“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.

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.


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.

Alt Left: The Fencing of the Commons: Why Displacement of Small Farmers and Theft of Their Land Is Necessary for the Development of Capitalism

In England, the poor and peasants lived off what was called The Commons. This was royal land but they didn’t have much use for it other than foxhunting, so they didn’t care. People had enough to eat and often made a lot of their stuff or bought it from nearby tradesmen. There was a small capitalist economy made up of selling agricultural produce, meat, and mostly the small tradesmen, most of whom didn’t even hire labor. There were hardly any hired laborers because everyone had all they needed.

The capitalists decided that they needed to develop a capitalist economy. They had a  problem. No workers. All of the workers were living off the land doing fine on their own. The capitalists would have to  drive them off the land, proletarianize and impoverish them in large cities, where they would make up the reserve army of labor Marx’s discusses.

So the Commons was fenced off. The people lost all their livelihood because they no longer had any land to live off. They moved to the cities as an impoverished, downtrodden, often starving proletariat, where they formed large miserable slums. Crime rose. The capitalists starated building factories in the cities. With this newfound reserve army of labor, the capitalists now had captured workers who had their livelihood tied to their job at the factory. The capitalists waved the threat of impoverishment and starvation over anyone who complained.

A similar thing actually happened in the American West and in fact this was how capitalism in the American West actually developed, believe it or not. Herders versus farmers wars, common in the West and still in many parts of the world (Sudan, Northern Nigeria) are similar in that they also involve driving farmers off the land but also quite different as the land is taken over to grazing by herders.  But now this new landless class or former landholders was proletarianized and stuck as a reserve army of labor for the development of capitalism in the West.

A similar thing was done with the railroads. The government was getting very worried about all of the people who were just living off the land on their own. At first, the state gave people small plots because this helped in the theft of land from the Indians which was essential for the development of the nation.

But by the late 1800’s this had become a liability. So vast tracts of land were given to the railroads before homesteaders could snap them up. In this way, the development of rural self-sufficiency in the countryside could be slowed and the creation of a large impoverished, hungry class of workers could form in the city slums to serve as the reserve army of labor for the development of capitalism in the West. Until recently, Southern Pacific had large landholdings in the West.

Alt Left: Zionism Has Turned Some of the Best People into Some of the Worst People, and This Is Sad

I would like to point out that outside the Zionist political formation and state in Israel, the Jews are not responsible for many if any deaths. They’re hardly killers, and much less murderous genociders.

This is what their involvement with Zionism has done to the Jews: it has turned this relatively pacific people into murderous and genocidal maniacs.

Jews peaceful? Sure. Look at the quiet dignity and altruistic, even self-sacrificing manner in which the Jews went to their deaths in World War 2. The Holocausted Jews are close to the definition of “pure victims,” who did little if anything wrong to justify their persecution and extermination.

I am not commending the way that the Jews went to their deaths. They were mostly blindsided. There were armed Jewish resistance groups, mostly in Poland, Belarus, and the Ukraine. Jews were probably members of most of the anti-Nazi resistance groups in Europe.

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto waged a hopeless if supremely noble act of resistance. But there was an air of supreme self-sacrifice or pure victimhood in this battle too. These Jews in Warsaw knew they were headed to their deaths but decided to go down fighting rather than be taken peacefully. This is among the most noble ways a man can die.

Of course I would have preferred if the Jews fought back more, but as I said, they were mostly blindsided. The non-Jews in the Nazi-conquered areas didn’t fight back much more than Jews. The Nazis quickly overran all of these countries and were in control almost before any resistance could appear. They ruled with iron control.

I am not “blaming Jews” for going placidly to their deaths like sheep either. If the 70 years since the establishment of Israel has shown us anything, it is that Jews are definitely fighters and are quite capable of killing their enemies to survive.

I am only saying that the way in which they solemnly marched to their deaths approaches “pure innocence,” oddly enough a Christian trait. The Jews who did this were nearly saintly in their ultimate self-sacrifice, especially the doomed fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto, who should be  revered as some of the finest of men .

I am sure many Jews will object to being compared with their worst enemies, the Christians. Fine, this is how they are. Let them rage on. This is their nature – to see faults and enemies everywhere every time a non-Jews breaches the subject of the Jews. Jews are nothing if not paranoid. That it’s understandable doesn’t mean it’s not disordered.

However, I would like to point out that there are extremely noble aspects to the Christian faith, and it’s a much more morally demanding religion than Judaism, acknowledged by Jews themselves in their many jokes about Christians being goody-goods, fools, suckers and knaves who act so good that they harm themselves. But even there, we see the ultimate self-sacrifice embedded in the Christian religion.

