Alt Left: Rural Land Reforms: An Overview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A land reform was definitely done in Iran.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The land reform was incomplete in Venezuela.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Capitalism Will Always Tend Towards Fascism: Does that Mean It Is Fatally Flawed?

DiscoCat: The Far Left has an explicit goal of ending capitalism. The Far Right does not. This is why when forced to choose between the Far Right and the Far Left, liberals, capitalists, industrialists, and plutocrats will always choose the Far Right.

It is precisely for this reason that the wealthy industrialists and plutocrats in Germany supported Hitler’s chancellorship campaign in 1931. They didn’t give a flying fuck about his nationalism, bigotry, warmongering, and antisemitism. Most of the plutocrats probably thought Hitler’s ravings were just harmless antics to galvanize his base. Whatever it takes to rile up the mindless cattle and garner their support. All they cared about is that he would let them keep their ownership of the factories and protect their interests from socialists and communists.

The plutocrats will always support fascism as a bulwark against socialism if they feel the latter’s gaining popularity among the masses. They usually don’t like fascism but they’re driven to support it by pure self-interest and pragmatism.

Thank you very much for this comment! And by the way, welcome to the site if you are new here!

I have felt this way a long time myself. I think it goes deeper than this though. Many of the leftwingers that got overthrown by fascists were just liberals who did some tinkering around the edges. Arbenz in Guatemala and many others such as Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic were overthrown for trying to do a land reform. The leader of Honduras and Aristide in Haiti were overthrown by fascists for literally raising the minimum wage! That’s all they did. And Bill Clinton helped overthrow Aristide and Hitlery Clinton herself literally overthrew the leader of Honduras and installed a fascist coup that very quickly murdered 1,000 social activists.

This has happened many times. The new Peruvian leader has promised to do only very mild reforms and he’s already being called a Communist. The mild reformer of the PT, Lula, was overthrown in a judicial coup that was assisted by the FBI! I told you Feds are crap. Feds are the worst pigs of them all.

So I disagree where the poster says all of these people go fascist for fear that the Left will end capitalism. It appears that any threat to their profits at all is enough to cause the capitalists to put in a fascist regime. So I think the comment should be amended from fear of the overthrow of capitalism to the fear of any loss of profits and income at all.

A while back, I told my mother that down in Latin America, it is routine for the Right to murder trade unionists and union leaders. She shook her head and said, “That’s because down there, if you’re in a union, they think that means you’re a Communist.” I would point out that that was all done with the help of the US, especially the CIA.

The US has been murdering union members in Latin America for 60 years now, and probably even longer if you consider the Banana Revolt in the Uraba of Colombia in 1921. And every one of our Latin American interventions from 1910-1950 was done on the basis more or less of “kill the trade unionists,” among other things. The Sandinistas of Nicaragua are named after Augusto Sandino, the leader of Nicaraguan guerrillas who fought the US Marines in Nicaragua for many years.

That’s exactly correct. I’d like to add that not one thing has changed. Social activists including union members and leaders, are murdered every day in Colombia for years now.

Alt Left: The Worst People on Earth – A Contest

I am not sure there is anything worse than a Gulf Sunni Arab. They’re runners up for the worst people on Earth award along with Turks, Azeris, Indian Hindus, and Jews. Thing is Jews have many positive attributes and it’s more a matter of if you think the positive outweighs the negative. The listed peoples above have all of the negative qualities of Jews and about zero positive attributes (although I do exaggerate a lot here, sorry).

Turks and Azeris are simply vicious fascists who retain the precisely same genocidal instincts of the Young Turks who genocided 2.5 million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 1.75 million Assyrians, mostly from 1915-1923. That adds up to a Turkish genocide of 5 million people, all not coincidentally Christians. It was one of the worst Muslim jihads ever, and the anti-Christian aspect of it has been little noted. That’s getting close to 6 million Jews Holocaust level, so Turks are literally about as evil as Nazis.

Indian Hindus are also fascists, in this case religious fascists.

I almost want to call Gulf Arabs fascists, perhaps clerical fascists. They are simply genocidal religious bigots against the Shia and to a lesser extent the Iranian boogeyman. Furthermore, they are 100% responsible for Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Compared to these maniacs, even the Israeli fascists are not so bad, though of course they are horrible. But they’re not literally genocidal. That charge gets tossed around, but it’s nonsense. Jews lie, cheat, and steal par excellance, but the groups mentioned are actually worse than Jews in that regard, and that’s saying something.

Of course, I should throw in the West in general, led by the US and the Anglosphere and their terrorist organization of fascists called NATO, but Western imperialism pales in comparison to he abject depravity of the groups above.

Jews in Nazi Germany before and after the War

Polar Bear: Many Jews even assimilated to NS Germany.

They couldn’t assimilate completely because Nazi antisemitism was racial. Racial antisemitism is particularly cruel because there’s no escape for the Jew. There’s nothing he can do. He can’t change his genes. So he’s screwed.

With religious antisemitism it is based on religion, so there is always an out for the Jews in conversion, especially to Christianity. And a few Jews do convert to Islam, even in modern times. Supposedly many Saudis, including princes, are descended from families of converted Jews. An Israeli Jew converted to Islam several years back and became a radical Islamist. He moved to the West Bank and lives there to this day. He hates Israel and supports Hamas! Hamas and the Palestinians have accepted him utterly. They have no racial beef with Jews. To them, if you convert to Islam, you’re just not a Jew anymore. You’re also not an enemy. You’ve become one of them.

In the very early years it is correct that some Jews assimilated to supporting the Party. The Jews in some cities had good relations with the Gentiles. There was even a Jewish chapter of the Party in one city in 1936! It was officially sanctioned by Party leadership! After Kristallnacht in 1938 though, you would be hard-pressed to find a Jew who supported the regime.

However, many half-Jews (Jewish father) were allowed to serve in the Army. I believe there were over 100,000 half-Jews in the SS! Which is very strange if you think about it because the SS was absolutely committed to the extermination of Europe’s Jews. And here were a huge number of half-Jews participating in the project!

The Germans had a real problem. There’s an old saying, “There’s a little Jew in every German.” There’s more truth to it than you think. And indeed this was part of the problem for the Nazis. If they got too serious about Jewish ancestry, they’d end up killing off their whole population! So they made some very strict rules about who exactly was Jewish and who was not, while making the pool of Jews as small as they could. The fact that so many Germans had a bit of Jewish blood meant in a way, oddly enough the Nazis were massacring themselves, at least in Germany anyway. Isn’t that a strange idea?

There were 400,000 Jews in German at the start of the war, and there were 200,000 left at the end of the war. Half of them had survived. They had a lot of money, so most of them took off before the war even started. I saw a report on a plane leaving Vienna before the war, and it was full of Jews fleeing Austria. The Nazis had figured that most of the German Jews had taken off, and they didn’t even look very hard for Jews in Germany proper. And somehow many of them simply hid enough to survive. Don’t ask me how they did it. It’s an odd fact.

There are many, many odd facts about that genocide.

Alt Left: Victory Day, May 9, 2021

Victory Day, May 9, was an official holiday in the USSR and it still is in Russia. We had a V-E Day, but it never became a national holiday like it did in the USSR.

Alt Left: Happy Victory Day 2021: Thank You, USSR!

Victory Day is an official Russian holiday celebrating the defeat of Nazism in 1945.

Alt Left: Happy Victory Day Everyone!

May 9 is Victory Day in Russia, the day that Nazism was defeated in Europe. No country lost more men fighting Nazism than the USSR. Furthermore, 89% of German war casualties were inflicted by the Red Army. On the other hand, on our end, we didn’t do a whole lot, though we did lose quite a few men. We couldn’t have done it without the Soviet Union.

 

“Oranges and Lemons,” by Alpha Unit

Humans are among the few mammal species unable to synthesize Vitamin C from glucose. All of our Vitamin C has to come from our diets. If you were somehow to end up with no Vitamin C in your diet whatsoever for a prolonged time – say, three or four months and counting, indefinitely – it is no exaggeration to say that the repercussions could be dire.

Without Vitamin C we can’t make collagen, and without collagen your body can’t repair your skin, bone, cartilage, ligaments and tendons, blood vessel walls, and teeth. You need fresh food in your diet, either from plant or animal sources, to get this done.

