Alt Left: The Alt Left Position on Religion with an Emphasis on Christianity

One wonders why I put Alt Left in front of this post. I originally did not want to, as many of my posts have nothing to do with Alt Left ideology. In particular, I do not think the Alt Left should be religious or get involved in scriptural or doctrinal arguments. We are too secular at our core for that. What we are is believer-friendly!

However, as I thought about it, there’s a way to sneak this in. More on that below.

First of all, the Alt Left is probably the only section of the Left that is not objectively hostile to not just religion in general but Christianity in particular. The American Left has always been extremely hostile to Christianity, silent (to their discredit) about Judaism, one of the primitive forms of ethno-religious barbarism known to man, and lately, openly celebratory about Islam, probably the most backwards and reactionary religion on Earth. The US Left has been anti-White for a long time. The religion of the US Whites is Christianity, hence US Christianity is tainted by the sins of the fathers. Not to mention that American Christianity has never been anything close to a theology of liberation; instead it has been a backwards theology of reaction more akin to Judaism than Chrisitianity than Judaism from Day One. But that’s not why the Left hates it. The Left, frankly, hates America. America in its only proper sense means White America. Anything else is fraudulent in a historical if not sociopolitical sense. As America = Whites, the Left hates Whites. As Christianity is the religion of the of the American Whites, the Left hates Christianity, in particularly Protestantism. The Left is probably going to become more pro-Catholic as as a result of their valorization and reification of the recent Hispanic immigrants to the US.

If you are on the Left and religious, come join the Alt Left! I’d love to have a religious Alt Left faction. We have a particular fondness for Christianity because the Alt Left was founded in the US. But we don’t privelege Protestantism above Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, especially as Protestantism in the Western Hemisphere has never been anything but reactionary.

Even more importantly, the Alt Left is the only faction on the Left that openly supports Whites, first of all, the Whites of the US but second of all, our White ancestors in the Old World. If you’re on the Left and you either love Whites or love being White, come join us in the Alt Left! We are the only Left faction that does not hate Whites!

The Alt Left supports (Eastern Orthodox) Replacement Theology because that is part of the essential doctrine of the Palestinian Christians, whom we support to hilt. We also support the Russian Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the Russian ethnic Leftist rebels in the Donbass, whatever that might be called.

The Alt Left also (Catholic) Liberation Theology, which can be boiled down to “Jesus as a leftwing revolutionary guerrilla with an AK-47.”

See especially the “Catholic Marxists” Camilo Torres, the rebel-priest and original “priest with an AK-47) founder of the ELN in Colombia, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (particularly the rebel poet-priest Ernesto Calderon), the FMLN in El Salvador (particularly Archbishop Romero), an Irish priest who led Honduras largest guerrilla group in the 1980’s whose name eludes me, Jean-Paul Aristide of Haiti, and believe it or not, the Maoist NPA in the Philippines, which has a lot of support among local Catholic priests in the villages.

Liberation  Theology is pure “Jesusism” or Catholicism. It emphasizes “the preferential option for the poor,” in other words, it is completely in accord with Jesus’ socioeconomic message.

In addition to that we should support Eastern Orthodox Replacement Theology as the proper liberation theology for the people of Palestine to take back their country from the violent usurpation of the Jews.

As  you can see, the two main religious strains we support are Liberation Theology, a Catholic doctrine, and Replacement Theology, an Eastern Orthodox doctrine.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Even Ghetto Blacks Are Not Doomed to Uniformly Bad Behavior

Polar Bear: Blacks on the other hand will steal your cheap plastic lawn chair. Blacks are always up to no good on my block.

I have a feeling this is more universal than we think. I was talking to a Brazilian woman I knew well. I told her,

“You don’t want to be racist against Blacks, but it’s hard.”

Meaning it’s hard for obvious reasons. She immediately commiserated and said,

Yes, it’s hard. Here in Brazil, we have a saying about Blacks. “If they don’t steal from you when they’re coming, they steal from you when they’re going.” (obviously in Portuguese).

In other words, “If they don’t steal from you when they come in, they steal from you when they leave.”

They don’t really act all that bad around here in my city except that they are ghetto as Hell. I made friends with one older Black man though. He hated Whites but I was able to get through to him. Later he saw me with a hot 23 year old part-Black woman, so now he probably likes me even more.

We just don’t have many Blacks in this town, period. Hence they cause few problems, and they tend to keep their heads down because they don’t have any numbers, which is what they ought to do anyway. When you only have a small % of Blacks in a city, they tend to act pretty good, mostly because they simply don’t have any numbers. They still cause problems. Blacks like that always cause problems. But they don’t cause mayhem like they do when they have larger numbers, and the difference between problems and mayhem is all the difference in the world.

Further, they are surrounded by Whites and Hispanics who almost always act better than they do. To their credit, these typically ghetto Blacks imitate the Whites and Hispanics around them and act a lot better.

A lot of them still act like shit but still act a lot less shitty than they ordinarily would. They’re still antisocial but they are antisocial in petty, neighborly ways and not in serious criminal ways. Like always asking to borrow money and then you never see the money again. They see you with an expensive object and they “request” that you give it to them. Just typical ghetto nig shit, but they won’t menace you if you don’t fork over your property, and you can always quit loaning them money.

All the young women in their 20’s have at least one kid, obviously with no man in sight. However, these basically ghetto women are quite well behaved.

Also around here the better behaved Blacks dislike the more ghetto ones like I just described. So there are varying degrees of morality even among a hardcore Black population.

In addition, the Whites and Hispanics simply will not put up with any shit at all from these ghetto Blacks. They call these Blacks on their tiniest antisocial bullshit, so that tends to nip the usually mandatory escalation in the bud. I have often thought that if these ghetto Blacks around here were living in a Black ghetto, they would act a lot worse.

It’s so obvious to me that even ghetto Blacks are not doomed to any particular behavior level. It’s also painfully clear to me that their own kind not only serve as horrific role models but also don’t call these Blacks on much of any of their antisocial bullshit. They don’t call them on the little stuff, and they probably don’t call them on the bigger stuff.