I don’t care what Jews say. The Christian notions of ultimate self-sacrifice, pure innocence, and the saintliness that ensues is one of the crowning moral achievements of the human race. Everyone knows Christians are too good for their own good. That’s as clear as air. But it’s also paradoxically the entire rationale for the religion in the first place. As the Jewish convert Saint Simone Weil* noted, it’s pretty easy to be a Jew, but its awful hard to be a Christian.

Christianity is one of the most morally demanding religions, and this is its Achilles Heel. Most humans are simply not good enough to be good Christians. People don’t want to be that good. They want to be a bit bad instead. But a religion that demands the ultimate in self-sacrificing morality can hardly be faulted. Someone who is too good for his own good is still a very, very good person, let’s face it.

What I am saying here is that a lot of the behavior of the Jews during the Holocaust resembles saintliness, a moral pinnacle for human behavior. Yes, many of them died. But they died by being some of the finest people on Earth.

And here is the saddest thing about Zionism. Zionism has turned Jews into their worst enemies in the name of survival. It turned some of the finest people on Earth in terms of pure saintliness into murderers and genociders. And this is a very sad thing.

Jews and Communism Redux

Polar Bear: What little Communist literature I’ve read seemed very pro-German, Ehrenberg?

I don’t understand. Ilya Ehrenberg was one of the most anti-German people who ever lived.

However, after the war, the USSR had excellent relations with East Germany. Communism was quite popular in East Germany, and nostalgia for the GDR is still a big thing there. A lot of people reminisce about the old days and are not happy with the new capitalism. A lot of West German Leftists left and moved to East Germany after the war. Incredible, isn’t it? People actually moving to a Communist country.

Of course Marx was extremely pro-German. He was a German man after all. Marx didn’t really consider himself to be a Jew. Neither did Trotsky. That’s just bullshit made up by anti-Communist antisemites, which is like 95% of them. Pro-Communist or Communist antisemites are rare indeed, despite the blatherings of super Jews, anti-Communist Jews, hardcore Zionists, and other professional liars.

Polar Bear: No, I believe it was Engels. He was also very soft on Jews.

Ha ha ever read The Jewish Question by Marx (1843)? It’s hard to read but a lot of super-Jews really hate the paper. They think it’s antisemitic. I don’t think it really is. It’s anti-Jewish religion. He says there is no Jewish religion – all the religion is is capitalism and love of money ha ha. Good times, good times! Marx didn’t like Christianity either. He didn’t like any religion. I don’t think he disliked Jews ethnically. After all he was Jewish himself. Marx’s father was a rabbi!

Polar Bear: Maybe the great unifier early on was Jews.

There were not that many Communists from Marx’s death until the Russian revolution. The early pre-Soviet Communists were not particularly Jewish. Stalin was a bank robber. Lenin spent most of his time abroad in Germany. They were all wanted men.

Yes, there were a lot of Jews among the early Bolsheviks, but in 1917, 70% of Russian Jews voted for the Zionist party, not the Communists. Also the other socialist parties were also full of Jews. But almost all of the popular parties in 1917 were Left. It was just a question of how far left people were going to go. Most of the Russian people were dirt poor workers or peasants and they were all for the Left.

Hardly anyone wanted the old Royalists back. There were definitely pro-royalists all right though. Those were the Whites in the Russian Civil War. But they lost. Even the Russian Army and especially the Intelligence Services all went over to the Reds.

And the Whites killed a lot of Jews during the Civil War. The Reds probably hardly killed any. Even in the USSR, yes, Jews were prominent in some fields. The NKVD ended up being very Jewish in the 1930’s, but it was run by a Georgian named Beria.

Old Soviets said that ethnicity never mattered in the USSR. You were not supposed to care or talk about things like that. A lot of Jews just drifted into that position at that time for whatever reason. A lot of Russian Jews really hated the Czar, so quite a few of them took to Communism well. But the majority of the people in the USSR supported the Communists. How do you think they won the war?

And there were just as many Latvians as Jews among the early Bolsheviks. Does anyone  talk about evil Bolshevik Latvians? Of course not. It’s like the old adage: Maybe one out of ten Jews is a radical, but five out of ten radicals are Jews. Get it?

Polar Bear: Seems like a lot the men that married Jews ended up hating them.

I don’t know about that. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 5 1/2 years. She was kind of a bitch and she sort of talked down to me and yelled at me a lot to the point that even other women were complaining about how she treated me.

But she adored me and she was a real “stand by your man” and “live your life through your man” type. Almost like a Filipina or Thai woman in that sense. I never expected Jewish women to be like that maybe a lot of them are. They also have a reputation for being nurturing.