Wherever you find people going without fresh food for long periods, you’ll find Vitamin C deficiency, or scurvy.

Scurvy has been prevalent throughout much of human history. It likely began to occur in humans during the development of agriculture. According to biologist Thomas Jukes, once people in temperate zones adopted an agrarian lifestyle they were able to store grains for use during winter. They were also able to spread into other temperate regions previously uninhabitable due to the lack of food supply during winters.

But because stored grains are extremely low in Vitamin C, it is likely that these ancient peoples developed scurvy during the long winter months because grain dominated their diets.

During long journeys or overland campaigns, such as the Crusades, scurvy inevitably appeared.

The first written account of a disease likely to be scurvy comes from the Eber Papyrus of ancient Egypt, dated to 1550 BC. The Papyrus not only diagnosed scurvy but prescribed that its victims be given onions, which contain Vitamin C.

Throughout maritime history, people had to figure out not only how to transport themselves across seas and oceans but how to stay healthy along the way. They were clearly relatively successful at both. Millennia ago, Austronesians were the first humans to invent oceangoing vessels; they colonized a large part of the Indo-Pacific region. Early Polynesians were superb seafarers and traveled thousands of miles exploring and settling the region we know as the Polynesian Triangle (drawn by connecting the points of Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island).

Somali seafarers developed extensive trade networks, and Somali merchants at one time led commerce between Asia and Africa. Chinese merchants sailed the Indian Ocean and traded throughout Southeast Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and East Africa.

How did ancient seafaring peoples deal with scurvy?

Stefan Slater writes that Polynesian seafarers relied on freshly caught fish, crustaceans, and octopi, and would sometimes slaughter some of the animals they were transporting for breeding stock. Jin Ding, Chaojan Shi, and Adam Weintrit report that the diet on Chinese sailing ships included green tea, which contains more Vitamin C than black tea. They also say that Chinese ships began to carry gardens with them, growing soybean sprouts, which are high in Vitamin C.

So there is some evidence that ancient seafarers knew the importance of keeping fresh vegetables and meat in their diets on long voyages.

For Europeans, it wasn’t until the Age of Sail that the problem of scurvy truly came into focus. Wealth and national interest were at stake in ways they hadn’t been before.

Advances in naval technology and a rush for exploration and conquest brought Europeans the “plague of the sea.” Scurvy was the main occupational disease of what historians call the European Age of Exploration. More sailors died of scurvy than all other causes combined, including battles, storms, and other diseases.

Jason A. Mayberry makes the case that a unique confluence of conditions made scurvy and seafaring a deadly combination for Europeans. In his essay “Scurvy and Vitamin C,” he draws upon the work of Stephen Bown, author of Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentleman Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail.

First, countries had difficulty maintaining sufficient crews for their naval vessels, so they relied on impressment: the taking of men into the military by compulsion, with or without notice. It had been legally sanctioned in Britain since the time of Edward I.

It was basically kidnapping. Gangs of men would go into port towns looking for “recruits.” They would club a man and drag him back to the ship. The man’s family might have no idea what happened to him, and many of the men never made it back home.

Some had experience at sea, some didn’t. Some were in poor health to begin with, being homeless, convicts, or elderly. On average a third of a ship’s crew was made up of impressed men.

Even the men who volunteered for naval service were often in poor health. Many would volunteer in order to secure a place to sleep and get regular meals. Sometimes boys who were orphans or runaways would join.

A second reason that Vitamin C deficiency was hastened during this period were the working conditions on ships. Discipline was harsh and included flogging, keelhauling, and starvation. The body needs more Vitamin C when it is under stress, and sailors had heightened stress in the form of physical exertion, exposure to the elements, fear of battle, and sleep deprivation.

The third and main factor in the development of scurvy was clearly the diet onboard ships. What mattered most for food supplies was that the food be storable for long periods without spoiling. The nutritional content of the food was of little concern for those in charge. What was most important to them was to maintain a suitable labor force at the least possible cost.

A typical weekly ration for a sailor, according to Bown:

  • 1 lb. hardtack (biscuit) daily
  • 2 lbs. salted beef twice weekly
  • 1 lb. salted pork twice weekly
  • 2 oz. salted fish 3 times weekly
  • 2 oz. butter 3 times weekly
  • 4 oz. cheese 3 times weekly
  • 8 oz. dried peas 4 times weekly
  • 1 gal. beer daily

Sometimes the rations included dried fruit or barley meal. But the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables left the diet almost completely devoid of Vitamin C.

Compounding this problem was that even the food sailors had access to wasn’t always fit to eat. Spoilage was a huge problem on ships. Ships were a dark, damp, and sometimes waterlogged environment for sailors and their food, and this led to moldy, worm-eaten bread, or other dried foods. Meat would begin spoiling almost as soon as it left port, no matter how salt-laden it was.

European navies did provide surgeons and surgeon’s mates on ships, but most of a surgeon’s time was spent caring for battle wounds instead of focusing on the treatment and prevention of disease.

All of these factors made scurvy the leading cause of death during the Age of Sail.

The onset of scurvy is a slow progression, Bown and others inform us, usually appearing after 60 to 90 days of a Vitamin C-deficient diet. This is when the body’s lingering stores of Vitamin C are depleted. The initial symptoms are fatigue and muscle aches. Upon waking, a scurvy victim’s joints will ache.

During the second stage, his gums begin to swell and will bleed with slight pressure. The teeth become loose at the roots. He also feels pain throughout his joints and muscles.

During the third stage, the gums begin to rot. They also bleed profusely. The victim’s flesh becomes gangrenous and will spontaneously hemorrhage. His skin, especially on the legs and feet, develop ulcers that turn gangrenous. As connective tissue fails, long-healed broken bones begin to refracture, and long-healed wounds begin to reopen. The legs cramp so severely that the person cannot walk.

At this point the person is in excruciating pain.

In the final stage of scurvy, the person gets a high fever. His skin develops black spots and he begins having tremors. He will drift in and out of consciousness for a while, and then he dies.

An estimated two million sailors died of scurvy between the 15th and 18th centuries. The science at the time was of very little use in treating them – even though various people throughout European history had made the connection between citrus fruits and the prevention of scurvy.

On July 8, 1497, Vasco da Gama set sail from Lisbon, Portugal, in search of a passage to India. On January 11, 1498, the fleet anchored off Mozambique. After five weeks at sea, the crew began showing the symptoms of scurvy.

Fortunately, some weeks later, they arrived at Mombasa, on the coast of Kenya, where they met local traders who traded them oranges. Within six days of eating them, the crew recovered. Da Gama left Africa and began his voyage across the Indian Ocean to Kozhikode (or Calicut to Westerners).

After staying in India for four months, da Gama left for a three-month journey at sea in which scurvy killed many of his sailors. On January 7, 1499, the ships anchored at Malindi, Kenya, where the sailors, remembering their previous cure in Mombasa, asked for oranges. Still, more sailors died of the disease “which started in the mouth.” Six months later the survivors made it back to Lisbon.

Did Vasco da Gama alert any ship owners or controlling authorities of what he had discovered about treating scurvy? No one knows.

Sir Richard Hawkins had discovered a cure for scurvy in 1593 when it appeared in his crew in southern Brazil. He reported that oranges and lemons had been a remedy for his men. To whom did he report this? What did they do with the information?

The Dutch had known about the value of citrus fruits since at least the late 16th century. According to J. Burnby and A. Bierman, who wrote “The Incidence of Scurvy at Sea and Its Treatment,” the Dutch East India Company bartered for lemons in Africa and also established vegetable gardens and orchards in their colonies to provide fresh citrus to their ships. How did the Dutch manage to keep this knowledge to themselves? Was that their intention?

Burnby and Bierman also write about an Elizabethan merchant, Sir Hugh Plat, who had an interest in botany and gave bottled lemon juice to the commander of the first fleet of the English East India Company. It was only the crew of the flagship, Red Dragon, which received a daily allowance of lemon juice. It was also the only crew that remained relatively free of scurvy. What did the English East India Company do with this information?

