Alt Left: The “Stab in the Back” and the Balfour Declaration: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Myth

Polar Bear: I thought the stab in the back was real. The British offered Jews Israel to turn on Germany and the scorpion stung the frog.

The British offered which Jews Israel if they turned on Germany? You mean the Balfour Declaration?

This is not correct.

Balfour had no effect on German Jews, most of whom disliked Zionism. You must realize that Zionism was unpopular among European Jews at that time and all through the 1920’s. As James Schipper notes in the comments,  Zionism was not popular among West European Jews. However, it was popular among East European Jews, especially the less religious ones.

As James Schipper notes in the comments, the notion that the British gave the Jews Palestine if they would get the Americans into the war does not appear to be correct. The US entered WW1 in April 1917. The Balfour Declaration was signed in November 1917. Unless someone makes a good argument otherwise, the timelines don’t line up.

However, I have seen this theory written up on the Internet – that the British promised the Jews Palestine and US Jews said, “If you give us Palestine, we will get the Americans into the war.” And then the Jews used money and media power to brainwash Americans into joining the war. As Schipper notes, this may well not be true as the timelines don’t add up.

In lieu of verification of this theory, this would have to be listed as a possibly antisemitic argument accusing US Jews of tricking the US into war against Germany in WW1 in response to the Jews getting Israel.

Although many of them had come from Germany, German Jews and US Jews nevertheless had very tenuous connections.

Alt Left: Repost: Mao Messed Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could go on but you get the picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a few other places outside Latin America:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: 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: The Machinations of the CIA, with Special Focus on the Kennedy Assassination

The CIA uses drug smuggling, theft, and other criminal activity to finance its black budget. Right now, the US military is leading convoys of oil tankers out of Syria to Iraq full of the oil that Trump is stealing from Syria in the east of the country.

The oil goes to a US controlled entity in Iraq. Rumor is it is being used to fund the CIA’s black budget. The black budget is the CIA’s underground budget that is not accounted for. It’s used for all manner of dirty deeds, not necessarily done dirt cheap. False flags, fake attacks, provocations, you name it, if it’s dirty and scummy, the CIA will do it. There’s almost no limit to how low the CIA will go to achieve their aims. You name it and they’re probably capable of it.

By the way, the CIA killed John F. Kennedy. Probably working with Texas oilmen, the Mafia, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, Lyndon Johnson, and even Castro himself, who may have smuggled the assassins out of the country via Mexico. No one quite knows Oswald’s role except that he may indeed have been a patsy. Jack Ruby’s role is also very mysterious. He was sent to prison and refused to talk. He said he was put up to the homicide by powerful people. He was terrified that if he talked, they would kill him. He was probably right.

See Mr. Epstein. By the way, Epstein didn’t commit suicide. See how fast they covered that up? The people who run this country are very dirty indeed! I feel that Epstein was killed on orders of Bill Barr.

A friend of mine had lunch a while back with Lyndon Johnson’s former personal attorney. He says that Johnson was in on the Kennedy assassination. My friend asked him who killed JFK and the man said, “The foreign policy establishment of the United States.” For those of you who don’t know, shorthand for that term is nothing less than the Deep State. That’s all the Deep State is: the foreign policy establishment of the United States.

Alt Left: A Bit about the Weathermen and the Black Liberation Army

I remember watching the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. That was pretty impressive. Saw the whole thing on TV at age 10. I was already quite interested in politics and foreign affairs at that age. Mayor Daly, a Democrat, hauled his cop goons out and they set about busting heads. Not long after that was the Days of Rage, and that’s when the peaceful antiwar movement petered out. Now the antiwar movement had a violent wing.

Out of this wing grew the Weathermen. The Weathermen and others set off 50,000 bombs in US in the early 1970’s. The almost always phoned them in ahead of time so people could be evacuated and they usually went off in the middle of the night.

They did kill one man, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, staying late in the lab when a Weathermen bomb went off at 3 AM. Everyone screams about that, but the Weathermen were trying to stop the war. That’s what all the bombs were about. They killed one guy. How many did Nixon kill? Who killed more? The Weathermen were trying to end the war and save lives. Was Nixon? Hardly.

I still support the bombing campaign of the Weathermen to this day. In fact, in the 1980’s, I was on the mailing list of their aboveground organization, the John Brown Book Club out of the Bay Area. I got their bimonthly, Breakthrough. They were already pretty insane by them. Hell they were insane back in the day.

Remember that lunatic Bernadine Dohrn’s crazy rants praising the Manson murders? These idiots were already on the “White people are evil” thing. Dohrn would give speeches telling young White women to kill their White babies after they were born so as not to create more evil White people.

Ten years later, in 1981, they hooked up with some crazies called the Black Liberation Army. I believe the BLA was a radical split from the Black Panthers. In the early 1970’s, debate swirled around the Panthers. The war was still on. The Panthers had not achieved their goals.  But they were still ostensibly committed to more or less peaceful change. At least they were not committed to open armed struggle.

The bomb-throwers called the peaceful change types sellouts. They felt, as usual, that peaceful change would get them nowhere and the only way to achieve their revolutionary goals was armed struggle. Most of this group split off from the Panthers and  the Panthers said good riddance. Attempts to link the Black Panthers to the BLA radical armed revolutionaries are false and sleazy. Don’t fall for it. The Panthers were ok.

Joanne Chesimard (Assata Shakur) was one of their most famous guerrillas. They were completely insane of course, like all the armed groups back then, but I have to admit she was one badass bitch. She’s in Cuba now.

She’s wanted for the shooting death of a police officer who was killed in a shootout with BLA members they pulled over in a car. She’s innocent. She got shot and was badly hurt. Hell, she was in the back seat and didn’t even have a gun. The driver, a man, fired most of the shots including the bullet that killed the cop. He himself was killed.

Incredibly, Chesimard escaped after that shootout (!). She was later imprisoned in a federal prison but the her comrades in the BLA actually broke her out of a federal prison in Florida by disguising themselves as workers delivering linen to the prison. They broke her out in a wild scene and even managed to escape. Chesimard then vanished off the face of the Earth for 2 years.