As an aside, there are a lot more “stand by your man” and “live your life through your man” types than you think. It’s fairly normal if she’s crazy in love with you. Maybe it helps to be goodlooking too, no idea.

The people who don’t like Jewish women are Jewish men ha ha. I’m not sure if Gentile men even care that much. There’s sort of a war going on between Jewish men and women, sort of like the war between Black men and women.

And I don’t know if it was a factor in Marr’s case.

I think Marr is hilarious. Guy married three different Jewish women, divorces all of them and then forms the Anti-Semitic League, the first openly anti-Jewish organization in modern history. Ha ha! I have no idea what effect his wives had on him. Maybe none. But it is pretty funny just to tell the story because it seems like his Jewish wives drove him so insane that he founded the first modern anti-Jewish organization.

Lulz all around!

Alt Left: Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor on the Immoral Killing of the Iranian General

I am very happy to print this piece by Mr. Ferencz.

However, I have to tell you a few things about Ferencz. First of all, of course, he’s Jewish. Well, you probably figured that out.

Though I appreciate his judge duties at Nuremberg, that’s not all there is to this man. He was involved in rounding up many of the people who were sent to trial in Nuremberg. He was out in the field helping forces to detain suspects. In many cases, he went out to villages and he would line up say 20 villagers and say that if they didn’t tell the truth about their involvement in Nazi war crimes, he would shoot them all in the end. So a lot of the confessions he obtained were coerced.

Ferencz ferociously defended his methods of obtaining confessions by threatening people with execution if they didn’t confess. I don’t agree with that. I don’t agree that you point a gun at anyone’s head and order them to confess or you blow their brains out. Screw that. I don’t care if they’re Nazis. I don’t care if they’re terrorists. I don’t care if they’re serial killers or child murderers. You don’t get to do stuff like that.

As I noted, 98% of the ~530 top Nazis interrogated by US Jewish interrogators had their testicles crushed. So all of those confessions were coerced too. I don’t agree with coercing confessions with beatings, torture, or threats of executions. For one thing, the person’s confession is now immediately suspect because you beat or tortured it out of him.

By doing this, Jews gave a ton of ammo to Holocaust Deniers who can point to these coerced confessions and use it to justify their Holocaust Denial. Way to go, Jews! Give ammo to the Nazis! Once again, Jews react completely emotionally and screw things up, in this case the prosecution of their very worst enemies.

Personally, I think it was a terrible idea for the US to employ Jewish interrogators for the worst Nazis. What was the point? It was so obvious that these Jews were going to beat or torture these men, often drastically. So why do we want to do that? This just sounds like paybacks on the part of the US. That was emotional thinking. It was bad strategic thinking from our point of view.

Anyway, he has a good point about Soleimani.

Former Nuremberg War Crimes Prosecutor on the Immoral Killing of the Iranian General

Below is timely letter to the New Your Times by Benjamin B. Ferencz, who was chief prosecutor at Nuremberg. What is required is the establishment of a Nuremberg 2.0 Criminal Court to judge US war crimes. As pointed out by Benjamin B., the ICC and the ICJ are being bypassed.

Global Research, January 22, 2020
New York Times 15 January 2020


To the Editor:

Now in my hundredth year, I cannot remain silent. I entered the United States in January 1921 as a poor immigrant boy, and I have felt obliged to repay the United States for the opportunities given to me.

I was an American combat soldier in World War II, and was proud to serve my country as the chief prosecutor in a war crimes trial at Nuremberg against Nazi leaders who murdered millions of innocent men, women and children.

The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had “taken out” (which really means “murdered”) an important military leader of a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.

The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to law.

Benjamin B Ferencz

Alt Left: None of Us Are Dindus: Ronald Biggs and the Sex Pistols, “No One Is Innocent”

I was thinking about Mithridates’ response to the Chmielnicki thread, which tragically implied that most if not all of the Jews killed in the peasant revolts of Eastern Europe pretty much had it coming for acting as tax farmers for the nobles and hence perfectly appropriate targets for an peasant revolt against feudalism. Sure, leave the Jewish women, kids, and old men out of it – except who ever does that in a war, especially 350 years go.

Anyway this made me feel very bad. Those Jews were killed in terrible ways and all my life I’ve been told that the Jews of Europe were dindus who dindu nuffin and just got picked on by mean Gentile antisemite Nazis. Turns out a lot of them asked for their own brutal fate. But that doesn’t make me happy. It makes me so sad. I don’t know but it just does.

And the first thing I thought is fuck this dindu crap. Fuck this we dindu nuffin shit.

