in Turkey and Crimean Tatar in Ukraine has diverged so much that Turkish Crimean Tatar is now, in my opinion, a fully separate tongue from the Ukrainian language. This is because in Turkey, a lot of Turkish has gone into Turkish Crimean Tatar which is not well understand in the Ukraine. And in the Ukraine, a lot of Russian has gone in which is not well understood in Turkey. Hence, Crimean Tatar speakers in Turkey and Ukraine can no longer understand each other well.
To give you another example, there are many Kazakh speakers in China. However, Kazakh speakers in China can no longer understand Standard Kazakh broadcasts from Kazakhstan because so many Russian loans have gone into Standard Kazakh that it is no longer intelligible with Chinese Kazakh speakers. I learned this too late for my paper, otherwise I would have split Chinese Kazakh off as a separate language.
There are many cases like this.
Further, many languages are being discovered. Sonqori, Western Khalaj, Todzhin, Duha, Dukha and Siberian Tatar are just a few of the new languages that I created. Khorosani Turkic was split into three different languages. Dayi was subsumed into one of the Khorosani Turkic languages. Altai was split from one into five separate languages, but the truth is that it is six languages, not five. Salar was split into Western Salara and Eastern Salar. Ili Turki was eliminated becuase it does not even exist. It is simply a form of Uighur. Kabardian and Balkar, Tatar and Bashkir, Kazakh and Kirghiz were some languages that were eliminated and subsumed into single tongues such as Tatar-Bashkir, Kazakh-Kirghiz, and Kabardian-Balkar. And on and on.
Languages and of course dialects are dying all the time, but new languages are being created by humans and by linguists as we continue our splitting projects. Many lects referred to as dialects are more properly seen as separate languages. Chinese is at least 450 separate languages, only 14 of which are recognized. German may be up to 130 separate languages, only 20 of which are recognized.
There are quite a few more languages to be created out there, but there is a lot of resistance to splitters like me from more conservative linguists and especially from linguistic nationalists. For while Chinese may well be over 1,000 languages, the Chinese government is anti-scientifically insistent that there is but one Chinese language and maybe 2,000 “dialects,” most of which are probably separate languages. The German government is quite resistant to the idea that there is more than one form of German, though I believe Bavarian and Swiss German have official status in Austria and Switzerland.