Actually she was underground, but you have to realize that the Weathermen, etc. were being helped by a huge network of maybe 1 million people, the vast majority of whom have never been caught and have never even been suspected of a crime. 2 years later, Chesimard mysteriously popped up in Cuba!

In 1981, the remains of the Weathermen had taken up the radical Black cause of the BLA, who were Black separatists who wanted to set up a Black state. The remaining Weathermen apparently felt that Blacks were the leading edge of the revolution.

See the parallels nowadays with BLM? The similarities don’t end there. The leadership of BLM itself and its associated organizations includes the remains of the old Weathermen, now reorganized as the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee, still Communists but now apparently pursuing the peaceful road to power.

Another group called the Freedom Road Socialist Organization is also behind a lot of the BLM protests, especially the violent aspects. These are also Communists. I hate to give credit to wild rightwing accusations, but I assure you that the leadership of BLM and its associated organizations are literally Marxists and Communists.

The Weathermen and the BLA robbed a Brinks truck in September 1981 and a wild shootout ensued. Some guards were killed along with a some BLA men. It looks like the BLA were the ones who shot the guards. They were pulled over on the freeway and BLA fighters burst out of the back of the van, guns blazing. More people died. The survivors got away again but were quickly caught. So there ended the saga of the Weathermen.

The FBI conducted raids of activists associated with the Weathermen and the BLA soon afterwards but they came up empty-handed. Everyone had been tipped off and fled ahead of the feds. In one case, the suspects had left so quickly that the coffee kettle was literally still heating on the stove when the FBI burst in. I’m wondering if the Weathermen and BLA had people inside federal law enforcement who tipped them off.

The Weathermen who were arrested in the Brinks robbery, including a few women, are still in prison. One, (((Kathy Boudin))) died in prison of cancer recently. Incredibly, her son, who is probably quite radical himself, recently won the election for District Attorney for the city of San Francisco!

Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers went underground and stayed there for ~20 years (I told you they had a good support network), but were captured after decades on the lam. They were given very short sentences and pretty much let off the hook. I heard Ayers on the radio recently and he was completely unrepentant, defending every bomb the Weathermen ever set off.

They are both now professors in the Education Department of the University of Chicago. They are in deep with the Democratic Party in the area the Democratic city government in Chicago and are pretty much political fixtures in Chicago. Yes, Barack Obama appeared at a couple of roundtables where they were present. Much was made of this by the Retard Right, but there’s less there than their seems. Everyone who is anyone in Democratic politics in Chicago knows Ayers and Dohrn.

They’re cleaned up now anyway and for all intents and purposes, they’re respectable citizens. What’s wrong with this stupid country anyway? In Latin America, former armed Leftist guerrillas lay down arms and then get elected to top posts in the government. The Presidents of Uruguay and Brazil in recent years were both former armed guerrillas from long ago. Why are we so hung up and weird? Let me know when we join the rest of the continent of the Americas, as is our inevitable destiny .

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: The Elaine, Arkansas Massacre of October 1919

Here.

This is how White people treated Blacks under Jim Crow. And this was in 1919. God knows how Blacks were treated from 1865-1900. I haven’t heard a lot of reports. There are some fascinating recordings from former slaves recorded during the Depression by a make-work New Deal program during the Depression. They might have a word or two about it. You can’t understand  their Black dialect at all. I don’t even think it’s AAVE. I think it’s just a really strong Black Southern accent. All those videos need subtitles all the way.

Those Whites out and  out murdered in cold blood 200 and  possibly up to 800 Black men. For no Goddamned reason at all other than the Blacks forming a labor union to protest against debt peonage, which is otherwise known as semi-feudalism or possibly a form of out and out feudalism. Debt peonage continues to this day in places like Pakistan, the Philippines, and possibly other places. It’s a scam. Once you go into debt you can never get out no matter how hard you try.

No way were all those Black men killed to keep a bunch of niggers from going on a ghetto crime spree and victimizing all us Whites,  so we had to set an example and murder hundreds of them to prevent the ghetto street crime wave.  Nonsense. This was sheer enforcement of – and I really hate this phrase – White supremacy. It term is grossly abused by SJW idiots, but it definitely applies to some Whites at some periods.  There was also a mass murdering  fascist anti-labor motive going on too.

Screw this bullshit. I’m never going to support this sick mass murdering supremacist crap. Get out of here with that.

The Whites started some crazy rumor based on the fear of a Black uprising, except no Black uprising was planned. This a typical scenario for most wartime and political mass murders and genocides. The genociders and killers always project away their mass murdering by framing it as “They (the victims of the genocide) were going to kill us (the genociders) all!” It’s hard to get people to go massacre lots of other humans out of sheer cruelty.

But if it’s a “fight to the death, somebody’s going to die, and it’s them or you, I say it’s going to be you.” I have literally been in situations were 3-4 men were trying to kill my friend and I. I escaped in a vehicle but one of them attacked the vehicle from the front as we were escaping so I turned the wheel into him and hit him with the car. I was trying to kill the motherfucker. Hey, he was trying to kill me.

  1. One or more people are trying to kill you.
  2. You think real fast. You don’t have time to think about anything. All you think is, “This guy is trying to kill me, what do I do?”
  3. Your brain answers, “I’m going to kill this sonofabitch before he kills me.” You don’t think, “Whoa I might go to jail for homicide” or review law statutes or any of that. You don’t have time and it’s a dumb thing to do. It’s just kill or be killed, real simple. Given a choice between killing them and them killing me, I don’t know about you guys, but I pick killing them.
  4. Then you do it. You try to kill the guy, knock him out, or knock him down and hurt him so badly that he can’t get up to chase you.
  5. You try to kill him, and then you escape. As fast as you can.

 

 

Alt Left: Liberal California? Californians Voted Rightwing on Eight out of 12 Propositions on the Ballot

Why people keep saying California is liberal is beyond me. My city is 80% Hispanic. But my county voted Trump +13. As soon as you get outside of the city limits here, all the precincts went for Trump. And the Whiter wealthier areas in my city also went for Trump. The Central Valley is not very liberal at all! Yeah my Congressman is a Democrat, but he’s a crappy rightwing Democrat, a Blue Dog Democrat who might as well be a Republican.