Humans aren’t stupid. They’ll get away with just about whatever the Hell you let them get away with. White people act quite good, but we aren’t angels, and every White community has its scumfucks. We are only human after all. Living in White communities my whole life, I was told and learned the hard way that (White) people will get away with just about whatever you let them get away with. So this isn’t a ghetto Black thing. It’s a human thing.

The behavior of even ghetto Blacks can be markedly improved.

First of all, they need to be a minority, preferably under 25%. 25% Black seems to be a tipping point in many cities, after which things start to go seriously to Hell in a handbasket. Below 25% Black, you can look at the statistics of various pathologies, and they don’t rise that much from 5 – 10 – 15 – 20% Black. The city remains more or less livable.

But somewhere between 20-30%, most cities tip over. What follows is probably White flight, usually slow rather than fast, and worse than that is that the decently behaved Blacks (of which there are many – many millions!) start taking off too. Well-behaved Blacks aren’t stupid. They’re not going to sit around in some ghettoizing shithole due to racial solidarity. Sanity and safety trumps racial consciousness any day of the week.

This does not apply to wealthy Black areas like Ladera Heights in Los Angeles, and it probably doesn’t apply to small Black towns in the South where a remarkably decent authentic Black culture is often present.

Second of all, the small population of Blacks needs to be a part of a better behaved larger population, preferably White, Hispanic, or Asian. Ghetto Blacks act remarkably better even in majority-Hispanic cities because Hispanic pathologies are much exaggerated and they act better than most people think.

Third, the larger population needs to call these ghetto Blacks on their antisocial shit, starting with the most petty neighborly BS. Just shut it down before it even starts. Either due to this or due to the general environment, the better behaved Blacks start shutting down the bad actors too. People, even supposedly irredeemable ghetto Blacks, do respond to harsh correction at the societal level.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Conservatism (Neoliberalism) Tends Towards Fascism Almost as a Mathematical Law of Political Science

Conservatism tends to always dissolve into fascism. Show me anywhere on Earth where conservatism, especially conservative, neoliberal economics has been sustainable? It’s not. If it were sustainable it would not have to go fascist but neoliberalism and its monstrous 3rd World cousin is never sustainable? Why? Because despite conservative lies, neoliberalism is generally shit for the lower 80% of the population. Under neoliberalism, the top 20% get richer, usually a lot richer and the bottom 80% lose money. And this setup never changes.

Neoliberalism always causes a crisis or a crash sooner of later (see the 2008 Crash, caused 100% by neoliberalism). It was in fact a Neoliberal Crash, like most economic crashes. This 2020 Crash in the US has been caused by the Coronavirus, but US neoliberalism has made it so much worse.

Furthermore, since neoliberalism is without fail horrible for the bottom 80% of the population by its nature, it always engenders a Left backlash.

Except in places that have already had some sort of a revolution and social contract has been reached, neoliberalism will often put up a huge fight against any threat from the Left at all. The less the regime tolerates the Left, the more radical and extreme the Left gets because extreme conservatism tends to cause extreme Leftism via a law of nature, sort of like a scale that must be balanced or better yet, the Balance of Nature itself.

Pretty soon you’ve got Latin America or even Southern Europe, where the Left is socialist or Communist and the Right is fascist, with little in between. This tends to be the case especially in Catholic countries because Catholic countries tend towards collectivism and tend to despise individualism, which is itself only a product of Protestantism. See Weber on that. He’s immaculate.

In  a collectivist society, all political movements are collectivist. Left collectivism is always socialism or Communism. Right collectivism is always fascism. So in these Catholic societies you tend to end up with Socialists/Communists versus Fascists, in other words, a chronically violent tinderbox in which both Left and Right will tend to get more authoritarian because that’s the only option left to you in a place like that.

Democracy’s not sustainable in an environment like that. In a place like that, democracy just means a lot of unrest, often violent, and eventually the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of your government, lawfully elected or not. Most governments don’t want to get violently overthrown, so in order not to do so, they have to become less democratic.

Fascism is properly seen as a rightwing revolutionary movement of capitalism that rises due to a threat from the Left. Fascism is a palingenetic popular dictatorship against the Left. Therefore, there cannot be any Left fascism. If it’s on the Left, it’s not fascism. Period. And fascism, being a popular dictatorship against the Left, is necessarily not particularly socialist or great for workers. Why would it be? Why would a popular dictatorship against the Left institute leftwing policies?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Conservatives Say That Inequality in Latin America Is Caused by Socialism

Transformer (to Jason): I notice you don’t write about Latin America a lot.

I was hoping for Robert to respond to this article but would like your thoughts. I think the issue of inequality in Latin America is very deep. Conservatives like to blame the left and Communism (think Fidel Castro and the current Venezuela government under Maduro), but the situation is more complex.

Conservatives say inequality is caused by socialism and Communism? See what liars they are? Conservatives are the biggest shmucks. See? They can’t even lie properly. The best liars are at least somewhat believable. Conservatives are like the 13 year old pathological liar. He’s just a kid and you can safely dismiss almost everything he says. Seeing as they are such awful liars, why do so many people fall for their laughable, pitiful lies?

It’s the greed, right? Conservatives sell greed. They say support conservatism if you want to make lots of money or keep all the money you have. Support liberalism is you like being poor and having most of your money taken away and wasted on boondoggles and ne’er do wells, many of them disgusting criminals, and the rest at least repulsively amoral and stupid.

I guess if you are selling greed, stupid humans will believe everything you say. Tell him if he wants to be rich he will realize it’s pitch dark outside when it’s 95 degrees and high noon, and he’ll go outside and insist it’s true. Tell them he can keep all his money if he’ll only acknowledge that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east, and he’ll swear they knew it along.

The truth is the opposite. The more socialism you have, the greater the economy. Venezuela before the crash was the most equal country in Latin America. Belarus and the Scandinavian countries are some of the most equal countries on Earth, with GINI indexes of 25-30, which is about where any country should be.

I admit that conservatives have their good points about their Latin American capitalism, but saying that Latin American inequality is caused by socialism isn’t one of them.

The more rightwing economics you have down there (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter), the more unequal things get. This is because capitalism is exactly how Marx said it was. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the natural, typical, expected, and totally ordinary outcome of any pure capitalist system. You could almost write a Goddamned mathematical law about it. I know you can plot it on a linear chart.