In the early 1600s John Woodall, a surgeon for the same East India Company, described the symptoms of scurvy and recommended that ships’ surgeons inform Governors of “all places they touch in the Indies” that the juices of oranges, lemons, limes, and tamarinds be used as medicine for scurvy.

The East India Company actually supplied “lemon water,” as it was called, for its ships until 1625, when the Company chose not to provide it because “the woman supplying it wanted 12d. a gallon above the usual price.” The return voyage of 1626 was badly afflicted with scurvy because they had bought tamarinds in the East Indies which they presumed to be as effective as lemons. All sour fruits and even acids such as vinegar were erroneously thought to be cures for scurvy.

J. F. Bachstrom, a Lutheran theologian and physician, wrote in 1734 that there was only one cause of scurvy – the absence of fresh fruits and vegetables for a long period. No drugs would help, nor would mineral acids. Were any companies or government entities aware of his findings? If so, did they take them seriously?

Europe was slowly making headway against this problem nevertheless. In 1739 James Lind, a former physician’s apprentice, volunteered for the Royal Navy and was designated a surgeon’s mate. After seven years in that position, he was promoted to surgeon on HMS Salisbury. It was on this ship that he performed his famous scurvy experiment.

Lind showed an insight ahead of his time by understanding that, to develop a cure, treatments must be compared simultaneously in similar patients. He had envisioned the concept of clinical trials, as rudimentary as his idea might have been.

After eight weeks at sea, and when scurvy was beginning to take its toll on the crew, Lind decided to test his idea that the putrefaction of the body caused by the disease could be prevented with acids. He divided 12 sick patients into six pairs, and provided each pair with a different supplement to their diet: cider, vitriolic acid (diluted sulfuric acid), vinegar, sea water, two oranges and one lemon, or a purgative mixture.

Only the pair who took the oranges and lemons improved.

You would think that Lind had established a clear connection between citrus and scurvy and that the Navy would have taken immediate action. But neither happened.

Lind continued to believe that there were multiple causes of scurvy. He also advocated a method of preserving the virtues of oranges and lemons that involved boiling the juices. Unbeknownst to Lind, boiling destroyed the active ingredient in citrus juices – Vitamin C. When the boiled juice was tried on ships as a preventative measure and found lacking, people began to dismiss the whole idea that citrus fruits were effective against scurvy!

In 1753 Lind published his Treatise on the Scurvy, considered a classic of medical science. But it took the Royal Navy over 40 years to adopt Lind’s recommendations. This happened under the direction of Sir Gilbert Blane, who had been appointed Physician to the Fleet.

Blane was familiar with Lind’s work and had the power and initiative to bring about change, Mayberry states. He organized an experiment on HMS Suffolk on a 23-week trip to India. The sailors were given a mixture of rum, water, sugar, and lemon juice. A few sailors developed a slight case of scurvy. They were given additional rations of lemon juice and the scurvy was quickly cured.

With the results from the HMS Suffolk and the power of his position, Blane was able to ensure that fresh citrus juice became a staple in the British Navy. For the British, scurvy had finally been conquered.

The question remains: why did it take so long, when so many had found the cure time and time again?

Burnby and Bierman note that there was the view among ship owners and government authorities that seamen were expendable. They also suggest that seamen themselves might have been reluctant to take part in experiments that might have settled the issue. But they mention other considerations, mainly the problem of “sheer impracticability.”

How does one store many thousands of oranges and lemons on an overcrowded man-of-war laden with guns, gunpowder, and shot? Using the juice of citrus fruits was certainly a space saver but it readily became moldy, especially under poor storage conditions, which were usually the case.

Speaking of practical considerations, how long can it be practical to treat your work force as if they are expendable? There were no sailors’ advocates at the time to make it impractical for businessmen and governments to do so. Nothing stopped or even slowed Europe’s exploration and colonization, so losing sailors to scurvy was just one of the costs of doing business.

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

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

He wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of all this?

Trotsky’s take on national socialism and fascism.

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One NATO false flag and provocation after another.

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

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

Even the Worst People on Earth May Have a Bit of a Moral Compass

Rambo: From the very beginning of the Delphi case, a lot of people had sneaking suspicions that there was a better than average chance that the person or persons involved in this knew beforehand that the day of the crimes would be a school off-day for the girls. A lot of people’s first thought was someone connected with the girls’ school.

Yes, of course. It’s worse than that. He actually stalked Libby for four months beforehand. And the idea that this was a last minute decision has been proven wrong. The girls were discussing it as early as Friday because people who knew the girls were talking about their upcoming trip in local bars that night. And it looks like Libby posted on her Instagram at some point that she was going to the bridge.

I suppose he must have known Abby was going to be there too, so he may have targeted her in a sense too. Instagram is the site that he was catfishing Libby on with that young man’s photo.

This whole idea that he went to that crowded bridge that afternoon with his full-blown murder kit just to haphazardly see if he could find female or two to kill is insane. Others say he was just there to kill anyone, even a man. That’s even more insane. Further, I’m wondering if he’s into killing women. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. He’s not a pedophile, but he could be a hebephile, a very common sexual orientation. After all, 26% of all men could be classified as hebephiles or pedophiles!

13 and 14 is a bit young to be targeting females, but a number of serials have killed young teenage girls and women too because after all, teenage girls look like women! Face facts. Ted Bundy killed a 12 year old girl, but 12 year old girls are on the cusp of puberty and while they don’t look like women, they look enough like women that a lot of men are starting to find them “interesting.”

I believe Bundy also killed an 8 year old girl when he was 14, but he would never admit to that. He even implied in interviews that he had done some things that he would never admit to. Even for Ted Bundy, killing a little 8 year old girl was too low. Maybe not too low but just shameful. Bundy was a narcissist, a malignant narcissist. Perhaps he thought it was shameful to his reputation as the Greatest Serial Killer of All Time if he would admit to killing a little girl. It was a bridge too far.

This is fascinating because it implies that even the worst people of all think there are some things that are just beyond the pale.

Hitler was appalled by the mistreatment of animals. I guess he thought Jews and Slavs were below animals. And one of the worst Nazis of all, Goebbels, has a bit of a moral compass. In the early days of the Holocaust, they were just lining Jews up and shooting them with firing squads. Goebbels witnessed one of these shootings and he completely freaked out. He broke down in front of everyone, started crying, just carried on. And he decreed that there was to be no more of this or they needed to get away from that as quickly as possible.

The next step was not the gas chambers as everyone thinks. Instead it was “gas vans.” Jews were killed in these vans for a while before the Final Solution was agreed upon at the Wansee Conference in 1942 and they moved to the chambers in the name of efficiency but also because they wanted to kill people in as sterile of clean way as possible, in an almost antiseptic was hidden way the same way your cat is kindly quickly, efficiently and cruelly when it is taken to the vet for the last time.

Murder is murder but when you do it as cleanly as possible, it’s easier to rationalize it. If you murder in a cold and cruel way, it seems horrible as disgust sets in and it seems like you really did kill them. If you do it clean, in your mind you can make it seem that you didn’t really “kill” them in the same way as if you chopped them to pieces. Of course it makes no sense, but we are emotional creatures so we are not purely logical and our conscious and especially subconscious mind is “irrational” that can only be understood if we are using “emotional logic” instead of “pure logic” or the logic of Spock on Star Trek.

So they went to the gas chambers. But at first they were not burning the bodies. They were burying them in mass graves, especially at a few little known camps that were truly extermination camps such as Sobibor and Theresienstat.  All of these were in Poland. It is odd that Auschwitz is more famous than these extermination camps while Auschwitz was less exterminationist than these others. 15% of the inmates at Auschwitz survived.

After all, it was first and foremost a labor camp.  It sounds awful that 85% of them were killed of course, but at some of those Polish extermination camps it was even worse. There was one that killed 900,000 people. There were perhaps 30 survivors who ran for it into the local woods at the very end as the Allies were closing in. Even most of these escapees were killed. Only .0003 percent survived. 15% is a Hell of a lot more than .0003%.

Anyway, Goebbels was at one of those extermination camps and he saw the mass graves where they had buried maybe 10,000’s on inmates. It had been raining and the bloating from the decaying corpses was so extreme owing to the rain and sheer number of the dead that the ground beneath them was literally rising up and falling as they were standing on it. The Earth was alive but in a terrible way.