Let’s look at the ballot propositions. Either Californians are dumb and get swayed by the big money and their fake lying campaigns on the propositions or they’re just not that liberal. Because the vote wasn’t very liberal.

Californians Voted Rightwing on Eight out of 12 Initiatives

Proposition 15: A fake privacy law bolstering law written by criminals like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Silicon Valley crooks that actually weakened privacy laws passed! “Liberal” Californians sided with crooked tech billionaire enemies of the people to screw over consumers!

Proposition 16: Bring back affirmative action in employment failed badly. I like that result, but face it, it’s rightwing. So California “liberals” supported an anti-affirmative action proposition.

Proposition 18: Allowing 17 year olds to vote in primaries if they will be 18 in the general in the fall (Big deal!) failed. That’s a very rightwing vote. California “liberals” voted rightwing again.

Proposition 21: Putting in some common sense rent controls in this insanely overpriced housing market failed again. It always fails! Some liberal state! The Legislature won’t pass it either because all the “liberal Democrats” in there are bought off by extremely wealthy landlords. Some liberals!

Proposition 22: Reclassifying gig workers are contractors so their crooked billionaire employers can keep ripping them off and paying them $5/hour, which is what Lyft and Uber pay their drivers (!) passed! “Liberal” Californians voted for big business crooked bosses and ripped off poor workers!

Proposition 23: Regulating the criminal dog capitalists who run crooked dialysis facilities preying on poor workers suffering kidney failure terribly! They’re not regulated at all right now and that’s terrible for sick workers. California “liberals” voted to keep the dialysis crooks unregulated!

Proposition 25: Changing the cash bail system which keeps workers accused of crimes in California’s”liberal” jails that are as terrible as a Hieronymus Bosch painting before they have even been convicted of a thing, sometimes for years, to let non-dangerous people who haven’t even been convicted of a thing out of jail until they go on trial failed! “Liberal” Californians voted to keep poor workers in California’s Dantesque jails just because they’re not rich enough to afford bail!

Californians Voted Liberal on Four Initiatives

Proposition 14: Funding stem cell research barely passed.

Proposition 17: Restore voting rights for felons on parole passed.

Proposition 20: Increasing penalties for some crimes failed.

Proposition 21: The vote to make some large property owners pay the going rate for their property taxes barely passed. The only “homeowners” it applied to had three or more houses! If you own 3+ houses, you’re a “homeowner?” Get out.

There were 12 ballot initiatives. “Liberal” Californians voted rightwing on eight of those 12 initiatives and voted left on only three of the 12, and two of those barely passed with the skin of their teeth!

California “liberals” are not even all that liberal. They’re more like liberal Republicans. The only way they are left is Fake Left which means SJW Left, which isn’t even left at all. It’s just a bunch of bourgeois “fake rights,” most of which attack Whites and men and vastly privilege sexual degenerates and mentally ill freaks who think they’re the opposite sex against people who are normal sexually and do not have a psychosis about their genitals.

Anyone who thinks that is “left” is insane. Remember the Communist countries of the 20th Century? Remember how socially conservative they all were?

Homosexuality was often illegal. Castro put gays in prison.

Trannies would be sent to an asylum where they belong.

Men were free to be men and women to be women.

No Communist country on the face of the Earth was anti-White. In fact, the USSR and the East Bloc were some of the most pro-White countries the world has ever seen.

Porn and gross, open sexual degeneracy and perversion were banned.

That’s the Real Left. The Real Left is left on economics but fairly conservative on the BS social issues..

Alt Left: Childhood Never Ends: Why Large Groups of Adults Continue To Engage in Childish Games of Sadistic Dominance of Hated Inferiors

Alpha Unit: OK, Jim Crow laws were proposed as a solution to a problem: White Southerners were being ordered to treat newly freed slaves (and free Black people) as equals, when it was clear that newly freed Black people were in no position to live as their equals.

Their solution? Forget all this “equality” stuff; it’s costing us too much. Let’s bring back the old, tried-and-true way we used to do things: Blacks subordinate to Whites and kept in their place. We’ll make sure it’s “legal.”

Occam’s razor. Look for the simplest explanation. This makes the most sense to me. The whole idea that Claudius is putting forward that White folks are just too nice to do this sort of thing, well, nope. Humans have a need to dominate others. The strong dominate the weak and the weak dominate the weaker. See countless works of literature, drama, and cinema, or, Hell, just read Nietzsche if he makes sense to you.

Also there are different types of sadism.

The First Type of Sadism – the Raw Animal Lust for Cruelty and Love of Humiliating Others Seen Most Prominently in Boys

I’m thinking this type is genetic or biological. This is a pure sadism that can be seen in boys, non-human mammals, and in  adults, most especially in Black adults, especially African Blacks (US Blacks have had a lot of it enculturated out of them, but you still see it a lot).

Sure, all the other races display this raw sadism too, especially in times of war, but you see it most prominently in Blacks to the point where some feel it is an essential aspect of the Black Character, Personality, or perhaps, I would argue, Black Principle (if Black is a Principle like Masculine and Feminine are Principles).

This is extremely prominent in Black children, especially boys, and they are much more sadistic than White boys (Yes, I know all boys are sadists). It gets slowly enculturated out of Black boys as they grow up as with most of us males, but you still see it a lot in the ghetto types in young adult men and even women sometimes, where the basic Black Personality is at its rawest and least enculturated.

This is a raw delight in torture, torment, inflicting pain, violence, and even death on a suffering and tormented Other. It includes the love of observing a victim’s suffering.

Of course, you also see this same sadism in young White men (college boys in particular can be terribly cruel), but it’s just not as prominent as in Blacks.

Also, White culture profoundly dislikes displays of childish sadism in White adults. As an man, you’re supposed to have grown out that boyhood crap or had it beaten out of you if you were particularly diabolical.

In some ways, this sadism can be fun. I recall a Black man I knew named Michael. He hung out with this other Black artist, William, who was very introverted and odd. He couldn’t get laid with God’s help. His name was Charles and he had a university degree in art.

The cool guy’s name was Michael and he was a White-acting Black artist with a university degree in art. I was over at a mutual friend’s house and our friend commented that William had a date.