The only countries that split up their wealth in any sort of fair way other than, “Everything for the top 20%, and nothing for anybody else!” are societies that have seasoned and moderated their capitalism with ample helpings of socialism. Capitalism is great for growth and crap and distribution. Social is bad at growth and great at distribution.

I think it’s clear that some sort of mixed economies with private, cooperative, family, and public enterprises work best of all. And the commanding heights of the economy must be ruled by the state. This is one thing the Chinese got right. And incidentally, in Japan and even South Korea, it is much the same. And both of the latter countries model their economies in part on, believe it or not, Nazi Germany. There were a lot of terrible things about the Nazis, but their economy was not one of them.

In such a system, the state owns the commanding heights and has the last say in everything. And both quite-capitalist countries use state economic planning to guide their economy. So it’s not true that a planned economy does not work. When state and private actors work together to guide the economy of the country forward, the results are very good.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Teenage Boy Bullshit: The Fake Catholic Priest Pedophile/Child Molesting Epidemic

In short, it never even happened! There were no priests molesting kids*. There was no “kidfucking*.” There was no “child rape.” There were no pedophile priests*. There were not priest child molesters*.

*To be fair, 5% of the cases did involve actual child molesting. And a few of the priests, surely less than 5%, were pedophiles.

We are now in the midst of an idiotic mass hysteria and moral panic about the sexuality of teenage girls. I call it the Teenage Girl Bullshit. In contrast, in the cases of the fake pedophile priests, we are dealing with what I call the Teenage Boy Bullshit.

As noted above, there was either no child molesting or only very little. 95% of it was straight statutory rape, or as I prefer, illegal intercourse.

Kidfucking or child molestation: sex with children under 13.

Statutory rape or illegal intercourse: sex with teenagers 13-Age of Consent.

As it turns out the illegal intercourse in the case of the priest scandal was a particularly ugly kind because it was creepy and coercive. It had to be creepy and coercive because almost of the boys were straight boys seduced into gay sex. In general, straight teenage boys do not want to have gay sex, and thank God for that! Thank you very much, teenage boys! However, they can be manipulated into gay sex via creepy and coercive means.

There’s a problem here: Being seduced into gay sex can be very traumatic for a teenage straight boy and it may indeed cause problems extending into adulthood. Not because a straight teenage boy had sex (God forbid!) as the hysterics say. Instead it was because the sex was gay sex and not straight sex.

If the boys were gay, this scandal would not even exist. No one except the sex hysterics would give a damn because a majority of gay teenage boys are either fucking adult men already or they want to. Most if not all gay men who had sex with adult men when they were teenage boys look back on the experience with fond nostalgia.

Also there was no “kid rape.” There was illegal intercourse and child molestation. Statutory rape per se isn’t really rape. It’s really illegal intercourse. Child molesting per se isn’t rape either. Child molesting and child rape are two completely different things and the latter is a lot worse and more dangerous than the former.

As it is, it doesn’t look like anyone forced anyone to do anything. Rape is forced sex. As my mother pounded into my head a million times as a teenage boy and young man, rape involves force or the threat of force.

I have no idea of the sexual orientation of the boys. Most I heard of were straight. I have no idea if some were gay. I’m quite certain that any gay ones weren’t the ones complaining because gay boys never complain about consensual sex with adult men. They always say they like it.

But most of the sex in this scandal was bad it involved straight boys and not gay boys. The straight boys were tricked into gay sex and this is often bad for their psychological development.

Of course the 5% of cases involving little boys getting molested was very bad. I certainly don’t approve of adult men molesting little boy-children. I don’t know how harmful it is, but I doubt if it’s a good thing. It’s certainly bad for little girls under 13 to get molested by adults, and in quite a few cases the harm lasts into adulthood.

Probably none of the complaints involved gay boys.

The question was posed to me, Would I care if any of those boys the priests had sex with were gay? Of course I wouldn’t care! Other than possibly an abuse of a power dynamic and something a priest should not be doing as part of his job description, it’d be fine with me, and I’m sure it would be fine with the boys too! It’s not rape if they love it. Gay boys almost universally love their teen-adult sex, so I don’t understand what the problem is.*

*They like it if it’s consensual. There was some #metooing of gay men in the movie business by gay teenage boys, but that’s because those men were rapey and coercive towards teenage gay boys, not because they had sex. In a number of cases, those boys were actually raped. On the other hand, some of those gay boys #metooing those Hollywood adult men were teenage male prostitutes. I’m sorry they got coerced into rapey sex but they weren’t exactly paragons of moral value.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Undefined and Undefinable Feminist Definition of Rape

As I noted in another post, my Mom brought me up right. She taught me that under no circumstances was I to rape girls or women. She drilled into my head over and over that rape was force or the threat of force. Her message was, “Don’t do it, dammit!” She pretty much said everything other than that was fair game, which is the only sane view of rape.

My Mom’s a feminist, and a pretty bad one at that, getting worse as she ages. But nowadays feminists (most women) would call my Mom a rape apologist and a handmaiden because of the way the feminists have blown up the definition of rape and the fact that feminism gets increasingly insane every year, as is the case with all Identity Politics.

Of course the feminists and their fag “male” allies have no expanded the definition of rape to about the size of the Indian Ocean. Not only that but apparently no one can even properly define it as it’s as vague and  undecipherable as the Linear B inscriptions.

As it is, if a woman thinks she got raped, she got raped. That’s now the definition of rape!

Women actually believe that crap. When you put women in power, the first thing they do is  make vague, unenforceable laws to bring about their desired utopia.

Of course this never works, therefore all through space and time, whenever women are put into power over men, the result is simply complete chaos. People tire of it after a bit, and pretty soon, the sane people say, “Let’s have some sense here. Let the men take over!

And then some sort of patriarchy, benevolent or otherwise (typically otherwise), is reimposed. Society’s not fair after that, but it wasn’t fair under Female Rule either. Pick your poison. You will either be ruled by women or men.

Look around you at the Anglosphere, the UK, and Scandinavia to see the dystopian chaos of idiocy that ensues under Female Rule.