Once again, Goebbels completely flipped out, got hysterical, started yelling and crying and said no more mass graves. This is how the ovens were added to the gas chambers. To eliminate dead bodies in a more efficient and especially less disgusting way. Once again if you put them in ovens, you can almost rationalize it away. All that’s left are ashes and it’s hard to see those are former humans. Your mind can always tell you, “Oh those are just ashes, that’s all. Not formerly human corpses.” Again this is not logical, but according to emotional logic, it makes complete sense.

It’s interesting that three of the most evil men of the 20th Century actually had a moral compass. A very tiny and meager one for sure, but some things were beyond the pale even for them. One wonders if there has ever been a human with no moral compass at all if one such a human is even possible. Even wild animals have moral compasses. A female mountain lion won’t kill her cubs. A male mountain lion won’t kill his mate.

It’s also interesting that if the kill people and get rid of bodies in as cold, efficient, sterile and maybe democratic way as possible, the mind can rationalize that you’re not “really” killing people and disappearing bodies.

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Repost: Mao Messed Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repost: The Purest Whites of Them All

Indicates that, contrary to White nationalists, the purest Whites of all are not Nordics but the Whites of the Caucasus and, of all folks, those nasty Jews! Holy Semites, Batman! What now?

The Purest Whites of Them All

This very term White itself is a little bit absurd, but as long as White nationalists talk about pure Whites versus non-pure Whites, let’s evaluate the matter.

On a board I used to frequent called Human Biodiversity (mostly non-racists interested in race, genetics, anthropology, etc.), someone said that the purest Whites are from the Caucasus and noted that White Power types don’t even consider them to be White! Recall that hundreds of Armenian White Power types were tossed off Stormfront recently for being “non-Whites.” So I decided to look into the matter. From my research:

Group          % Black
Iraqi Jews     0%
Iranian Jews   0%
Sephardic Jews 0%
Georgian Jews  0%
Kurdish Jews   0%
Ashkenazi Jews 0%*
Azerbaijan     0%
Armenia        0%
Georgia        0%

*Note that these are just averages. Some studies have claimed to show that individual Ashkenazim have some Black in them.

Figures from my post A Little Black in All Of Us.

So the only Whites that don’t have any Black blood are Mizrachi (Eastern) and Mountain Jews and Whites from the Caucasus above. All other White groups have some Black in them. Horrors! Sephardic refers to the Jews of the Mediterranean – Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Turkish Jews.

On the board where I posted this, I got some hostile responses. One asked me why Jews should have avoided this presumably terrible situation (having a few drops of Black).

I suggested that in part it was due to the purity of the bloodline in the Jews and their long-term hostility to mixing with non-Jews. Ashkenazim came to Europe in ~300 or so and moved into the Continent over the next 700 years, taking in some non-Jewish genes. Typically, Jewish men would move to a new area, marry a non-Jewish woman who would convert and then stay pure after that.

After 1000, Talmudic rules kicked in with very heavy penalties for Jews, especially Jewish women, having sex with non-Jews, and only 1 in 200 matings in Ashkenazim were with non-Jews. I suspect that there were few Blacks in Europe from 500-1000. What few there were lived in far Southern Europe.

After 1000, there seem to have been a few more Blacks moving into Europe as part of colonial armies, freed slaves, and whatnot. The Mizrachi Jews have no Black in them because they were not Muslim. I would suspect that Christian Arabs also have little to no Black in them.

The slavery of Blacks in the Arab World was very much associated with Islam. Jews did not keep slaves. In the Arab World, the Black genes came from Arab men having children with the Black slave women. Black slaves hardly had sex with Arab women at all, although there was some of this in Yemen.

The Yemeni Jews are the only Jews outside Africa to have some Black blood, and they have a fair amount. I’m not sure how this came about, but Blacks have probably been a more important part of Yemen than any other Arab country.

The Caucasus has no Black blood because there were probably few to no Black slaves in the region. Most of the region is Christian, and the Muslims there did not keep slaves. If anything, the region’s Christians were raided by the Turks for White slaves. See Circassian Beauties for more.

Interestingly, the reason that the women of the Caucasus were so prized by the Turks was because they were considered to be the purest Whites of all (see above). The same pure Whites who get tossed out of White Power forums on the net. Go figure.

Repost: Berber Genes in Europeans

Interesting stuff about Berber % in modern Europeans and speculations about the Berbers being the remains of some of the most ancient proto-Caucasians. In other words, if you are White, the Berbers are like your most ancient grandparents.

Berber Genes in Europeans

It seems reasonable that Southern Europeans especially would have a considerable amount of Berber genes in them. This has been disputed by certain Southern European White racist bloggers like Dienekes Pontikos and Racial Reality. These bloggers are vociferously opposed to the notion that Southern Europeans are anything but pretty near pure White.

For instance, here Dienekes states gives Berber percentages in Europeans as follows:

Nation          Berber %

Spain           1%
Italy           1.75%
France          2%

I am going to disagree with this assessment, though I admit I am not an expert on the subject. Looking at this journal article (table here). we come up with something a lot different. From Cruciani et al 2004:

Ethnic Group                Berber %

Spain (Cantabrian Pasiegos) 30%
Spain (Cantabria)           17%
Southern Portugal           12.2%
Northern Portugal            4%
Spain (Basques)              3.6%
France                       3.5%
Spain (Asturias)             2.2%
Southern Spain               1.6%
Northern Italy               1.5%
Central Italy                1.2%
Italy (Sicily)                .7%
Sardinia                      .5%

The Berber genes seem to have come to Europe for the most part in the past 3,000 yrs. Cantabria is an interesting place. The Cantabrians, in particular the Pasiegos, are said to be quite distinct genetically, almost like the Basques. No one really knows what this is all about.

During the Moorish invasion, they conquered all the way up to the southern mountains of Cantabria, a province in the far north of Spain on the coast next to the Basque region. Perhaps this is where the Moorish (Berber) genes came in.

Looking at the figures above, most Berber genes appear to have gone into Iberia in tandem with the Moorish conquest. Strangely, they are concentrated in the North of Spain. This doesn’t make much sense to me.

The Cantabrian language is still spoken here. It is said to be a dialect of Spanish, but actually it is part of the Extremaduran language spoken in Caceres in Extremadura. People say it is dying out, but in the mountains children are still being raised speaking Cantabrian. They show up in school as Cantabrian monolinguals and their teachers cannot understand them.

Extremaduran-Cantabrian is really just Eastern Leonese, which got cut off from the rest of Leonese ~400 years ago and came under heavy influence from Old Castilian. Nowadays East Leonese proper scarcely exists in either Asturias or Leon. Extremaduran itself spoken in Caceres is endangered, has no official status, and but has 500,000 speakers, including monolinguals (!). A Spanish informant who grew up in the region told me that Extremaduran has only 17% intelligibility with Spanish. And he has been hearing it off and on his whole life.

Leonese has only 50,000 speakers, is considered very endangered, but does have special status in Castile and Leon. And children are still being raised speaking Southeastern Leonese or Porteno. Leonese is part of the Asturian-Leonese language, with Asturian spoken in the north in Asturias and Leonese spoken to the south in Castile y Leon.

Asturian has 550,000 speakers, but is considered endangered.

A related language is Mirandese, spoken in Portugal. This language looks a lot like Portuguese, but it is actually a branch of Asturian-Leonese. It has 83% intelligibility with Southeastern Leonese or Porteno. It has only 15,000 speakers, but it seems to be recovering. It is spoken in Miranda do Douro state, and this is another name for the language.

About the Berbers, I consider them to be one of the most ancient, if not the most ancient, Caucasian groups in existence. Berbers go back at least 20,000 years and possibly up to 50,000 years in North Africa. Much of the Berber group may have come from the Middle East in the past 10,000 years. There is a huge split between Berbers and Sub-Saharan Africans.

The Mozabites, the Tuaregs and the Chenini-Douiret are quite different from the rest of the Berbers. Why? Probably genetic drift.

These men are Mozabites, possibly some of the most ancient Caucasians on Earth, with a genetic line going back up to 50,000 years. Though White nationalists probably freak out if you say these people are White, they are most definitely Caucasians. The fellow in the right forefront also looks Caucasian – he looks somewhat East Indian.