William was a very shy guy with low-self esteem and a hurt and somewhat confused expression on his face. I believe also had a strange high-pitched voice. He was extremely weird but completely harmless, and once you figured out how harmless he was, you mostly just wanted to laugh at him because he was such a nerd that he was a laughingstock, a comical figure.

He also couldn’t get laid with God’s help, even though he was quite straight. I’d never known him to have a girlfriend or even a date. At age 29, he was not only undoubtedly a virgin, but he’d probably never even been kissed.

I was absolutely dumbfounded.

“What?!” I nearly shouted across the room. “No way does William have a date! No way! That’s not even possible! Tell me you’re joking!”

This was a pretty mean thing for me to say, but I can be a dick. The Black guy, Micheal, roared with laughter so hard he nearly rolled on the floor for ten minutes. As you can see, he was laughing his ass off at the cruelty of my comment.

So Blacks can be a lot of fun if you want to get down with some mean, no-holds-barred humor. A lot of humor is cruel – face it – but Whites’ distaste for sadism limits their potential for humor a lot. We see this especially in the dour, party-pooper, no-fun SJW crowd, where every other joke is an evil bigoted crime that someone needs to get fired over.

In many ways, Idi Amin was the ultimate primal Black man. He displayed most of the raw material of the Black personality to an exaggerated degree. Not all of it is bad. He was wildly extroverted, always smiling and happy, had a nearly inborn sense of humor to the point of being a natural humorist, loved to party and have fun, and had a tremendous love of promiscuous sex. Idi Amin was a good time! As long as you were on his good side, that is.

And then there was his bad side, also in spades.

Whites and most other races probably used to be like this too, but centuries of civilization may have bred it out of us culturally and genetically. We can surely see a lot of examples of horrific sadism in Whites and Asians only centuries ago. One argument is that for a thousand years of civilization, most White criminals were quickly killed, often by public hanging. The idea is that this bred a lot of the criminal genes out of us.

Blacks from Africa, never having good through this process of weeding out criminal genes by execution, didn’t experience such a cleansing. On the other hand, perhaps White and Asian cultures have also accelerated so much in civilizational terms that this behavior is enculturated out of us.

That this love of sadism and cruelty appears so normally and freely in boys of all races suggests that it’s still part of the raw human personality. Although the dramatic morally superiority of US Blacks as opposed to African Blacks suggests that 300 years of exposure to White Christian civilization has had a calming, civilizing, and perhaps eugenically intelligence-increasing effect on US Blacks, which argues for the effects a more advanced civilizing culture can have on a population of a less civilized race.

The Second Type of Sadism – The Dominant Lording It Over Their Brutalized Inferior Victims

I’ve thought about this a lot, and there is another sort of sadism, that of the dominant inflicting their sadistic lordly violence against those they see as inferior.

Look at the delighted faces of those German policemen tormenting Jews in the street. You can say it’s revenge, but isn’t it more than that?

Look very closely at the faces of those Whites at those lynchings – boys, girls, men, women. There’s that same look as you saw in those Nazis above: the wicked gleeful look of the dominant bully inflicting torture and/or death at a contemptuously hated inferior. This poor Black sod’s hanging from a tree with his neck broken in a sickening way, and these Whites who look like your nice White relatives at Thanksgiving are having the Goddamned party of their lives.

What was all that habit of calling Black men boys and Black women girls about?

Why were Black children forced to apologize to White children they bumped into by addressing the White children as Mr. or Mrs. as if the White kids were adults and the Black child was still a child?

Why were the schoolbooks given to Black schools the refuse of the White schools – ripped, torn up, wrecked, and coming with a sticker on them saying that they were too destroyed to be of use to White kids, so they were only worthwhile for Black kids?

What was up with the torching of the Black business district in Tulsa?

Why were Black men lynched and murdered for the crime of standing up to White men and fighting back against them, even if the Whites were trying to kill them? In this case, the message was that of the bully: We will attack you in any way we choose, and if you dare to fight back and hurt one of us, you will die.

Why did White children torment their Black “friends” by forcing them, like slaves, to carry the White kids’ books to and from school for them?

Why did White boys manipulate and laugh behind the backs at their Black male friends and encourage them to commit crimes, so if anyone was caught, the Black would take the blame?

Why were Blacks waited on last in stores, and, even after waiting an hour, passed over again if a White person walked in?

Why did Whites whose land had been sold to Blacks long ago return to their land 50 years later and demand that Blacks hand over the sold land to its original owners, or else?

Why did even White women tell Black men who talked back to them, “I could have you hung from a tree just like that.”? See Of Mice and Men – and this was California in the 30s!

This is all nothing but raw, naked cruelty, and furthermore, there’s a brutal logic behind it: the societal enforcement of White dominance and superiority over Black submission and inferiority. That’s all it is. No need to conjure up fancy theories. Back to Occam’s again.

They did all of this abject and unnecessary cruel stuff because otherwise Blacks would commit a lot of crime? Get out. If anything, such treatments are designed to push people to their limits. Look at how Gypsies are (deservedly) treated in Europe? Does it stop them from committing crimes?

No, all of these punishments were done to enforce the sort of gleeful domination you see on the faces of the schoolyard bullies in 8th grade as they torment their designated victims.

And no, adults are not too mature to regress to childish games of sadistic dominance. I’ve seen so many cases of adults the world over delighting in the sadistic dominance of a hated inferior Other to believe otherwise.

They’re not doing it to stop crime. They’re doing it to get off. To get a rush. To get that glorious sadistic delight in tormenting an innocent victim you remember from boyhood. Remember how fun that was? Remember how tall it made you feel?

Well, those adults are doing the exact same shit for the exact same reasons.

Alt Left: A Discussion about the Motives for Instituting Jim Crow in the South

Claudius: I think their explicit intent was just a moral justification for their practical solution. That’s how politics works. The name or expressed mission bears no realty to the actual motivation or outcome which in this case was, keep non-wealthy Whites separate from lowly blacks.

This is literally what they said. Claudius’ explanation doesn’t follow. He says that Whites have a hard time being so evil, yet evil was pretty trivial to come by for White folks 150 years ago. They had a very different moral compass than we had. Also Claudius claims that the real reason was understandable and reasonable – stopping Black crime. But the stated reason was diabolical – to keep the niggers down.