I’ll pick men any day. Women are incapable of ruling societies.  Women can do a lot of things,  but that’s not one of them. It’s fine really. Hey, women can’t do everything. Sometimes the ladies just need to step aside and let the boys take over.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Teenage Girl Bullshit

We are now living in a Pedophile Mass Hysteria. It’s really mass hysteria about the sexuality of teenage girls and to a much less extent, teenage boys. Teenage girls and to a lesser extent teenage boys are denied agency and conflated with little girl children and little boy children. A 17 boy is the same thing as a 7 year old boy! A 17 year old girl is the same thing as an 8 year old girl! It’s all the same. They’re all just “kids,” and “children.” No distinction whatsoever.

Actually teenagers are not children at all. Instead, as we knew in the Middle Ages, teenager are “little adults.” Teenage boys are just what high school coaches call them: young men. Teenage girls are just what their high school teachers call them: young women.

In truth, teenagers are neither children nor adults. Children are under the age of 13. No argument there. Adults are over the age of 17. None there either. However, people from 13-17 are in between, in a transitional stage, transitioning from children into adults. Teenage boys are what I call boy-men. Teenage girls are girl-women.

We are now in the midst of a panic over the sexuality of teenage girls. Basically they are being treated like 8 year olds, denied all agency. Their powerful sex drive, easily as strong as a woman’s, is denied and reverted back to the non-sexuality of little girl children.

Teenage girls are fully sexual beings. Fully sexual beings have a right to fulfill their sexual desires and destiny of any proper way – either with masturbation or with sex. As it is, not only is ubiquitous sex between teenage girls and adult men criminalized, pathologized, and conflated with creepy child molesters diddling little girls, but teenage girls in general are not even allowed to fulfill their sexual destiny with boys their age. In general, it’s not legal.

My position is that teenage girls are fully sexual beings who have the right to fulfill their sexual destiny through either masturbation or sex, which ever they choose, and these options must be legally available to them.

This mass hysteria is what I call the Teenage Girl Bullshit.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Worthlessness of the Western Left (Liberals and Social Democrats)

The Western Left is pathetic. Most of the Western Left is completely reactionary on US foreign policy. They’re almost completely worthless. I am thinking here of social democracy in the West, especially in Europe but also in the US.

The WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America) liberals are horrific, supporters of murderous US imperialism and fascist and rightwing authoritarian regimes. Really all liberals in the West are monsters because they all support genocidal Western imperialism and fascist and rightwing authoritarian regimes abroad.

Liberals are horrendous everywhere, in the US case, it’s liberal Democrats, a phrase which makes me want to spit every time I utter it because there’s nothing liberal about them. I have more respect for conservatives, reactionaries and Libertarians. At least they are true to their values. Liberal Democrats are the scum of the Earth. They talk the talk but they don’t walk the walk.

In the US, even the socialists (social democrats) are awful. The (((Jacobin))) crowd which is the DSA, is horrific on foreign policy, probably for (((that reason))). (((Those people))) in the West are absolutely vicious, murderous, genocidal imperialists out to use the US military to help their (((ethnic group’s corporations))). (((Those people are rich))) and their foreign policy is to work for (((the rich))).

Not that rich and corporate Gentiles are any better.  They’re usually worse. See Trump and those slimeballs around him, now openly fascist? That’s what the rich and corporate Gentiles are like. I’d rather be ruled by rich Jews than by rich Gentiles, assuming I have to be ruled by the rich, which I don’t have much choice of as this is a capitalist country.

The World Socialist Website, run by Western Trotskyites, is also starting to have serious ideological problems. You think that could have anything to do with (((their funders)))? If you want to buy off the Left, just fund them. It’s simple. They never have any money anyway since capital despises them and workers have no money, so they are very susceptible to being bought off.

Liberal human rights organizations in the West are monstrous. That includes the billionaire-funded Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, truly pathetic and wicked handmaidens of US foreign policy and imperialism. Those “human rights” organizations are just carrying water for their billionaire funders.

It just so happens that according the human rights industry, every Left government on Earth mysteriously has a “human rights” and “democracy” problem. Of course the rightwing governments don’t. The two organizations above actually cheered on the brutally racist fascist coup in Bolivia.

The US human rights industry is fascist in that they support fascism, but in the West, almost everything is fascist in that sense. All aspects of Western society have supported fascism and rightwing authoritarianism (same thing) for a hundred years. Those countries were not fascists or rightwing authoritarians themselves, but they supported them because they were good for business.

The “Left” in the West is pure imperialist. They’re 100% down with US and Western imperialism. I am thinking that if you support Western imperialism, you are not on the Left. Not any Left I would want to be a part of.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: A Vignette of the Reasons for the Colombian Civil War

Claudius: How do you define working well? What distinguishes the top category from the bottom? Is present-day Colombia really worse off than Mexico?

Yes. Colombia is much worse than Mexico in our view. Colombia is so fucked up that they murder one civilian every other day or so. It’s deadly to be on the Left in Colombia. Colombia exists for the rich and only for the rich. Why do you think the Left took up arms?

The state has failed in Colombia. Genocidal fascists took over or maybe were running things all along. They never even did a land reform! There is no state in Colombia. Just an army and police structure that exists to support the rich and their dictatorship over the people.

Let me give you an example.

I read about a rural area in Colombia recently. The rightwing death squads (the government) rampaged through the area and confiscated all of the farmers of the small farmers. Just stole them at gunpoint. This goes on all over Colombia all the time. The rich own a lot of the land, but they never own enough, so they are always trying to steal more. A very similar situation was going on in Guatemala and especially El Salvador and was the direct cause of the revolutions there. The Colombian rich already steal every nickel in the country, but that’s not enough.  They have to steal even more. At gunpoint.

Any farmers who resisted would be beaten, tortured, arrested, imprisoned, or simply murdered. The state worked hand in hand with the death squads which are just the private armies of the rich. Really the police and the military are just the private armies of the rich too. Leaders and members of farmers’ and peasants’ associations got the same treatment above, usually worse. Many were simply murdered, especially the former. This was a slow process (it always is) but over 10-15 years,  the rich had taken over all the land and added it to their latifundias.