What I mean by screw this dindu crap is: Goddamn it, none of us are dindus! You know how many of us dindu nuffins! Zero fucking percent, that’s how many!

Which reminds me of a song by the Sex Pistols. A man named Ronald Biggs helped participate in the Great Train Robbery in the UK in 1964. He hightailed it to Brazil. Brazil has no extradition treaty with the UK, so he’s been living it up down there laughing at the world and giving us all the finger the whole time. Well, good on him. I might do the same.

The Great Train Robbery? They stole lots and lots of money, so good on them. They became something of these Robin Hood type folk criminals, though if you research the case, they’re just dirty psychopaths and criminal scums as you might expect.

And though I wanted to love the romantic story myself because I’m kind of an asshole who hates all authority figures, when I read about it, I thought again. A man defending the money stash on the train was not killed, but he was very badly hurt. Maybe for a long time. Well, screw that. I’m not going to cheer on the Great Train Robbery anymore, thank you very much.

Also I read up on Biggs’ life down in Brazil, and of course, being a psychopath, he lived the typical life of a total psychopath down there in Brazil. Duh. And keep in mind this is Brazil, where psychopathy is virtually normal. He acted real bad down there, got into constant trouble, and was basically a huge dick. Which logically follows of course from him being a psychopath. Because, you know, psychopaths gotta psycho. It’s what they do.

Well, the Sex Pistols, after the first album, decided, just to be total assholes, which we already knew they were anyway, to go down to Brazil and record a song with Ronald Biggs. Biggs recorded a song with them called “No One Is Innocent.” Which is the fitting coda to this silly blog post in which I point out that none of us are dindus, even though we all think we are:

Fuck it, man! No one is innocent! We’re all guilty, dammit!

Which is awful damn Christian, now that you think about it, no?

God save the sex pistols they’re a bunch of wholesome blokes
They just like wearing filthy clothes and swapping filthy jokes
God save television keep the programs pure
God save William Grundy from falling in manure

Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he’s seen the light and he sold his soul to punk

God save Martin Boorman and Nazis on the run
They wasn’t being wicked God that was their idea of fun
God save Myra Hindley God save Ian Brady
Even though he’s horrible and she ain’t what you call a lady

Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he’s seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he’s seen the light and he sold his soul to punk

God save politicians God save our friends the pigs
God save Idi Amin and god save Ronald Biggs
God save all us sinners God save your blackest sheep
God save the good Samaritan and God save the worthless creep

Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he’s seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he’s seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
Sold his soul Sold his soul Sold his soul to punk

Jews As Tax-Farmers for the Royals and Anti-Jewish Pogroms in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

From my comments on the Chmielnicki Rebellion:

RL: These impoverished Jews: Were they working as tax farmers and moneylenders for the Lords, or were only the rich Jews doing that? If they were not working as tax farmers and moneylenders, how were these poor Jews supporting themselves?

If they ended up targeting only poor Jews in the Chmielnicki rebellion (which I’m not sure was the case, as half the Jews in Poland were killed), weren’t these poor Jews a bit at fault for not joining the peasant rebellion?

Remember that Chmielnicki the horrible evil Nazi antisemite from Hell had actually called upon the Jews of Poland to come join him in his battle against the nobles. And all the Jews, rich and poor, blew him off. So basically they sided with the nobles, both rich and poor Jews did. Doesn’t seem very smart of them.

I think the problem with Jewish moneylenders was that it was pretty common for serfs to get totally underwater with their debts for obvious reasons, and the Jews were quite vicious about trying to get their money back. And when you can’t pay back your loans, you might get pretty angry at the guy who loaned the money who won’t get off your case now.

In response, Mithridates, one of my favorite commenters, responds:

Mithridates: I need to brush up more on my history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which at its greatest extent was quite massive in size and included much of Eastern Europe west of the steppes.

Re: the tax-farming bit, I imagine it was hierarchical, as in the rich Jews being the ones arranging the sweet deals in the noble’s castles, the less rich Jews serving as middle managers for the operation, and then the poor Jews being the ground-level lackeys who interfaced directly with (i.e. harassed and scammed) the lowly Slav peasant schleps, i.e. sold the them vodka and all sorts of misc. schlock and did whatever else they could to wring some extra kopeks out of them.

Oy vey, what a miserable situation indeed.

In the case of peasant revolts, I think the boss Jews knew where their bread was buttered. And toward the waning days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, things got real fun and dicey with the various Cossack revolts (which the rapidly-expanding Russian Empire probably lent a lot of covert support to).

Them Cossacks sure hated Jews and enjoyed killing them in batches, though funnily enough a few of the Cossack leaders might have been half-Jewish. Those were some wild times out on the fringes of civilization.