For God’s sake, if I am going to do something halfway reasonable, why on Earth do I lie and say I am going to do something wicked instead. It’s the other way around. Humans do monstrous things while couching them in terms of at least reasonableness. A favorite among genocidal aggressors is “We were just fighting back.” But of course every bully on Earth is always fighting back even if the victim has never lifted a finger against him.

In fact, the freed Blacks were so poor and unemployment was so bad that they were besieging their former masters’ plantations pleading for work doing something, anything.

Claudius: I suspect many smart Blacks fled the south and went North leaving behind a slightly dumber freed Black population for regular Whites to contend with. And interesting snippet corroborating this hypothesis:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/what-happened-when-blacks-moved-north-during-the-great-migration

Your facts are not wrong, Alpha, but I think the general common wisdom about what was in Whites’ hearts when they did this is dead wrong. I’ve known too many American Whites to believe they could be so stupidly cruel. Only Cultural Leftists are so cruel en masse. When conservative Whites do “bad” shit en masse, it’s usually for a good reason.

Yes, but Whites in the South used to be just that – stupidly cruel. And they really got off on it too. Look at the party atmosphere at those lynchings, the sadistic grins on the faces of men, women, and children alike. Humans get off on being evil if you only let them. The trick is just don’t allow it in the first place! Our demon child personalities of childhood never left us. They just went underground and can come out quite easily. Mine’s locked in a maximum security prison in my gut, and the Hell he’s getting out, but a lot of people are not so cautious or guilty-minded.

Alpha responds to Claudius’ theory: The architects of Jim Crow were explicit about why they were instituting it. It was all about maintaining what they considered the God-given superiority of Whites and keeping Black people “in their place.” They particularly didn’t like the fact that Black people in the South were rising to positions of authority during Reconstruction.

The thing is that Alpha is probably right. We sit here at our vantage point in time looking out over the Hellscape of Black crime, especially violent crime, and assume that the architects of Jim Crow were trying to stop just this very thing by constructing their apartheid system. But they probably weren’t. We are trying to transport 22nd Century minds, methods, and motivations into the heads of Whites of the 1950’s to a century before. They say hindsight is 20-20 but in other ways, it’s often not accurate at all.

By the time that Jim Crow was instituted, the freed Blacks were mostly too terrified and terrorized by a century and a half of slavery to be much of a problem. The crime rate was pretty low back then. Also people, both Whites and Blacks, were very religious, and this tends to make people act pretty good.
Black people don’t automatically act bad, you know.

Yes, some bad things happened after the Civil War. Some freed slaves murdered their former masters and other White men. There may have been a few rapes of White women here and there. But overall, there was not much of this going on.

But the few cases that occurred literally struck terror into the hearts of the Whites. This was their worst nightmare – the Blacks returning to exact revenge on them for the crime of slavery. There has been quite a few slave rebellions in the US over a century and a half, and they tended to be bloody affairs. The Blacks spared no White – women, children, and old men were all fair game and were often killed in horrific ways. Beheading was common.

Also the Blacks put into positions of power were completely incompetent, not the least because they typically had zero education. So you had Black mayors, school boards, police, the whole nine yards, and they were so incompetent it would be laughable if it were not so tragic. It was downright stupid to throw out all the Whites and put a bunch of incompetent Blacks in charge.

The purpose of this was to punish the South. Look what happens when you punish losing parties in a war. The losing party Germany was punished after World War 1 and look what happened. It didn’t take much of this nonsense before the KKK was riding at night. The sun had scarcely set on the Civil War before the first nightriders appeared a mere three years later in 1868.

I’m not sure lynching was done to stop Black crime either. There wasn’t that much of it in the first place. The Black man during Jim Crow was a beaten-down soul. You still see many obsequious Blacks like this in the Deep South, especially in places like Mississippi. They act almost ridiculously friendly and helpful. Black hotel workers are typical in this regard. A terrorized man is a well-behaved man.

I suggested to my mother that lynching was done to stop Black crime, but she said the Whites were just doing it to terrorize Blacks and assert their dominance over them. Humans really get off on blatantly lording it over others if you haven’t noticed, even to the point of humiliation and rubbing it in. I think my Mom was right.

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: The War Crimes and Depraved Murders/Massacres/Genocides of America Began Immediately After World War Ended

Scarcely were the lights out on WW2 when we started recruiting “ex”-Nazis for our military and intelligence agencies.

We started setting up Operation Gladio or the Stay Behind Network, composed almost purely of Nazis and other fascists, to defend Europe after a possible Soviet invasion and conquest. They would form the behind the lines resistance against the new Soviet Order in Europe.

We started setting up and funding “ex” Nazis and Nazi collaborators all over Eastern Europe to serve as similar stay behind networks to wage guerilla war in parts of the USSR, especially the Baltics (the Forest Brothers) and Ukraine. These guerrilla wars lasted until 1956 and were very brutally put down, mostly by the NKVD.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: 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.

On the Difficult Case of Saint Henry Ford

I admit I am a bit of an antisemite. Not too much of one! Nazis are evil! But just a bit. You know those recipes that call for a “pinch” of this or that? I mean not 1/4 or even 1/8 of teaspoon. Less than even that! Well, that’s how antisemitic I am. Just a pinch.

Actually I think all Gentiles should be. Judeophilia is stupid as blind love for any race is stupid. No race should be worshiped blindly. We are all humans, and all human races are a bit evil or have that potential simply on account of being made up of humans, as humans are at least a bit evil, and that’s on a good day!

And as a “pinch antisemite” type, I have chosen to worship Saint Henry Ford as one of my antisemite secular Gods. Feel free to hate on me for that. I’m used to it.

Saint Ford was not perfect. No saint is, not even Saint Jesus. St. Ford’s scriptures, the long-running, Hadith-like commentaries in the great Dearborn Independent, are actually excellent and hardly antisemitic at all. They’re just one endless cynical and exasperated lament at the typically terrible Jewish behavior of the times. Check them out if you can dig them up. Fascinating stuff.