More than anything else, Colombia needs a land reform (one could argue that this is the basic underlying cause of the armed Left revolution in Colombia) but the Colombian rich will do anything to stop it, even kill hundreds of thousands of people as D’Aubussion suggested in El Salvador (200,000 in his case to prevent land reform or “socialism” as he called it).

All of the peasants shoved off the countryside moved into nearby large cities. All of these cities quickly developed large slums if they didn’t have them already. The slums were made up on displaced peasants, now relegated to proletarianism in the city. If you study Marx this is a classic method for the development of capitalism, and it is in fact how capitalism developed in England.

Back to Colombia. The seething slums lack water (water must be purchased on large containers in the city below and then carted back to the house), power, sewage systems (the sewage runs downhill in the gutters) or much of anything. The Colombian state of course does absolutely nothing for these people as they don’t want to part with any of the money of the rich to do so. A mysterious crime wave develops in the new slums and the US media is puzzled by what could possibly have caused this strange new crime wave.

In the slums, urban Communist guerrilla cells begin to form. One day you are shocked to see a 12 year old boy walking down a steep street in the slum.

“That’s it,” you think, “The revolution has finally come. I’m outa here!”

You had always known it was building because in a situation like this, how can a Communist revolution not develop? A Communist revolution is almost guaranteed in a situation like this.

There are still plots in the countryside owned by farmers. Guerrillas now invade the abandoned areas and take over a lot of the towns.

“We are the army of the poor,” say the guerrillas. “We are here to protect you from the rich, the death squads, the army, the police, and the state.”

The townspeople are happy to see them. Guerrillas in full uniform walk down the streets of these towns like it’s nothing. There are guerrilla checkpoints all over the countryside at the entrance to every town. The guerrillas recruit in the towns and many of the young people who saw their parents, siblings and relatives brutally thrown off the land or better yet murdered join the guerrilla, mostly out of sense of vengeance.

At night, armed guerrillas show up in  large forces at the haciendas of the rich, living on land stolen from the peasants.

“Hello,” the guerrillas say. “We are here to collect war taxes for the revolution.”

“But I don’t support the revolution, the landowner says.

“No matter,” say the guerrillas, “The country needs a  revolution, it is having one, it needs to be funded, and as a wealthy man, you are obligated to support the revolution. And if you don’t, we will arrest and incarcerate you for tax evasion or if you prefer kidnap you and hold you for ransom.

The rich landowner agrees. Once a year he and his rich neighbors drive to spots in the countryside where they meet bands of guerrillas. All of this is done in secretly. There they hand over war taxes for the year. Those that do not pay are kidnapped for ransom, but the guerrillas say they are just being arrested and imprisoned for tax evasion and will be released on payment of taxes.

Most just pay their taxes to keep the guerrilla off the land so they can live in peace. A few hold out, refuse to pay taxes, and are kidnapped for ransom. The rich usually pay to free their people, but the offspring of these rich men are furious at these taxes and kidnappings. They move to the city and become part of the fascist Right. Some even join the death squads to “kill the Communists.” If you ask them why they joined the fascist Right, they will say, “Well, it all started when the guerrillas kidnapped my father for  ransom. At that point, I had finally had enough of them. We need to exterminate these delinquents with a heavy hand!

Outside the city there is a military checkpoint. This is symbolic. It is there to keep the landless peasants in the slums holed up in the slums so they don’t try to take their property back. There are army checkpoints at the entrances of every city in the area. The military checkpoints start to be attacked by mysterious guerrillas who seem to appear out of nowhere, and the army takes casualties.

Interactions between the local urban poor and countryside peasants become at these checkpoints become increasingly hostile, as the soldiers suspect with good reason that these people are supporting and harboring guerrillas in the areas where they live. New death squads form in the cities, slowly murdering and torturing to death random poor people and especially leaders of community organizations which they army had now labeled as organizations of the guerrillas. In fact, a lot of them are the unarmed aboveground formation of the guerrillas.

Death squads return to the countryside, now picking off random peasants and leaders of community organizations on the basis of support for the guerrillas. In most cases it’s true. The people killed do in fact support the guerrillas. Hell, just about everyone out here does. The few that don’t are suspected to be army and police spies and are closely watched. Occasionally the guerrillas execute one of these people for the crime of spying for the enemy. In fact, they were usually doing just that, spying on the guerrillas for the army.

Intelligence shows that the guerrillas are coming from the urban slums and countryside towns, which are now full of guerrillas.

Back at intelligence headquarters, urban guerrillas have infiltrated this military structure and are busy giving fake intelligence to the army and especially telling the guerrillas what  the intelligence knows and about any upcoming operations.

The army launches operations only to find nothing but peasants and small towns full of civilians without a guerrilla in sight when in fact the guerrillas were seen everywhere there a few days ago. It is as if the guerrillas had vanished into thin air.

The army begins to suspect that the guerrillas always seem to be one step above them and seem to have precognition about the army’s behavior. The army suspects spies in its midst and conducts internal sweeps but finds nothing. Commanders grow increasingly frustrated and angry and begin to take it out on the locals in the guerrilla zones.

The officers look up and the cloud-covered jungle mountains surrounding the area of their operation and begin to wonder if the guerrillas are up there somewhere, hiding in the misty rainforest.

They are correct. That is exactly where the guerrillas are. Difficult operations are launched in these jungle mountains of Colombia but nothing is found. Soldiers get injured, bitten by insects, and come down with strange diseases during these jungle operations.

The operations end and the army retreats back to the valley. Now not just officers but rank and file soldiers are getting even more angry, and they take it out even more on the locals. Down in the valleys, mysterious new guerrilla formations with names no one has heard of seem to show up out of nowhere in response to the army’s abuse of the civilians. These formations start attacking the army, and the army takes casualties. The soldiers get even more furious and take it out on the people even more.

After every crackdown on civilians, more and even more young people join the  guerrillas. When asked why they join, they say,

Well it all started when the army invaded our home and killed my father at his dinner meal. He was a simple peasant. He wasn’t part of any armed guerrilla. I am here to get my revenge.