Dammit, Jews! Why do you always have to keep acting bad! Here I am, trying to be nice and condemn these horrible pogroms and be a good Judeophile, and then I learn that the Jews back then acted so terrible that a lot of them out and out deserved their fate. Damn! Here I am, trying not to be an antisemite, and you darn Jews keep trying to stop me and force me back to the dark side. What am I ever going to do about you folks?


So all the Jews in the peasant rebellions pretty much asked for it, as they were all tax-farming for the nobles. Well in case any were not, they should have been spared. And the Jewish women, kids, and old men should have been spared. And they should have killed the tax-farmer Jews cleanly. Line em up and shoot em. They had muskets then, right? I’m quite sure instead that they chopped them to pieces and all sorts of other horrible stuff.

On the other hand, it’s pretty hard to morally police a peasant rebellion.

“There’s a Little Jew in Every German”

Jason: In the new antisemitism – maybe post-Darwin – it’s all about race, so the Jew who coverts doesn’t make a difference.

This was one of the saddest things about the Nazi type of racial antisemitism or new antisemitism. A lot of European Jews, especially in Germany, had converted out of Judaism – usually to Christianity – and the Nazis rounded them up anyway if they had a Jewish mother.

And in Germany a lot of Jews had converted out, often to Protestantism. There’s a saying in Germany, “There’s a little Jew in every German,” and it’s true to an extent. Which makes the Holocaust even more weird because it was basically very watered-down Jews (Nazis) calling much more pure Jews (the actual named Jews) “Jews” and killing them. So in a way the Holocaust was Jews killing Jews!

It’s hard to see Nazis as Jews, but I’m sure a lot of them had a little Jewish blood. Jewish blood in Germany was such a huge problem though that the Nazis had to devise all sorts of odd rules about who was a Jew. If your father was a Jew, a lot of times, you just got off scot free. Not necessarily always though.

A huge number of half-Jews served in the German Army, and I there even a figure tossed around that 300,000 half-Jews served in the SS! I’m not sure how true that is, but if it is true, it is shocking because the SS was truly vicious antisemites. The Nazis needed to draw the line somewhere about who was a Jew because otherwise they would have had to kill half the country ha ha.

Alt Left: Standard Antisemitism Is Rightwing and Has Nothing to Offer Me or Any Other Liberal or Progressive Person

Other than the role of Israel in US politics and foreign policy, which is truly malign, as far as any other beefs against Jews that antisemites have, I’m not really into them. Those arguments just don’t resonate with me. I don’t particularly care what Jews do in my country outside of the Israel thing. Who cares!

Antisemitism is rightwing anyway. I get annoyed at Jews’ bullshit, and I like to talk about how they annoy me, but that’s not a matter of hatred. I don’t hate annoying people. They’re not contemptible; they’re just annoying. Two different things.

But as far as the Jews’ bullshit, games, and scams, that’s just them being silly.  All of the rest of us are morons for falling for these silly ethnic games they are playing on us. And if we are falling for their crap, oh well. We deserve whatever we get.

I’m not into Jews’ Endless Victim trip, which is really just Jewish Identity Politics. And I’ll bash Jewish IP on here like I bash any other IP. But I bash all retarded IP’s. Jewish IP isn’t anymore idiotic and nonsensical than all the others. All the IP’s are really the same at the end of the day.

Anyway I don’t hate professional victims. I just think they are complete idiots, and I laugh at them. What sort of a moron spends his whole life wailing about what a victim he is? I hate to use the word, but that’s what a loser does. So all the victim addicts are losers in a sense. They lack the basic pride needed to love themselves enough to not fall into the pathetic victim trap.

Now if your people really are getting fucked over, ok, well, you don’t have much choice. The victim role has been shoved upon you, and owning it is just facing facts.

The classic antisemitic beef has always been rightwing.

I will go over the standard anti-Semitic line as it has been forged for the last 150 years or so, but first I will discuss other things. Prior to that, antisemitism was based on other things.

Some were silly things like Jews killed Jesus. Except Jesus himself was a Jew, and Christians are literally worshiping this Jewish dude as their hero, but never mind that. It’s really sad how many Jews were probably killed for this BS.

Another silly reason was that Jews refused to convert to Christianity. I don’t understand why that’s important at all much, less a reason to kill a man. Obviously this doesn’t resonate with me.

Others were tragic lies like Jews being accused of poisoning village wells during the plague. That’s just made-up BS; it’s not even true. Sadly, many Jews were murdered for this nasty lie.

In the Middle Ages, Jews were often persecuted due to being the visible face of feudal rule. No one saw the feudal lords. The only face of feudal rule your average serf saw were Jewish tax collectors.