His greatest scriptural document, The International Jew, was excellent and was not even particularly antisemitic at all. In fact as antisemitic documents go, it’s one of the mildest and least offensive ones ever written. Antisemitic speech tends to be nasty as Hell, often murderous and not uncommonly genocidal. TIJ is neither. Further, it was written with a kind heart in the spirit of racial peace. It was actually an early antiracist tract!

He was mostly just exasperated with Jews for being such separatist, selfish, and Other-hating jerks. TIJ was a call for Jews to knock off the Gentile-hatred and especially the Jewish Ethnic Wars against the Gentiles, which were quite hot at that time.

At one point in the book his exasperation is clear. He points out that he never supported one pogrom and thought that pogroms were sickening and horrible. He called for the Jews to stop fighting us and smoke the peace pipe. He said Jews were too busy being Jews to be real Americans, and that was sad and frustrating.

Quit being Jews and start being Americans instead was the message. In other words, TIJ and even The Dearborn Independent are just a couple more works in favor of the assimilation of the Jews, which is generally a good and even progressive thing anyway. Unassimilated Jews don’t act real great. Face it.

Come,  Jews! Come join us Gentiles in building a better America!

Henry Ford, The International Jew

What a beautiful, albeit exasperated, remark! Of course the Jews didn’t listen, and I’m still not sure if they have joined the rest of us here in the US or not. I wish to believe they have, but I do wonder.

But even this scripture, TIJ, is flawed. Ford believed in the Czarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hate book that led to the murders of a lot of Jews. That book is just stupid.

And no, Jews don’t “act like that anyway even if it’s a forgery.” Bad argument. It’s just a stupid and wrong bit of hate speech and hate lie that killed a lot of people. Nasty stuff. Well, St. Ford ignorantly believed the Protocols. Dumb, almost criminal stupidity. His later meetings with Hitler were downright stupid too and even ignorantly wicked. He accepted the genocidal maniac Hitler’s praises, and that was more criminal idiocy.

He paid for it when the Jews tried to murder him by running his car off the road in the mid- 1930’s. Most people don’t know this and the Jews will scream, deny it and call you an antisemite for bringing it up, but oh yeah, it definitely happened all right. He almost died. He eased up on the Jews after, which I guess was smart.

My former Jewish girlfriend and I really split on the subject on St. Ford. Usually she agreed with everything I said about Jews and then one-upped me to go beyond that. Jews are profoundly antisemitic themselves as the sin is currently defined.

I defended St. Ford and boy was she mad. She really hated him. She grew up in Detroit and St. Ford was Antisemite Enemy #1 to Detroit Jews.

We had a fun relationship. During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1996, I openly supported Hezbollah and cheered them on right to her face. She would just laugh, tell me to shut up, and defend Israel. I’d say, “Go Hezbollah go!”, she’d laugh and retort and the match was on. Good times!

Once I asked her why she was defending Israel, and she thought a bit and said, “I ‘m defending my people.” Great answer. Nothing wrong with defending or supporting your people. Racial self-haters are rather disgusting to me. I even with Blacks to take pride in themselves.

Sure, Blacks are fucked up. Duh. But are you, a good Black person, fucked up too? Well, of course not. Then take pride in being a Great Black Man or Woman, whichever it is. Pride is always admirable and groveling is always disgusting, no matter the race or ethnicity.

Repost: “Coal Miners and Company Scrip,” by Alpha Unit

Saw this old Alpha post she wrote seven years ago. Seven years! Jesus. We’re practically a married couple by now! No wait! She’s already married and she’s against bigamy. Plus her husband is a big, badass former Marine named “Big Dog,” if you can believe that.

He’s White. A White guy with some sort of Black chick fetish. And Alpha’s got a “White guy her age fetish.” Whoops, don’t say that!

Panmixia baby! I’m sure Jason approves.

If this site is anything, it’s pro-Black-White integration. And it’s run by a White guy and a Black woman, just to show what integrationists we are. Yay! We are hardcore integrationists here and I personally think Blacks should spend more time with Whites and vice versa provided the Black person is not from that half of the Blacks that are those people, you know.

Alpha’s probably one of the most un-ghetto Blacks I’ve ever encountered. She’s the polar opposite of a ghetto Black. She acts Whiter than I do! She called me up once and she sounded like a librarian. If she’s anything, she’s unfailingly, Southern Belle, graciously proper polite. Which I guess makes sense because she grew up in Mississippi! And I just thought of that!

From what Alpha has told me about him, I really like her husband. He’s seriously chill, and he actually understands women. He’s an ultra-laid back, don’t give a damn, reserved (actually just properly chilled I think), brief, pithy words of wisdom type guy from Polar Bear’s state.

And he totally doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks about his Black wife. I like that. This guy knows how to not be bothered. I like that. I’ve also heard that he knows how to be bothered if it must come to that, and I would not want to tangle with the guy.

Anyway, to show my gratitude for all the free work Alpha does on this site,* I will repost this post from probably way back when when we first met, which is another story altogether!

*She does all the categories!

St. Peter, don’t you call me, ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store.

Nobody’s sure who wrote “Sixteen Tons.” People usually attribute the song to Merle Travis, who recorded it in 1946. A singer-songwriter named George S. Davis claimed he wrote it during the Depression. I don’t know if there’s any way to settle that question. But the couplet above sums up what it felt like sometimes to be a coal miner in nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century America.

Before labor reforms were enacted and enforced, the life of a coal miner, like that of sharecroppers and other laborers, was often just one step above slavery.

Coal mining was vital for the widespread industrialization that got underway in the nineteenth century. Before then, there were two types of coal mines: drift mines and bell pits. They were small-scale operations that yielded coal for homes and local industry. But the growing demand for coal due to industrialization made coal mines deeper and mining more dangerous. And there was a lot of money in consideration.

Mining operations were in remote, rugged areas, naturally, so mine owners had to provide housing for their workers. In fact they provided just about everything for their workers, typically. This was because paying the miners posed a problem.

You have to remember that this was before there was a national currency in the United States. Neither was there a sufficient supply of coins. Mining operations were far from banks and stores. Mining companies saw great advantage in the closed economy that resulted from creating the company store and paying in scrip.