In some areas, deals are cut with the rebels. The army gets to control the city below but the guerrillas get to the control the towns above eight miles up the road. This is exactly where the guerrilla checkpoints start. In the other direction as you head towards the valley, army checkpoints start. The army and the guerrilla have cut a deal to let each control a bit of territory on the basis that they sign a ceasefire and stop killing each other. After a while of this, the army starts running short of weapons. It turns out a number of officers have been selling the army’s weapons to the guerrillas.

The revolution in Colombia has many causes but this is a good overview of some the main issues that are driving this civil war more than anything else. At the end of the day, it’s just another fight over land and bread. Ever heard that one before?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Why Mexico’s State Is Better Than Colombia’s State

Claudius: How do you define working well? What distinguishes the top category from the bottom? Is present-day Colombia really worse off than Mexico?

From the view of the Alt Left, we would support Mexico over Colombia. Here is why Mexico is better:

Mexico already had their revolution and it was a progressive socialist revolution, almost like a Communist revolution in some ways. The feudal system of the latifundias was destroyed. Free education and health care for all was put in. A system of ejidos was put in so no one would starve. They are communal land and if things don’t work out in the city, you just move out to the country and work on an ejido. At least now you have food to eat. Mexico nationalized the oil industry.

Mexico doesn’t systematically murder the Left. The largest party is the Party of the Revolution, which is officially a socialist part and is even a member of the Socialist International. They did steal an election from the Left in 1988. AMLO is pretty leftwing but there are no death squads running around murdering his supporters. Women’s, human rights, peasant, slum-dwellers, consumer, Indian, workers’, etc. organizations exist all over the country and no one murders them.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Yes, the Alt Left is a Statist Movement

Claudius: Is the Alternative Left hell-bent on government control at the national and international level? Can’t we keep it more at the municipality level to prevent inefficiencies and ethnic tensions, e.g. Whites here paying for Blacks there?

Nothing wrong with decentralization and running a lot of stuff at the local level. Hell, even the Chinese do that, and they do it much better than most places.

Yep we want government everywhere, pretty much. See how the CCP runs China? Aside from the totalitarian aspects of it, that’s how I’d like to see the state be run.

Statism works great.

Works great in:

  • Vietnam
  • Nicaragua
  • Ethiopia
  • All of Western Europe except the UK abomination
  • Iceland
  • Finland
  • Armenia
  • Moldova
  • Most of Eastern Europe
  • Italy
  • North Africa
  • Yemen
  • Iran (especially)
  • Most of the Caribbean
  • Ex-Venezuela
  • Ex-Bolivia
  • Argentina
  • Ex-Brazil
  • Ecuador under Correa
  • Mexico
  • Canada
  • Uruguay
  • Guyana
  • Costa Rica
  • Eritrea
  • Ethiopia
  • Israel
  • The Gulf
  • Turkey
  • Russia
  • Most of Eastern Europe
  • Syria
  • Iraq
  • Mongolia
  • Laos
  • Cambodia
  • Australia
  • Nepal
  • Sudan
  • The Stans
  • North Korea
  • New Zealand
  • Japan
  • South Africa
  • Even South Korea and possibly Taiwan are quite statist, especially the former. Not that they couldn’t do better.

Models I don’t think much of:

  • Dominican Republic
  • Panama
  • Haiti
  • Colombia
  • Honduras
  • El Salvador
  • Guatemala
  • Ecuador
  • Peru
  • Chile
  • Bolivia
  • Paraguay
  • Brazil
  • UK
  • Baltics
  • Poland
  • Ukraine
  • Greece
  • Azerbaijan
  • Georgia
  • Somalia
  • All of Black Africa except South Africa. Does anything work in Africa?
  • India
  • Pakistan
  • Bangladesh
  • Afghanistan
  • Thailand
  • Indonesia
  • The Philippines
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
  • Lebanon
  • New Guinea
Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Trash’s Journeys to Return of Kings and Unz

Trashman Returns: Roosh V readers and even Roosh himself read this site.

What? Roosh V and even Roosh himself read my site?

Trashman Returns: But I was often called a “cuck” and “a shill”.

You’re not a cuck.

Trashman Returns: I moved on to an Alt Right site. But here I was called a Leftwing Libertarian-and I’m not Libertarian.

Unz. You’re not a Libertarian. I actually think you are Alternative Left! Maybe the liberal version and not the Leftist one.

Trashman Returns: When I pointed out the harm of neoliberal markets I was accused of being a shill and cuck and all the usual tedious Gen Z tags.

You’re a cuck if you’re against turbo-capitalism? How many times does capitalism have fall on its face before people wise up? Some people never learn.

Trashman Returns: Back came the response from one Unz Poster “Do you realize how f***ing gay that sounds, boss?”

Oh, you were on Unz. So many terrible rightwingers on there. We certainly don’t think being against neoliberalism is gay! We are conservative liberals and leftists, if that makes any sense. We are the Conservative Left! Rather conservative on social issues, but more left on economics and most everything else. In between the Cultural Left and the Republican social conservatives on social stuff.

Trashman Returns: Meanwhile, on RETURN OF KINGS, commentator’s wanted to tell me how “Alpha” they were and what a “Soyboy” I was.

Toxic masculinity. I hate that phrase, but that’s Roosh’s sites, sorry. Hell that’s all PUA sites. I am trying to get away from that here and create a PUA site for ordinary guys.

You’re not a soyboy? You’re for the men, right? Bros before hos! You’re against the manhating Feminist Enemy and you are with your brothers in solidarity against them. Ok, you’re not a soy or a cuck then. The soys and cucks are the male feminists and other fags who have taken up arms against their brothers by lining up with the feminists who wish our destruction.

PS I’m not against gay men here. Gay men are for the men! I usually call straight men gay. Almost all straight men nowadays are male feminists fags. The male feminists who are working against the men to ruin our jobs and careers and put most of us in jail or prison (the goal of modern feminism) – those are the guys that I call cucks, soyboys, fags, wussies, girlymen, etc. I just call them that to humiliate them and attack their masculinity for lining up with the enemy against their brothers. I do this to shame them away from their gay anti-male tactics. Also, if you’re with the women and against the men, you’re not much of a man. You’re a pathetic wuss, a girlyman.

No real man is for the women and against the men. If that’s you, then you’re a fag.