The two men standing at the top could be East Indians or some strange Mediterranean type. Given that East Indians are also one of the most ancient Caucasian groups on Earth, it figures that these Berbers resemble Indians. Both groups came out of the Middle East – the Berbers probably 42,000 years ago, and the East Indians about 17,000 years ago.

There are few genetic differences between Berbers and North African Arabs, which means that North African Arabs are simply Arabized Berbers. There are lots of great photos of Berbers at this link.

The origin of the Berbers is nevertheless quite obscure. This article suggests that both Berbers and Europeans came out of the Levant about 40-45,000 years ago. Obviously, prior to that, they came out of Africa. A date of 40-45,000 years is about right for the genesis of the Caucasian race. The homeland of the Caucasians is often said to be located in the Caucasus itself.

This line rose in Southwest Asia (the Caucasus) and then moved to Africa along the Mediterranean, not via Somalia – Yemen as the Out of Africans went. They moved first into the Levant, and from there went to Europe and to North Africa, both at the same time. This line went to the Cro-Magnon as well as the Berber, and both came out of the Levant about 40-45,000 years ago.

Another very interesting looking Mozabite fellow. There are some Mediterranean types who look something like this, but I have a hard time pinning this phenotype down. Clearly, they are Caucasians, but other than that, they look pretty sui generis. A recent genetics study, though poorly done, seemed to show the Mozabites as one of the most ancient ethnic groups on Earth and a source population for many other groups outside of Africa.

The Uighurs in Central Asia were also a source population for many diverse groups all over the place. The Uighurs may be the remains of ancient Caucasian-Asian hybrids that go back up to 40,000 years.

The first Caucasians were probably a mixture of 1/2 Africans (possibly Maasai and Tutsi types from Central Africa) mixed with ancient proto-Asians from China (who may have resembled the Ainu). From this strange mixture arose the original Caucasians, probably in the Caucasus and southern Russia, but maybe also in Iran.

There is good evidence that the first Caucasians, including the Cro-Magnons, looked a lot like Black Africans, in particular the Caucasoid-appearing Africans such as the Maasai and the Tutsi. Cro-Magnon skeletons look like the Masai more than any other modern skeleton. Cro-Magnon skulls are more likely to be confused with Negroid skulls than any other.

References

Cruciani, F.; La Fratta, R.; Santolamazza, P.; Sellitto, D.; Pascone, R.; Moral, P.; Watson, E.;  Guida, V.; Colomb, EB.; Zaharova, B.; Lavinha, J.; Vona, G.; Aman, R.; Cali, F.; Akar, N.; Richards, M.; Torroni, A.; Novelletto, A.; and Scozzari, R. 2004. “Phylogeographic Analysis Of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events within and out of Africa.” American Journal of Human Genetics 74:1014-1022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on but you get the picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few other places outside Latin America:

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

Alt Left: A Tragic Template for Anti-Semitism

If Jews want to lower anti-Semitism, why don’t they quit acting like they just out of the pages of the Protocols or Der Strumer? If your group is being stereotyped negatively and you dislike this, why don’t you quit acting like the stereotype? You know, like Step 1, before you do anything else? But oh no, we can’t have that. All the Jews get to continue acting out the worst anti-Semitic stereoty0pes, which are justifiably hated by Gentiles and all decent people for that matter, but everybody has to quit hating them.

It’s like:

Group A, a single group, act like total assholes.

Group B, which consists of all of the other groups, get mad at them, of course, for being such dicks. “Quit acting like total assholes, you jerks! You’re starting to really piss us off!”

Group A freaks out, call this criticism evil, racist, bigoted, murderous, genocidal pure irrational hate and wages war on the Group B. The message: “You’re evil scum for hating us! Quit hating us and maybe we’ll start liking you again!”

Group B says, “Quit being dicks, then!”

Group A says, “Nope, we get to keep on being the biggest dicks on Earth, but we’re going to make it illegal for you to hate us over our behavior! And now we hate you way more than we did before.”

Group B says, “Well, fuck that shit! Now you’re making us hate you even more, you fucks!”

Result: The phenomenon known as “anti-Semitism” is created and rages across the land, causing lots of unpleasantness, hostility and fighting and even leaving a few casualties here and there. The cucked leaders of the country claim that this “anti-Semitism” is a scourge upon the land and wage war on it.

Next result: Group B gets tired of being represented by a bunch of cucked wussies who suck up to their enemies. In response, they form a nationalist movement to protect their interests.

Next result: The nationalists achieve power.

Next result: First thing they do? Throw all of the Group dicks out of the goddamned country!

Next result: Jews wail and cry, “Everyone hates us for no reason! We dindu nuffin!”  Their Jewish mothers yell, “They wuz good boys!”

This is, briefly, the template for anti-Semitism in my opinion. I believe it had a lot of terrible results though. It’s not illegal to be an asshole or act like a dick. Hell, it’s not even against the law! I don’t mind a group of people throwing the dicks out of the country though. It’s like a guy’s acting up in a bar, and the bartender throws him out. Being a dick is never a reason to kill any human being, not even one.

It’s much less justifiable to massacre large groups of people acting like dicks. Many terrible pogroms were set upon the Jews. In one case in far Southern Germany several centuries ago, enraged Gentiles raided a city of 50,000 Jews and murdered every human in the land, men, women, and children all. I can never support such crimes. It’s sick and gross.

And in many cases, Jews were persecuted and even mass murdered in response to imaginary crimes, such as when they were slaughtered during the Black Death for supposedly poisoning the water wells and thereby killing people. But Black Death was being spread by fleas, not water. That’s not only cruel; it’s insane.

Notice how I said Jews love to live out their worst stereotypes? After World War 2 in Southern Germany, a Jew was caught literally poisoning the well of a town of Gentiles. No one died, but still. And I believe that in the First War in Palestine, Jews poisoned the wells of Arab villages to get them to flee.

They just can’t quit, can they?

Alt Left: It’s Up to 6,000,001 Now

I’m not necessarily against the 6 million figure for the Jewish dead in the Holocaust, one of the most evil crimes in modern history. Actually, I think 5.7 million is a better figure, but even some estimates that exceed 6 million are on decent grounds. Reasonable figures start at the great, late Raul Hilberg’s 4.1 million and go up from there. Any less than that? Sorry, you’re a Holocaust Denier. And shame on you.

Anyway, looks like it’s up to 6 million and one now with the addition of our latest Holocaust victim, George Floyd! Hey, come on up to the stage, George, and get your special victim prize! Whoops. I forgot. You’re dead. Hey George, think on the bright side. On November 25, a mere eight days ago, you had been drug free for five months! When was the last time that happened, George? When you were five years old? Probably.

Speaking of which, what the Hell is career criminal and drug addict Saint George Floyd doing in a goddamned Holocaust museum. And speaking of Holocaust museums, I’m not against them on principle, but can someone tell me why we need a damned (((Holocaust Museum))) on every corner!? Ever get the feeling that (((someone))) is sleazily using this horrendous tragedy for less than noble purposes?

Like legitimizing the crimes of (((that shitty little country)))?

Like (((making money)))? Guess there’s no business like Shoah business, right, guys?

Geez. Some people have no shame at all, huh?

And yeah. Shame on you too. I’m trying to figure out whose worse, the appalling deniers of a criminal genocide, or these (((profiteers and sleazy brainwashers))).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: An Interesting Note from an Irish Nationalist

I was on a discussion on Academia.edu recently about Ireland with a reference to the War of Independence  days, and an Irishman left this note in reference to someone saying that both  sides were equally bad:

Yes, sides are fruitless. Unless taking the side of right over that of wrong.

The Anglo-Irish Treaty was ratified under threat of an out and out war from Britain, with the partition of Ireland, with the command of the Oath of Allegiance to the English Monarch , etc. Deviation from truth multiplies later a thousand fold. In neocolonial duplicity, the Treaty was neither and both at the  same time  and has since become even more dissimulated in an ever-thickening fog of commentary amidst the perceived failure to complete a successful national revolution.