Logically, Jews tended to get killed when the usual peasant rebellions took place, except they pretty much deserved it for collecting taxes for the lords, although the Jewish women, children,  old men, and those who were not working for the lords should have been spared. Anti-Jewish pogroms were very ugly things. You don’t even want to know the details.

The modern form of antisemitism is a racial antisemitism which was founded by a German man named Marr in the 1870’s  who founded the Anti-Semitic League. Yep, that’s where we get the term that everyone likes to take apart as being irrational.

Except words and phrases get to be irrational in terms of etymology. Does “You’re pulling my leg literally mean that?” No? Ok, then why say it? In Spanish, you say, “You’re pulling my hair?” Does that make any more sense? Of course not. See what I mean? Words and phrases don’t have to literally make sense. They only have to mean whatever the people who use them say that they mean. #1 rule of a subfield of Linguistics called Semantics.

Oddly enough, Marr had previously married and divorced three separate wives, all Jewish. Hell, that’s probably why he hated Jews right there, ha ha. The general argument of these “new antisemites” or “modern antisemites” was that Jews are anti-nationalists and basically traitors to the homeland. I’m not sure how valid that argument was or is. The Dreyfus Affair is a case in point of this argument.

A lot of Jews fought nobly in World War 1. During Kristallnacht, many Jews put on their WW1 uniforms and went out and stood in front of their shops to try to protect them on the grounds that people would respect the fact that they were patriots. It didn’t work. They got beat up and their stores got burned down anyway. That’s so sad.

There was an argument that a lot of Jews tried to get out of World War 2, but I’m not sure how valid that is. That’s rather low if they did considering that in Europe anyway, we fought on their behalf.

But my father had two close Jewish friends who he met during World War 2.

One man served in the Pacific with my father in Okinawa and then went to China with him after the war. That trip to China was one of the peaks of my father’s life. He talked about it a lot. It was like this wild adventure.

Another served on the European front in Italy and then in Germany with the Liberation. He was there when the death camps were liberated. The US military said that Jewish soldiers didn’t have to go see the death camps if they didn’t want to, but my father’s friend went anyway. It was bad, real bad. No words to describe how bad it was. So two of my father’s Jewish friends served in the war. Doesn’t sound like a lot of them got out of it.

Later, other forms of rightwing antisemitism formed in the 20th Century with these basic arguments.

  1. Jews are Communists and Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution that killed 90 million billion zillion gazillion Russian Christians!!

This one is funny. I supported the Bolshevik Revolution. I’m practically a Goddamned Commie. Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution? Ha ha, thank you very much, Jews! Jews are a bunch of Commies? It’s not true anyway but if it’s true, thank you very much, Jews!

2. Jews push racemixing and are trying to genocide the White race. There’s actually some truth to this. Jews in the US have indeed been trying to make Whites a minority in the US,  or at least some of them have. Some of them have anyway. As one Jew said, “When we get Whites down below 50%, a Nazi government can never come to rise in the US.” See what they are doing? It’s all about self-preservation. They’re not just doing it be evil.

I don’t particularly care about this either than to note that the Jews are engaging in sleazy double standards as usual.

1. Jews all have to marry other Jews and no mixing is allowed or they go extinct.

2. But Whites need panmixia!

So promote racial fidelity for your own group while promoting racial suicide and mixture for  your enemies. Sleazy. But hey, that’s the way they are.

I figure that if Whites are so stupid as to be conned by this by pissant little tribe of humans called Jews (who are no more important than any other pissant tribe like Chechens, Burushaski, Dinka, Tuareg, or what have you) then we deserve whatever they con us into. I have no sympathy for morons. And if we Whites want to mix away and go extinct out of own own free will, which is apparently the case, well then, that’s own choice.

3. Jews promote racial hatred against Whites,  make Whites out to be the bad guys, and promote non-Whites as glorious, perfect people while promoting Whites as devils. Well, that’s awful rich of the Jews to do that considering that they’re obviously White themselves, except they lie as usual and say they’re not.

This is just a stupid Jewish game:

We’re not White (though we are), and we are non-Whites (except we’re not) along with the glorious Browns, Blacks, and Yellows, all fighting the evil White oppressor (which is actually us because we’re White). Except that Jews won’t date or marry these glorious non-Whites they throw themselves in with. Hell, they won’t even live in the same neighborhood with them.

It doesn’t even make sense logically, but a lot of Jewish arguments are like that.

So, more Jewish scamming, double standards, tribal thinking  – the usual crap. But this game is so stupid. I mean if we Whites really cared, we could probably raise a fuss about all this anti-White hatred, except the Jews and their non-White pals call us Nazis when we Whites ask people to please, pretty please not be racist against us.