People like Jason think I am against feminine men but I’m really not. I don’t care how masculine or feminine any man is. Hell, a lot of people used to think I was gay! And I’m a pretty soft guy myself and it’s caused me problems with women my whole damned life. I don’t care how masculine you are! You want to be a wimp, knock yourself out, man! I think straight effeminate men are bizarre. Why don’t you just go gay if you’re going to act like that? I’m not against effeminate gay men either. Cats meow, dogs bark, and gay men are effeminate. I dislike effeminate behavior in men, but I understand that it’s normal for gay men to be this way.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Face It: The Latest Riots are Multiracial Leftwing Antiracist Riots

Alpha Unit: I am responding to this narrative that all this destruction and violence is a “Black” thing. That’s not the whole story.

I would agree with you that the riots are not all a Black thing. Head on over to American Renaissance and see how these are being portrayed as Black riots. Well, there are Black riots in this country, but these don’t really qualify. In some cities, in these riots it is mostly Blacks rioting. Those are cities in the South like Atlanta, Louisville, Birmingham, and some other places that elude me at the moment. I believe there were Whites in the crowd in Atlanta though.

In general, the rioters were a mix of young Black, Hispanic, and White men, mostly antisocial and living on the edge of society, most without decent or any jobs or much to lose. I saw many young men rioting right alongside the Blacks. The Whites looked like skate punk and Antifa types. A lot of Whites were holding up BLM signs and chanting BLM slogans.

In LA, most of the rioters tended to be Hispanics.

In Las Vegas, the crowd was very mixed, mostly Hispanics with some Whites, even including White women, with a few Blacks in the mix too. The white rioters seemed to have more of the fancier materials you need to start a riot.

In Minneapolis, many of those smashing and setting things on fire were young White men, often skate punk types. In some cases, they worked right alongside inner city type Blacks. However, I did see an interview with a Minneapolis Black gang member who said that all of the gangs in the city (mostly Black) were working together in these riots to cause mayhem even though a lot of them were enemies normally.  So there is also a criminal gang element, but that shouldn’t be surprising.

The riots seem quite multiracial in New York, but it was hard to get a breakdown. There were a lot of Blacks but also some Whites.

There were many Whites in the Washington DC riots but also a lot of Blacks of course.

Rioters in Seattle and Portland tended to be young antifa type Whites.

Chicago seemed to have a lot of Blacks, but there were also Whites mixed in.

The truth is that these for the most part are multiracial riots. Yes, many rioters are Black, but there are quite a few young White and Hispanic men in the mix.

I will say one thing. It seems like most of the looting is being done by Blacks. I did see a few Whites looting in Minneapolis and New York. Hispanics are known to loot but I’m not aware of how many of them did. In the Rodney King riots, the looters were heavily Black and Hispanics. However, when they moved up to Hollywood, a lot of more or less regular young White men got in on, targeting high end items.

I was happy to see the stores of the rich looted and smashed up though. That’s who they should be targeting.

Looting does tend to be a Black thing. Hispanics don’t seem to loot as much, and it seems like a lot of Whites, even White rioters, are averse to looting. A White rioter will smash stuff up, set a building on fire but then refuse to loot other buildings. Not sure why that is, but I think Antifa doesn’t like looting. Plus a lot of Whites are afraid to steal or perhaps they even consider it morally wrong.

Alpha Unit: And leftwing people are not delusional for thinking there are rightwing people out there seeking to capitalize on these protests.

Correct, but I am seeing little evidence of this.

Three Bugaloo Boys went to a demonstration and tried to turn it violent, but the crowd did not buy it. Further, the Bugaloos are a mixed bag. Yes most are rightwingers, often racist ones. However, there are other Bugaloos who are on the left and a number of them are antiracists. So the Bugaloos are just a group of “tear it down” folks who are insurrectionists against the government for a variety of reasons – right, left, racist and antiracist. The only thing that unites them is the desire to smash it up and take down the state.

I am watching leftwing subs on Reddit, and all they ever say about these riots is that it’s White Nationalist racists and undercover police instigators who are setting off the  riots or even doing most of the damage. I went to the page of one liberal, and he said all the destruction was being done by White nationalists and undercover police instigators. He also said Russia was behind the riots.

Black people don’t want to think it’s their people rioting. That’s a typical human Dindu reaction. They are correct, the Black rioters are having a significant  amount of White and Hispanic help. That’s the better response. Pawning it off on cops and rightwing racists ain’t gonna cut it.

Leftwingers and antiracists object to the notion that these are leftwing antiracist riots. Once again this is the typical human Dindu reaction. Dindu reactions tend to be more of a human response than a Black cope. People don’t like to take responsibility when their group does bad things, so they blame it all on outsiders or better yet, their enemies.

Rightwingers are notorious for this but as we can see, leftwingers and antiracists are not immune to it either. The defenses are Denial and Projection. “Blaming other people” isn’t just something pathological people do. Most people go through life blaming other people in some way or other. I don’t object to blaming other people, but I think the less you do it, the better.

But that’s exactly what they are – these are indeed leftwing antiracist riots. And antifa-type and BLM (neither of which are organizations) elements do appear significant. The young Whites may be apolitical, or if they vote at all, they vote Bernie. The Blacks and Hispanics just vote straight Democratic if they even vote at all. I think a lot of these rioters are apolitical in the sense that they are outside of organized politics and might not even vote.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Leftwing Dindus: Who’s Behind the Riots?

Alpha Unit: LAS VEGAS (AP) — Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas.

Federal prosecutors say the three white men with U.S. military experience are accused of conspiring to carry out a plan that began in April in conjunction with protests to reopen businesses closed because of the coronavirus.

More recently, they sought to capitalize on protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis after a white officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes even after he stopped moving and pleading for air, prosecutors said.

The three men were arrested Saturday on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by The Associated Press.

Make of this what you will.

So, did they spark any violence? No. What is the name of this group? Boogaloo Boys?

The vast majority of the people I see smashing stuff up, setting things on fire, and looting are young people. Many of them are young Black men who don’t exactly look like fine upstanding citizens. In the West many of the rioters are young Hispanic man who don’t exactly look like model citizens either. In all of these riots, and most particularly in Minneapolis, the smashers and burners were young White men who look something like antifa types or skate punks. Antifa has indeed had presence in these riots. Look at all the antifa graffiti.