Without an understanding of her history and her defeat, Ireland will not collide with what she has become. Since the Good Friday Agreement, more disenfranchised people, mostly young men, have died from suicide in the North than in ‘The Troubles’.

A birthright was stolen. Ireland is animated by foreign and hidden marionettists, the attachment of the strings according to their purpose. Ireland is a likeness, as in a memory, where and when something happened and did not un-happen. Perhaps there is still truth in the Irish proverb that after the foul act, the grandchild should never trust a reconciled adversary.

Other than the superb prose, there are some interesting notes here. I had no idea that the Easter Agreement that divided Ireland was signed under threat of British invasion! My God. Of course “Northern” Ireland is a fiction, a fantasy. Of course it’s a British colony. There is no “Northern Ireland” and “Ireland.” It’s all just Ireland. Come on.

And he is correct. Ireland’s birth scar is exactly this: the frustration over an aborted and uncompleted national revolution. Since the act was never consummated, the wound was never bandaged and hence will never heal. It will always feel like a frustrated project that demands completion. As he points out, “a birthright was stolen.”

And yes, Ireland was defeated. She got her independence but she was defeated nonetheless. A wound that the British have never bothered to try to heal.

The “grandchild” in the last sentence refers to Ireland today, the grandfather of the child being the Ireland of 1916. The “foul act” was the aborted national revolution. The “reconciled adversary” would be the UK.

I’ve always supported the IRA, but that’s a bit much for an Alt Left demand. Instead we should support the reuniting of Ireland and decolonization of one of the world’s last colonies, Northern Ireland.

Alt Left: A Theory about Race, Personality, and Civilizational Trajectory with Assistance from Spengler, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche

A great new and very long comment from someone who is apparently a new commenter. A fascinating theory about race and personality and how they tie in with civilizational trajectories, be they forward, backward, or flat. He utilizes and owes a debt to Spengler first, then Schopenhauer, and last Nietzsche to help flesh out his theory.

I’d really like to see what you all think of this post. Please feel free to comment if you can make it through and figure out what he’s talking about. It’s a bit dense but it’s not really that complicated and a lot of you ought to be able to understand it pretty well.

Brian: This is a theory that’s been turning around in my head for around a decade, and I won’t go over every detail, just the gist of it, since to think out every caveat would take too long, and it’s not like a primary interest of research for me, but suffice it to say there is Spenglerian influence here, and through him, Nietzschean and Schopenhauerian influence. I’ve often called it the “I think we’re turning Japanese” theory.

The idea here is that Whites are in the middle of a spectrum between Blacks and Asians, where Blacks are the most chaotic, as you say, and Asians are the most orderly and staid, personified by the Spock stereotype.

The Germanic peoples, who pretty much seeded all of Europe during the Migration and Viking period, were, 2000 years ago during Rome’s heyday, barbarians, quite wild, living for the day, warring with each other to the point where, aside from the Battle of Teutoborg Forest, they could not unite with each other to fight a common enemy, which made them easy pickings for Rome.

The Celtic culture never took off into a high civilization due mainly to the Roman conquests of Gaul and Iberia and also of much of Britain, which eliminated the source-lands and most of the territory in which the Celtic culture had grown. So the civilization that arose after the collapse of the western portion of the empire was seminally Germanic: even France is heavily Germanic (land of the Franks), though it lies in between the more fully Germanic Northern Europe and the more Mediterranean Southern Europe.

Through the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages, the tribal polities of Northern Europe gradually coalesced into larger nations with, it must be stated, the help of the stabilizing factor of the Catholic Church. And by the Renaissance, Europe was becoming, artistically and intellectually, the most dynamic place in the world so that by Early Modern times, European art and science had eclipsed anything that had previously existed in the world.

Note how Asians beat Europeans in math and science in terms of raw ability, but Europeans have produced more than the Asians, which led to the core Asian lands (mainly China, Japan, and Korea) being not directly colonized by European empires but certainly feeling colonialism’s effects and even, especially for China, its boot heels. From the wild and more primitive European stock of two millennia ago eventually arose a civilization more advanced than what Asia had produced over thousands of years.

I suggest that the reason for this was that, although primitive, the Germanic peoples were also like a ball of energy that, if properly tamed, which of course means diminishing some of their raw energy, could produce an explosion of civilizational progress, and this taming is exactly what happened over the course of the Medieval Period.

The Church was a great factor, with its universalist vision of all reality being centered on a single thing, i.e. God (basically it’s a rational vision of the cosmos as opposed to a fragmentary and irrational understanding of it).

But another factor in this shift is likely social selection.

Over that 1,500 years of interaction with Rome and then of forging their own kingdoms after the constant interference from Rome had ended with the collapse of the western part of the Empire, European societies were able to grow into nations, become more complex and therefore more demanding about the intellectual demands on their own people and, whether through sexual selection initiated by women or through some other factor, began “weeding out” those who were too dumb or wild from the gene pool.

So by around 1500-1600, there existed a civilization with much of the raw energy of a primitive people but now harnessed and directed to intellectual and artistic ends, ready to make a gigantic mark on the world.

The point is that primitive peoples are like stores of raw energy or pools of potential that can, in the right circumstances, be transformed into a flourishing of civilization that even outdoes what groups with higher (or previously higher) IQ’s have accomplished. The white IQ might have increased during that transition from tribal chieftainships to modern states, with the selection pressures that such a transition brings.

Spengler believed that Western civilization was becoming old and sclerotic, ready either to dissipate or, like East Asia, ossify for a very long time, its main ideas having already mostly been expressed. He saw Russia as the next civilization to rise, since it was in that nether phase of being quite brutal compared to Western Europe and its descendant nations overseas, but nevertheless already being quite tamed.

Perhaps this explains why Europe, for centuries, has had a visceral fear of Russia, from the Great Game in the 19th century to the Nazi invasion and destruction of the country down to the present-day Establishment fear of Russia and Putin. Perhaps there is a sense that if Russia can break free of the West and get its act together, its potential is great, and in time – centuries perhaps – Russia could eclipse the ever-more sclerotic West.

But even more long-term, if this theory is correct, I can see Latin America rising as a major civilization. It would have to go through centuries of real nationbuilding first as Europe did in the Dark Ages and High Medieval Period into the Renaissance, but there is certainly great natural vigor among Latin American peoples, already somewhat tempered by the widespread infusion of Spanish and Portuguese (not to mention some German and other European) genes in those populations.

Perhaps in a millennium, when the raw potential has been converted into actionable works through a combination of genetic selection and cultural controls, Latin America will be a great civilization offering new artistic and scientific insights to the world and perhaps being expansionist, as civilizations born of wild people getting their act together tend to be. There seems to be a golden mean when a people is no longer too primitive but not yet too domesticated when that people makes its mark.

Which brings me to Africa. Africa today is comparable to Germania in Roman times: getting the first inklings of advanced civilization from the West, which had often mistreated it, and struggling to form real nations in the face of their own enormous divisions and external interference. Africans are chaotic but also wildly creative, especially musically – and music is the closest thing to the human Will or Engine of Life, as Schopenhauer teaches.

Africa in the coming centuries and millennia could go through a filtering that eliminates from the gene pool many of the wildest elements, for example through frequent warfare and sexual selection by women who demand more intelligent mates, as it becomes obvious that the trajectory of society is toward greater complexity.

The continued presence of Christianity and Islam are likely also beneficial for taming the most wild spirit of Africa, whose people are truly at present the most primal version of mankind. But in the intervening centuries or millennia some new religion might come along in Africa as shape the minds of the people as Christianity did to the Europeans during Roman times.

I would think that the Africans, in maybe a millennium or two, after the Slavic nations and the Latin American peoples have “come online” so to speak in the procession of great civilizations, could become the culmination of human civilization, since they are starting with the most raw energy that, were it tamed, would entail the greatest outpouring of intellectual and artistic – i.e. civilizational – creativity that humans could produce.

But a great deal of selection pressure and cultural maturation would be required before this could happen.

Later this century, Africans are expected to comprise ~40% of the global population and with demographic decline occurring in many of the advanced countries, the West could be swamped with Africans and could, over time, even dissipate as a distinct culture. This event would be comparable to the barbarians overwhelming the western portion of the Roman Empire and precipitating the Dark Ages.