Well, the Jews are definitely playing a real low game here all right, but I don’t particularly care about White-bashing and anti-White racism. I hardly deal with it, and I just laugh at any non-White who acts racist towards me because, I hate to say it, I actually do feel superior to them deep down inside at that point when they are bashing my race.

But I can see why any racially aware White person, certainly a White nationalist, would have a huge beef against Jews. They have a right to that beef because from these Whites’ POV, Jews are definitely screwing over their people.

Except I’m not a racially aware White or a White nationalist, so I don’t care.

4. Jews promote civil rights, feminism, gay rights, tranny rights, and all sorts of other civil rights stuff to weaken the moral fiber of White society so the Jews can take over and out-compete the Whites. Well, all of those movements were good ideas at least in  theory, so good on the Jews. And I doubt if they did it to weaken us. They probably just did it out of a strong sense of social justice, which Jews have had for a long time now, and that is very noble of them.

The argument also says that Jews promote these divide and conquer movements among Whites while sparing their own kind. Well, that’s not true. Jewish society is full of some of the worst feminists of them all. And it didn’t use to be, but gay and lesbian Jews are on just about every corner. I assume there are plenty of Jewish trannies too, as Jews seem to go in for anything sexually perverse for some reason.

But then you have (((George Soros))) who goes around to White Gentile countries promoting all of these rights moments, including a truly insane feminist group called Femen, which is his baby. Femen is raising the usual Hell that femikooks anywhere raise, mostly in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when Femen tried to set up a chapter in Israel, (((Soros))) refused to fund it.

Now I am very suspicious of this man!

His game:

White Gentile societies need the most divisive radical feminism to turn the men and women against each other (Why do they need this?), while we Jews wouldn’t dare subject our own people to this divisive bullshit.

Ok, this is the sort of thing that the Elders of Zion do in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Promote all this junk for their enemies to divide them while sparing their own kind.

So congratulations Mr. (((Soros)))! You succeeded in being a living example of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes of all! In fact, you appear to have walked right out of the pages of the Protocols, one of the most anti-Jewish books ever written! Brilliant!

Jews act out the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes and then they are shocked! Shocked! When antisemitism logically follows that. They create antisemitism, then they scream and yell about it. That’s dumb, but that’s not a reason to hate them. That’s just these foolish Jews bringing in down on themselves. Why should I hate someone for being self-destructive?

In general, I don’t care that Jews push all these SJW movements, but Mr. (((Soros)))’ behavior is extremely uncool. At any rate, (((Soros))) is not even good for the Jews. The guy’s a one man Antisemitism Manufacturing Plant in the form of a human.

Another thing I want to point out is that the SJW’s are on autopilot now. I doubt if feminism, gay rights, civil rights, tranny rights, and whatever else rights need Jews to push their causes anymore. All the US Jews could take off for Israel or the moon tomorrow, and I am pretty sure that these movements would charge right ahead. That’s because the leadership and bases of these movements is swarming with Gentiles.

5. Jews own the media. Yeah, they do, sort of. And they took it over on purpose. Not to be evil but to protect themselves. And the consequence of this Jewish media is…? What? Other than the Israel-firster stuff, not much.

Further, I do not think the media needs Jews anymore either. The other day, I saw a Canadian paper formerly owned by (((Izzy Asper))), an Israel-firster billionaire who was also a real ratfuck, as you might expect. The paper, The  National Post, is now run by Gentiles.

Well, if you go read that paper, you would think that (((Asper))) never left because the paper reads exactly like it did when (((Asper))) ran it. Still a full-blown Israel-firster paper, but now the Israel-firster articles are all written by Gentiles!

I have seen other papers go from Jewish to Gentile ownership, and not one single thing changes. So I think there is just a “media elite” politics in North America which is shared by all owners, editors, and writers for the MSM, Jews and  Gentiles both. They both push wild SJWism, bash Whites, uphold non-Whites as glorious, and are fanatical Israel-firsters.

6. Jews own Hollywood. Yes, and? Granted, it’s not very democratic, but Hollywood is not nearly as Jewish as it used to be. Many directors and producers now are Gentiles. The Jews still own a lot of the studios, but Gentiles have been forming their own studios lately – Coppola is an excellent example.

Supposedly Jews use Hollywood movies and TV (which is still very Jewish, granted) to push the same stuff – SJWism, anti-White propaganda, reverence for glorious non-Whites, etc. Except Hollywood doesn’t really go along with the Israel-firster stuff, and a number of directors don’t even go along with US imperialism.