Whatever a miner needed he could buy – and often had to buy – at the company store. The tools of his trade he bought there, along with whatever other goods he and his family needed. If the company store didn’t have it in stock, he had to do without it. The company store could charge whatever the mine owner wanted. If wages were increased, the company store could increase prices to make up for it.

Some companies paid exclusively in scrip. Others used scrip as a form of credit that miners could use between paydays. In this case, the scrip amount would be charged against the miner’s payroll account and deducted from his next pay. Some companies let their workers trade scrip for cash, but not always at full value. Some paid as little as 50 cents on the dollar; others paid as much as 85 cents per dollar.

Not only were the supplies for the miner and his family deducted from his pay, but so were his rent for company housing, utilities, fuel coal, and doctor’s fees.

Mining companies were creative in withholding as much money as they could from workers. One practice they engaged in was cribbing. A coal miner was paid per ton of coal that he brought up. Each car brought from the mines was supposed to hold a specific amount of coal – 2,000 pounds, for instance.

But companies would alter cars to hold more coal than the specified amount, so a miner could be paid for 2,000 pounds when he might have actually brought up 2,500. Workers were also docked pay for slate and rock mixed in with coal. How much to dock was left at the discretion of the checkweighman – a company man, of course.

On payday, a miner was given a pay envelope with all the check-off deductions listed and any balance due him inside. Often the envelope contained a few pennies, or nothing at all.
The United Mine Workers, a merger of two older labor groups, was founded in 1890.

This organization – whose first convention barred discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin – set about to make mining safer, to gain miners’ independence from the company store, and to secure collective bargaining rights. Among its specific goals:

  • a salary commensurate with dangerous work conditions
  • an 8-hour workday
  • payment in legal tender, not company scrip
  • properly working scales: improper or outright dishonest weighing was a big concern for miners
  • enforcement of safety laws and better ventilation and drainage in mines
  • an end to child labor: “breaker boys” as young as 8 would remove impurities from coal by hand – hazardous work that led to accidental amputations and sometimes death
  • an unbiased police force: mine operators owned all the houses in a company town and controlled the police force, which would evict miners or arrest them without proper cause
  • the right to strike

The UMW was able to secure an 8-hour workday for coal miners in 1898. During its first ten years the UMW successfully organized coal miners in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. It finally achieved some recognition in West Virginia in 1902. It spent the next several decades organizing strikes – some of which ended up being deadly – and getting involved, controversially, in politics to further its goals.

Labor contracts and legislation eventually outlawed the use of company scrip. World War II marked a turning point for scrip, and by the end of the 1950’s almost all coal mining operations were paying their workers in legal tender.
What a long haul.

Alt Left: Your Enemy Doesn’t Exist? Create Him! Your Enemy is a Nice Guy? Force Him to Act Bad!

Jason: There’s not much the small can do but be a bitch of the strong, and the Cubans figured Russia was way nicer to get along with and far away enough.

Sure, what are you going to do? Keep kissing your enemy’s feet and pleading with him to be nice or tell him to fuck off and go ally with anyone else, even his worst enemy if the new guy is offering the peace pipe at a ridiculous discount? Humans aren’t stupid.

I can’t believe we blame Castro for going Commie. We pretty much shove Castro into Communism. By the way, we did that to a lot of places. You want to demonize someone but they don’t act bad yet? Simple. Deviously manipulate them to make them act bad and turn them into your enemy.

All shitty countries and people do this. The US, Israel, Turkey, the Gulf Arabs, the EU, the Latin American Right, and fascists and capitalists (same thing) in general name it. If your enemy doesn’t exist, fucking create him, dammit! If your enemy acts good, force him to act bad, dammit!

And then in your shitty controlled propaganda media, demonize your newly created enemy as your enemy, meaning he is out to screw you, and watch the hundreds of millions of Normietards eat it right up. The biggest joke in the whole world is that human beings are smart. LOL! Come on. If we were really as brilliant as we crow that we are, there is no way that we would ever fall for this nakedly and embarrassingly transparent dishonesty, but nope, we fall for it all the time.

An intelligent species is relatively inoculated against most basic scams on the account of its brains alone. Obviously we ain’t very smart at all if we can’t think our way out of these scams on our minds. I think that is why they are trying to shut down the Dissident Net.

The Dissident Net is tearing away the curtain, revealing the wizard at the helm as nothing but a scam artist, and is showing that the emperor’s arguments in his state and media are as naked as his garb. The Dissident Net is showing Westerners how to think. Since we absolutely do not have any sort of freedom of press at all in the West, this is the only thing that they fear more than anything else: the day their propaganda just doesn’t work anymore.

Alt Left: An Overview of the Early Years of the Cuban Revolution, 1954-1961

transformer: What do you think of this article Robert? I don’t trust right wing sources but how literate was Cuba back in 1959?

That website is falsely named. It is not an “intellectual” website dedicated to the intellect and the pursuit of knowledge. Sure, it is an erudite, bright, and educated website, but the only intellectuals it appeals to are hard rightwingers. It’s basically the philosophy of your average American conservative Republican. Those sites are run by ideologues, and they are not very honest.

I will try to take apart this argument as best as I can, but if you Google these questions, there are many leftwing websites who offer far better rejoinders than I offer here, especially with more facts, figures, and dates.

That argument is not good because there was vast poverty in the countryside along with terrible health and dental care. There was vast inequality in Cuba. There was quite a bit of wealth in the cities, particularly in Havana, but the conditions in the countryside were awful, pure 3rd World.

To give an example, I believe that there may have been no doctors in Cuba outside of Havana. All of the doctors and dentists lived in Havana serving people with money for cash so they could make a lot of money. The Mafia owned Cuba, and Havana was a sleazefest full of criminals, gangsters, and prostitutes.

Blacks had essentially no rights at all. They actually lived under a strict Jim Crow-like segregation that was as bad as what existed in the South. The Blacks in Cuba were fucked.

The whole country was owned by foreign, mostly US, interests, including the sugar cane and tobacco fields, the cigar and nickel industries and the casinos and bars. A few country-sellers latched onto the large US corporations that ran everything in Cuba and got their fair share of the loot.