But this fits not only my thesis but also the Spenglerian model to which it is mostly in debt. The ensuing collapse of the West could be the opening that Slavic nations need in order to truly rise and express themselves fully. The development of Africa into a high civilization is a process I expect to take many centuries amid the vicissitudes of other civilizations rising and falling.

As for current White civilization which is headed by “The West” or those nations descended from or heavily influenced by the Germanic peoples, I think we are turning Japanese. We are past the Golden Middle Period and into a period where much of our primal nature remains but is channeled by genetic and cultural discipline and we are in effect slowly evolving into more staid, quiet, competitive – i.e. more Asian-like – peoples.

You can see it with the younger generations who are subject to far more social controls than even I was when younger, and I am not that old. The younger generations seem socially skittish, often autistic, and very different from kids even thirty years ago. Of course much of this is due to technology, but much is also due to our societies becoming increasingly rule-based and micromanaged.

And it is our culture itself that is insisting on this bureaucratization and rationalization of social life, with technology being merely a tool to push this cultural tendency forward.

As one final note, my theory might not work if indeed the different personality types and intelligence levels of the major races cannot change over a millennium or two in such a way that a wilder and less intelligent race can be pared down through social selection to a more disciplined and intelligent race.

If this is not a long enough span of time for such a transition to unfold, then the rise of the Northern and Western European peoples from tribal barbarians 2,000 years ago to the epitome of civilization just a few centuries ago was not due to a lack of enough intelligence to produce such a civilization.

Instead it occurred because this spark already existed during the Roman Empire, except that its expression was limited by a lack of social development until those cultural constraints needed to mold it into an advanced civilization had taken shape.

If this was true, then difference between the primitive culture and the high civilization it became was sociocultural, not genetic.

But even if this were true, it could mean that Africa could still rise as a high civilization, only that it will take longer, since a lot of not sexual but social selection would have to occur in order for this to happen.

Hitler Cared Nothing At All about Economics

Hitler didn’t give two shits about class, economics, rich versus poor, or any of that. He was a true nationalist. If you were a true loyal German or Aryan, he loved you to death. About the economics, he didn’t care. He couldn’t be less interested. They gave him economic plans and he just threw them back and them and said, “You do it. I don’t care about this stuff! I care about Germany!” He only purged the Nazi Left (including the Nazi Communists!) in the Night of the Long Knives because the junkers and industrialists ordered him to do it else they would not support him.

There were some major components to German society:

Junkers– Large landowners – I guess they’ve done a land reform now?

Industrialists – The usual, with the usual interests. Hitler said make what I tell you, I’ll buy it, and you’ll do fine. Industrialists said ok, will do.

Military, especially military officers – They were rich, conservative, and anti-Semitic. They had to be appeased.

All of them had to be appeased. Hitler had to convince all of them to go along with his program or it would die. He convinced them. The rest, as they say, is history.

Even Genocidal Maniacs Have Sensitive Stomachs

Contrary to popular nonsense, Hitler didn’t invent anti-Semitism. Germany was already crazy anti-Semitic ten years before he was in power.

I remember that Goering went to university in 1921 and none of the German Gentiles would have anything to do with German Jews. It was that bad. Goering that that was stupid and joined the swim team that was full of Jews. He couldn’t care less about Jews. Goering was never a personal antisemite. But he went along with it anyway on a “just following orders” basis and the deaths of many Jews lay at his feet. If you’re Jewish and dead, I don’t think it matters whether he was a personal antisemite or not.

The German military in particular was very anti-Semitic, especially the officers.  But in the war, the military was probably the least anti-Semitic part of the regime. The reason the Einstazgruppen were created was because originally they gave the job to regular soldiers and it wasn’t working.

There was lots of insubordination, faking sick leave, and of those who did it, a lot of hatred for what they did and PTSD. It was a big fail. So they created the Waffen SS – the Nazi Party part of the Army – to do the things the soldiers would not do. The Einsatzgruppen were created out of a lot of SS men and fanatical volunteers. They were the ones who killed all the Jews in the USSR because no one else had the stomach for it.

About the gas chambers and ovens, it’s weird that genocidal maniacs have sensitive stomachs to gross things like death and corpses as they traffic in them so much. At first they were just lining Jews up against walls and shooting them in Europe. Goebbels of all people witnessed one of these mass shootings and became absolutely hysterical. He completely lost it, screaming, yelling, crying, breaking down. He didn’t mind killing people. He just wanted it done in a nice, sterilized fashion where it looked more like an entry in an accounting book than a coldblooded murder.

So they created the death camps. Some notorious ones in the East like Sobibor were more extermination camps than concentration camps. They were just shooting them or even hanging them there and then burying them in mass graves in the fields. Goebbels came to visit one day. Turns out there were so many decomposing bodies in those graves that the ground itself was heaving up and down like some horror movie.

Goebbels saw the ground heaving up and down like that and was told why that was happening and once again, he completely flipped and lost it. Poor guy was a mass murderer, but he was a genocidal monster with a sensitive stomach. Germans were civilized people after all. If you’re going to kill people, be as decent and civilized about it as you can.

Eventually mass shootings themselves in favor of gas chambers as a more sterile, civilized, and even humane way to do this. And the problem of the mass graves was taken care of by the ovens. Ash doesn’t decompose badly. And the disgusting task of gathering up the bodies and putting them in incinerators was given over to Jews themselves (“capos”) as even concentration camp guards (almost all SS) themselves were known for their sensitive stomachs or at least civilized sensibilities.

Alt Left: A Reasonable Project for “Soft” Taiwanese Independence to Assuage PRC Fears

Vicmund the Han: What do you think of Taiwanese based on your observations?

You’re going to hate me for saying this, but I think they should go independent. But I would like a peace treaty with China beforehand, an economic agreement, CCP military bases in Taiwan dual staffed, Taiwanese military bases in China dual-staffed, perhaps some sort of integration military or econonomic-wise like the CIS or better yet, Belarus. Transform it into a deep alliance and work together. The radical independencists will have to be sidelined.

The main thing is to make it so an independent Taiwan is not a military threat to China. No US military bases in Taiwan, integration of both nations’ policies towards the US and maybe on a lot of other things. Brotherly countries with a strong alliance who agree to disagree on certain things, but when they do, they are “brotherly opposition.”

There is only one China. There are two countries, Taiwan and China. Taiwan is not China. It’s Taiwan. The only China is the People’s Republic. Two Chinas policy was insane, but one China policy is crazy too as it says that Taiwan doesn’t even exist!

The problem is that most  Chinese, including the CCP, are stark raving nuts about this question, so I am really worried that they will not want to put this project into effect. China sees Taiwan as a rebellious province of China. Well, it’s a part of China that fought a war and  achieved their independence from China via military might. So it’s not a rebellious province anymore. It’s like Eritrea split off from Ethiopia. It’s a new country.

Chinese nationalism is ok in a sense, but it’s also ethnic nationalism in a sense and it’s definitely ultranationalism in a revanchist way. You can’t go back and retake land you lost in wars. That’s what those world wars were all about. Irredentism and revanchism have got to go. Chinese nationalism suffers from a lot of the insanities, toxicities, and mental disorders of any nationalism. It is fascist in a sense that all extreme nationalisms or patriotardisms are, though only in a very broad sense of wanting a restoration of a Chinese empire.

It’s nation-state nationalism or patriotardism like exists in many countries, including the US.  It differs from almost all fascisms in not being ethnic-based and in not being part of a nation-building project where all non-Chinese Han/non-Mandarin speakers have to turn into Chinese Mandarin-speaking Hans. They all have to get rid of their languages, ethnic identities, and religions and cultures and become Hans in a sense. Chinese nationalism doesn’t work like that.

It’s inclusive rather than exclusive, offers autonomy instead of forced assimilation, and retains in a sense the notion of self-determination of nations in that nations in  China are free to  speak their languages, practice  their cultures and religions, etc. Pretty typical of the national policies of many Communist countries, though certainly not all of them! It’s more like Soviet nationalism. The Soviets went after breakaway provinces too you know.