And once again, the Gentile directors and producers push all the same themes that the Jewish ones do.  There is a Hollywood elite that has a similar politics shared by both  Jews and Gentiles.

7. Jews make porn. They do. But there are an awful lot of Gentiles making porn now too, right? The industry used to be extremely Jewish in the 1970’s and 80’s – now it is much less so.

But let’s try a thought experiment. All the  US Jews take off for Israel, the moon, Atlantis, wherever. No more Jews. You think the porn industry will go under? Hell no. All the outlets owned by sleazy Jews will be immediately taken over by sleazy Gentiles. Isn’t that obvious? And the Gentiles in porn push all the same sleazy crap: racemixing, Blacks cucking Whites, or whatever.

7. Jews are aggressive, rude, tight, and don’t like non-Jews. A lot of them are. This is particularly the case with the Orthodox and Super Jews like you find in Israel. The more “Jewish” the person is, the more they act in this “Jewy” way. The more assimilated the Jew is, the less they act that way. A lot of Jewish men can definitely be pretty aggressive. The women seem to be less so. After all, they are females.

But that’s not really important. Anyway, exactly how many people actually hate Jews because they are like this? Hell, I know wild Judeophiles who laugh and openly admit that the Jews are obnoxious. And these are people who love Jews.

I’ve also read thousands of antisemites on the web over the years. I haven’t found one yet who actually hated Jews because a lot of them are not real nice. So few if any people are actual antisemites for that reason. I’m sure Jews will call these people antisemites, but they all everyone that.

As far as my opinion goes, at the end of the day, this is just not important. That’s just the petty sociological behavior of a single ethnic group.

Lots of ethnic groups have funny ways of behaving, both good and bad. In many cases, ethnic behavior isn’t important as long as they don’t break the law or seriously disrupt society. Being annoying is nothing. I’m not going to hate some whole race of humans because a lot of them act annoying. That’s a petty issue. It’s hardly a reason to hate a whole ethnic group or race. I imagine most people who feel that Jews act this way feel the same way.

It should be clear now that standard antisemitism is rightwing and has always been rightwing. There’s nothing here for liberals, Leftists, or progressive people.

Chmielnicki Rebellion: A Case of Jewish Self-Centeredness and Hypocrisy

SHI: I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. So the Poles took care of the Jews for more than four centuries? Then one fine day they decide to hand them all over to the Nazis: no questions asked. No refunds. “Go fuck yourselves, Kikes.”

The Poles were not nice to Jews over the centuries. There were definitely pogroms in Poland during that period. I will discuss one rebellion below, and it definitely wasn’t the only one. When the Holocaust came around, Jews had already been dealing with very long-term antisemitism among Poles dating back sometime, possibly at least 300 years.

In the Chmielnicki Rebellion of the 1600’s, the Jews continue to fulminate because half the Jews (100,000 out of 200,000) got killed. That 1/3 of the total population got killed in the rebellion and especially in the subsequent Swedish invasion and conquest is left out.

Furthermore, the leader of this rebellion, a classic peasant rebellion against feudal lords, exhorted the Jews at the beginning of the revolt to come join them. “Oh Jews, come join us in our war against the lords!” They were actually willing to let the Jews fight on their side. Of course the Jews told them to piss off and sided with the lords like they always did. So of course in the anti-feudal rebellion, the allies of the lords, the Jews, indeed got targeted, and rightly so.

Look how shitty the Jews are about this though. “Evil Polish antisemite Nazis murdered one half of our people for no reason!”

Yeah, not really Jews. More like Jews sided with the evil feudalists in an anti-feudal peasant revolt during which, as typical in these revolts, the feudalists tended to get massacred. And what do you know, not only feudalists got massacred in this revolt but so did the sleazeball Jews who lined up with them. And anyway, in the same period. 1/3 of all Poles got massacred anyway! So Poles got slaughtered about as much as Jews did, and for much less of a good reason.

For Jews:

50% of Jews killed (for good reason)

is worse than

33% of Poles killed (for no good reason)

Totally self-centered, non-empathetic pricks. Gee, I wonder why people don’t like ’em. That said, I do not regard recent pogroms and massacres in Europe to be a deserved punishment for whatever Jews did.

The Jewish POV is here. It does look like they hit the Jews pretty hard during this rebellion, though. Brutal stuff and hard to read.

N. B. I may not have portrayed the history and nature of this rebellion properly. Nevertheless, I know it is true that he called on Jews to join him, they refused and went over to the other side, and then they got killed. Sounds like they joined the wrong side in a war and paid for it as typically happens in such cases. Why would an evil antisemite Nazi even want Jews on his side on the first place?