But the Cuban people as a whole, meaning the Cuban state, barely saw a nickel of profits from any of those foreign-owned fields and industries. There also was little or no trickle down effect from the foreign-owned industry. Most Cubans felt that Cuba had once more become a colony of the US. After all, it was more or less owned by US companies, right?

Cuba used to be a colony of the US. We stole it from the Spanish after the Spanish American War. US rule was not popular. Jose Marti is known as the liberator of Cuba. He led an insurrection in 1898 in which Cuba gained its freedom. The Philippines was also rebelling at this time.

But after the US left, in 1911, a new law was passed called the Platt (?) Amendment that basically said that the US still ruled Cuba and had a right to intervene in Cuba’s affairs anytime it wanted to.

Even the most rightwing anti-Castro Cubans are not particularly pro-US, and if you bring up that amendment, they’ve all heard of it, and they act angry about. After all, most anti-Castro types are Cuban nationalists. Cubans are very nationalistic and proud people. That amendment remained in place until Castro won the revolution in 1959.

Batista’s army collapsed without even much of a fight because at one point in the revolution, even the middle classes in the cities went over to Castro. When the middle class supports a revolution, you are out of power. Previously the middle class had probably been mostly neutral.

Batista was also horribly corrupt and no one was happy about that. As Castro overran Havana, Batista and his government flew out to the US on airplanes. The US lifted them out. There are still quite a few pro-Batista Cubans in the Cuban community in Cuba. That’s why the Cuban exiles are not popular in Cuba.

A lot of Cubans in the countryside were not literate. Even schooling was bad out there. And Castro did run a literacy program that got the country to 99% literacy very quickly.

Castro was middle or even upper-class himself. He was Galician of almost pure Spanish blood (Cuba is full of Galicians). He had just graduated from law school, and he was in fact an attorney. So he was a very smart guy.

Che was actually a physician! He graduated from medical school in Argentina and was granted a license to practice medicine. I’m not sure if he ever actually practiced medicine. He was also a very smart guy.

Che took a motorcycle tour around Latin America, and he was appalled at the poverty he saw there. He had grown up in Buenos Aires in a moneyed family, and this was a hidden secret about the continent for him. A book called The Motorcycle Diaries was later published using the notes he took as he traveled around South America.

He became radicalized by his bike tour. He heard about the Revolution in Cuba, and he went there to help them out pure idealism with stars in his eyes. Che was also White like Castro and came from old Buenos Aires money. He probably had Italian and Spanish blood at the least, like most Argentines.

He married in Cuba and had a couple of kids before he was murdered by the CIA in a hospital in Bolivia in 1967 after being arrested in the nation for rebellion. He was very good to his wife and young children. The wife and children are still alive. You can even go see his son if you go to Cuba and have the right connections.

His wife and kids remember him very fondly. Che was a selfless and altruistic man. There is a slogan in Cuba: “Be like Che.” It is very popular. It means to be selfless and idealistic and sacrifice for others, to not be selfish and greedy. The slogan is popular among university students in particular. If you go to Cuba, you will hear Cuban university students, male and female, saying that their philosophy is to “be like Che.”

There must have been something wrong with the Batista system because a lot of university students, teachers, etc. took part in the early demonstrations against Batista. At some point, the Left went to the mountains and took up arms.

Either before or after, Batista ran death squads that rampaged through Cuba’s cities, murdering teachers, students, and the unarmed Left in general. They murdered thousands of defenseless and unarmed Cubans this way.

The army would not even fight for Batista. That’s how corrupt he was. In fact, many of the anti-Castro Cubans fought with Castro in the mountains to get rid of Batista, but they turned on him when he went Communist. They felt betrayed. I don’t mind these exiles so much. I have spoken with some of their children. At least they fought with Castro. But they tend to be very bitter. They think they got double-crossed and backstabbed by Castro.

Castro was originally simply a social democrat, and the initial revolutionary program was a social democratic one.

However, it was a very nationalistic revolution, and they started seizing foreign-owned businesses very quickly. The Cubans offered to pay off the owners for the market value of the businesses over a 30-year period. That offer it still in effect. 100% of the people and corporations who got their property taken turned down that offer, possibly out of pride and certainly out of ideology.

So their businesses didn’t really get confiscated. Castro offered to pay full value for them, but these stubborn reactionaries turned down the offer. It’s their own damn fault they lost their businesses.

The seizing of the foreign-owned property went on for a couple of years and was extremely popular among the extremely nationalistic Cubans. So you can see that Castro’s revolution, like Mao’s and Ho’s, was also and perhaps primarily a nationalist revolution.

Castro went to New York soon after he took power, and he was greeted with large crowds of cheering supporters. Castro talked about how much he loved America and Americans. I believe he was sincere. A lot of the US ruling class – the rich and corporations – were very suspicious of Castro from the start. They didn’t trust him. They didn’t hate him. They were just very leery of him.

Castro asked for US support and aid to help rebuild the country, but the US had turned hostile  by then due to the business confiscations and refused to give him a nickel. This went on for a couple of years with each side getting more hardened until Castro finally turned to the USSR in desperation in 1961 for support since the US was flipping him off.

Castro’s argument was that he tried to have a relationship with the US, and we told him to go to Hell, so we forced him into the arms of the Soviets. He sealed an alliance with the USSR in 1961. The US promptly imposed a cruel embargo on Cuba which has been there ever since.

The embargo’s official justification was to cause so much poverty and misery in Cuba that the people would rise up and overthrow Castro. Here it is 60 years later, and we still give the exact same reason for the embargo. If the embargo is intended to cause the people to overthrow Castro, when is it going to start working? So far it’s been 60 years of utter failure, but we keep chasing the White Whale.

Over the next year, Castro grew increasingly radical, and by 1962, he abandoned social democracy, his originally ideology, and took up Marxism-Leninism. After Castro went Communist, a lot of his old comrades turned against him along with many others who were not happy with his turn to the hard Left. These contras took up arms, formed guerrilla bands in the mountains, and waged a brutal civil war that went on until 1970.

Yes, the Cuban government executed 10,000 people between 1959-1970, but almost all were for “rebellion,” typically armed rebellion. There have hardly been any executions since.