Eastern Europe was quite hostile to minority languages, ethnicities, and cultures. Polish and Yugoslavian nationalisms were nation-building projects. I’m not sure how minorities were treated in Slovakia (Hungarians), Romania (Germans), etc. There was much persecution of the Rusyns in Poland, ethnic Germans everywhere, and Italians and Chakavian-speaking Istrians on the islands in Croatia after World War 2 of course. They were accused of siding with the enemy.

Alt Left: The Young Turks’ Nation-building Process Killed Almost As Many People As the Holocaust

Rambo: What about the Armenians? Since you didn’t mention them, and the Armenians always insist they be mentioned or you’re insensitive to Turkish genocide against them in 1915 and thereabouts, could it be said that the Ottoman Turk empire is in denial regarding its’ treatment of Armenians or not? Your thoughts would be most instructive.

Yes, the Turks are absolutely in denial of the genocide of the Armenians (2.5 million people!) along with the genocide of the Assyrians (1.75 million people!) and the genocide of the Greeks (725,000 people!). All of these occurred in roughly the same time-frame and coincided with the Young Turks’ nation-buidling project after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In part, the massacres also coincided with World War 1.

If you notice, it’s no coincidence that all three were Christians. In the process of nation-building, the Turks simply slaughtered the vast majority of the Christians in Anatolia. This was done under the rubric of them being 5th columnists and traitors and working with the enemy during wartime (World War 1), but there was never really any truth to that.

Even Ataturk condemned the massacres in 1924, saying they were crimes against humanity. As you can see, the Turks massacred 5 million Anatolian Christians, mostly in the space of 10 years, 1915-1925, with most of the killings happening at the beginning of the period. The Turks like to call this mutual ethnic conflict, with both sides massacring each other, but there’s no truth to that. The Anatolian Armenians and Assyrians hardly killed a single Turk, and the Greeks killed a mere 15,000 Turks, all in response to 700,000 of their own getting killed.

As a result of these massacres, Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks are quite scarce in Turkey now, whereas they used to have large populations – the Armenians and Assyrians mostly in the East, with the Assyrians bordering Syria, Iraq, and Iran where they lived alongside Kurds and the Armenians bordering the Russian Empire and the Caucasus. The Greeks were mostly living in the Far West in Izmir.

The Greek massacres are disgustingly referred to as “population exchanges,” as most Turks left Greece, and most Greeks left Turkey.

The slaughters of Hindus and Muslims in British India at the beginning of independence and the nakba of the Palestinians in 1947-48 are also disgustingly referred to as “population exchanges.” Very nice, liberal Jewish people will look you right in the eye and talk about “the population exchanges” during this time, but there was a difference. The Arabs didn’t want to leave their lands and wish to go back, and the Jews of the Arab World were more than happy to take off and don’t want to go back. So it’s not the same thing at all.

Every time you hear some Indian, Turkish, or Jewish jerk talking calmly about “population exchanges” as if they were some sort nice human swap meet keep in mind that that phrase is always hiding behind massive ethnic cleansings and massacres, even worse, typically genocides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Syrian Kurds are Leftists of the Libertarian socialist type.

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

The Iranian Kurds are also Leftists.

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty

This is a nice old post about Colin Flaherty. I like it and I think it’s worth a repost.

The problem is that Colin Flaherty’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No, really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense.

89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes, Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low-level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh, what nonsense.

But if you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the outgroup or the other guys, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks, and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off by Serbian lies that “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were all predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people. Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust.

Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over, and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter. Remind you of anything? Afghanistan, anyone?

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.”

It was only years or even decades later that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists, which is always the general message of anti-Communist slaughters.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us,” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too, you know. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people, and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular.

And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence, and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and  decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Greg, Tulio, and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong. They live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

Alt Left: The Fatal Flaws of Libertarianism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: An Analysis of the Armenian and Greek Genocides in Anatolia in 1915-1923: The Truth of the Events and Number of Victims

From 1915-1923, a few massacres were committed against the Christians of Anatolia. There were three genocides: an Armenian genocide, an Assyrian genocide, and a Greek genocide.

I just did a significant amount of research on the events and numbers around these events. I did it because Turks on the Internet were claiming that Armenians started the fighting by slaughtering Turks.

There were also posts from Turks talking how if things got bad in Turkey, Armenians and Greeks would start slaughtering Turks. I work in mental health, and this is clear and naked projection. They’re accusing Armenians and Greeks of doing to Turks everything the Turks did to the Armenians and Greeks. Most Turks on the Net absolutely hate Armenians and use the word “Armenian” to mean something like “the worst enemies of the Turkish people ever.”

So I did some basic research on the events. I was especially confused by the Turkish claims that these events started when  Armenians in Anatolia started massacring Turks, and Turks were just fighting back. Were they right? Of course I had always believed the Armenian side of the story, but what if they were wrong and the Turks were right? As I am extremely open-minded person (far more open-minded than most people), I had to find out.

First, the numbers. They’re wrong. Way off, all of them. The official figures run from 700,000 to 1.8 million. Simply by adding up all of the totals listed on Wikipedia, I got 2.5 million Armenian victims of the Turks in this period.

Now, I did include some massacres that occurred before the actual genocide because I felt that they were all part of some larger event, a slo-mo Armenian genocide that lasted from 1880-1923. I believe there was a slaughter of 300,000 in the 1880’s amidst similar Turkish recriminations as I outlined above: “The Armenians were killing our people, so we had to fight back.” And possibly another with 25,000 number of victims around 1908. And the killings absolutely extended to into the 1920’s until 1923.

I had previously thought that there were 40,000 Turkish civilians killed by Armenians in retaliation, but now I cannot find that data. What I did find what that Russian Cossaks killed 45,000 Turkish civilians in a Turkish river valley in 1916.

2.5 million Armenian civilians killed by Turks (as aggression).

0? Turkish civilians killed by Armenians (as retaliation).

I also checked on the Turkish claim that Armenians started it. No, they didn’t. Incidentally, it seems like most of the genocide occurred in maybe a couple of years – 1915-1916. The rest of the years were more like window dressing.

The Turks claimed that Armenians killed Turkish soldiers when Russia invaded Turkey in the east in 1914. This is correct. There were quite a few Armenians in that force. These were Armenian volunteer battalions that also included Assyrians and Greeks. They numbered 40,000.

They had been treated terribly by the Ottomans over centuries of land, food, and business theft, beatings, jailings, tortures, murders, pogroms, and massacres. So these were Christians living in Russia who were out for some paybacks due to Ottoman crimes. I had previously thought that Turkish civilians were killed in this battle, but now I can’t find any data.

This was during a battle in late 1914 in which the Turks were beaten badly by a Russian invading force in the East. The Turks blamed the Armenians for their loss in the battle, but the real cause was that the Turks fought the battle very poorly, and the Russians fought it in a much smarter way. It was a fair fight.

The loss of this battle was humiliating for the Turks, and they quickly accused Armenians in Anatolia of stabbing them in the back and causing their defeat.

This is exactly  what Hitler said about Jews that set off the Holocaust – that German Jews had stabbed Germany in the back, causing it to lose the war. It wasn’t true and neither was the Turkish claim, but it worked. Turks quickly demonized Armenians and other Christians in Turkey and scapegoated them. Which is once again exactly what the Nazis did to Jews.

The Turks used the paranoia set off by this event to set off the genocide of the Armenians (and Assyrians and Greeks) in Anatolia on the grounds that they were some sort of infidel 5th Column in wartime and hence were dangerous traitors. There’s not a lot of evidence that this was true.

These massacres were committed by the Russian Army, not the Armenians of Turkey, and neither is there evidence that the Armenians sympathized with the invaders. Interestingly, around this time, many Turkish Armenians became patriots and either joined or tried to join the Turkish Army to fight the invaders. This is left out of many accounts.

I also looked into the Greek genocide and got a figure of 715,000, larger than most estimates. Greek retaliation killings were only 15,000, and all occurred years after the initial slaughter of the Greeks.

715,000 Greeks killed by Turks (as aggression).

15,000 Turkish civilians killed by Greeks (in retaliation).

Which number is bigger? Which represents the much larger crime?

I haven’t gotten to the Assyrian genocide yet, figures of which seem to be between the Greek and Armenian numbers.

Maybe in an upcoming post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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