The vast majority or rioters are young lumpen Black, Hispanic and White men. They live on the fringes of society and are estranged from mainstream culture. Many are anti-society. Most don’t seem to have much if any money. Many do not appear to be married or have children.

If these rioters vote at all, they may vote Bernie. The Blacks and Hispanics will either vote Bernie or simply Democratic if they even vote at all. These are leftwing riots all the way. Not even liberal riots. Leftwing riots, as in to the left of liberal Democrats. No party is behind this. Almost all Democratic Party politicians are condemning the violence. There are no organizations called antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Of course people on the left do not wish to believe that these are leftwing riots. Left-wingers, like everyone else, are Dindus. I suppose Blacks also wish to deflect the blame, and Blacks are the original Dindus. Leftwing Dindus are saying that all the rioting is being caused by far right racist White nationalists and undercover police instigators. This is simply the natural human tendency to deny and deflect blame whenever members of your group do something unsavory.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Libertarian Topics It’s Ok to Discuss On Here

If you want to talk about Libertarians on metoo, custody courts, affirmative action, and reparations, ok.

These are all areas of government (and corporate) overreach. I would particularly like to see critiques of the carceral system and carceral state, everybody calling the cops for every little problem, and the fact that about half of the things we want to do in life are now actually or effectively illegal. Every year I look at the new laws, and more things I have been doing my whole life are illegal.

Look at speech codes and hate speech codes. Every week I wake up and another word I’ve been using my whole life is banned. Every other sentence is now some sort of bigotry, offense, or insult needing an apology else your career is over.

It’s not the state that’s doing this. It’s our Sanctimonious Nanny State (a word I hate) Culture or Nanny State Culture that’s firing all these guys. Our culture is now run by Church Ladies (Church Lady Culture) and Stern Nuns with Rulers. No fun allowed! Fun is bigotry! Fun is hate! If you’re having fun, you must be hating, preying up, exploiting or hurting some poor vulnerable soul.

How about the increasingly Puritan Left, Comstock Left, Victorian  Left, or Sex-hating Left. Of course all of this is coming right out  of Sex-Negative Feminism. I came out of the revolutions of the 1960’s. One of our mottoes was, “Do it in the streets!” So my whole life, I’ve been a Do it in the streets type guy. A Hugh Hefner liberal.

The Left is now as sex-hating as the Christian Right. Hell, the only sex-positive politics these days is on the Right! Pathetic! I didn’t sign up for this shit, this prudery. The Left is now championing everything we were opposed and fought against.

The whole carceral state (Mommy Cop) is out of control. I want to see it reigned in. Probably half of our laws should be flushed down the toilet. People can pretty easily solve most of their problems themselves without getting Mommy Cop (the Police State).

Any problem nowadays, snowflakes go yelling for Mommy Cop to come rescue them. “Mommy Cop! He hurt me! He called me a name!” Mommy Cop whips out her ticket book and writes a ticket for yet another of a growing list of citation offenses.

If you want to talk any of these things, go for it:

    • Our invasion of privacy or the fact that we have no privacy at all anymore.
    • #metoo, sexual assault and raaaaaaaaape bullshit.
    • The travesty of custody courts.
    • Affirmative action.
    • Reparations.
    • The carceral system or carceral state (Mommy
      Cop).
    • Legal reform, eliminating many stupid, intrusive, anti-freedom, and sanctimonious laws about personal behavior.
    • The fact that people can probably solve a lot of issues now dealt with by Mommy Cop amongst themselves without crying for Mommy Cop.
    • Hate speech and speech codes.
    • Cancel Culture or the Left’s war on free speech and increasingly even free thought.
    • Various sanctimonious party-pooper, no fun, turd in the punchbowl modern Left cultures that could be called such things as Nanny State Culture, Church Lady Culture, or Nuns with Rulers Culture, in other words the punitive aspects of the Cultural Left.
    • The prudish, anti-sex Left cultures variously described the Puritan Left, Comstock Left, Victorian Left, or Sex-hating Left. Also Sex-Negative Feminism.
    • Anti-freedom, Carceral State Feminism.
    • Pedophile Mass Hysteria, the insane abuse of age of consent and statutory rape laws, and the moral panic around the sexuality of teenage girls.
    • The increasing infantilization of society where childhood is dragged out to the day before the 18th birthday and beyond.
    • Females demanding to be permanent infants when it benefits them and then permanent adults when that benefits them.
    • The notion that females are Forever Children who lack agency their entire lives.

Libertarians have excellent views on all this, which is really civil libertarianism. I am a civil libertarian, as in an ACLU-type liberal. Libertarians are with the old ACLU on civil liberties.

The ACLU is now a cucked, fagged-out Cultural Left Shitshow characterized by dishonest legal theory and the abandonment of (male) reason and logic in favor of (female) emotion and bias when it comes to legal matters. But the old ACLU was great, and the Libertarians line right up with the old liberal civil libertarians. So that’s a great commonality with Libertarians that we can talk about.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Libertarianism and the Alt Left: Prospects for an Alliance?

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Peronismo definitely won’t fly in Libertarian circles. Argentina is used as a case study for a failed nationalized protectionist economy.

That’s probably not even true. They did great during the Peron years.

I think that the Trump years in general and this COVID-19 response in particular, both of which have been characterized by neoliberal or Libertarian policy and a Libertarian response to a crisis, respectively, has proven the abject failure of the neoliberal or Libertarian model. As if it had not been proven failed by the 2008 crash, which was caused wholly by this model.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: To unify all the nomadic tribes of the Alternative Steppe, three things are need. First, a rejection of central economic planning would have to be declared by right and left wingers. Second, constitutional or legislative limitations on the power of government to regulate. Essentially, castrate the FDA, FCC, FAA etc.* and legalize drugs

I absolutely will not go for either of those. Central planning is working great in China. Even South Korea, Japan, and Germany engage in central planning.

And we will never go along with gutting regulations. Alt Leftists are regulators. We are really Big Government types in a lot of ways.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: And third, a solution to the immigration problem.

There is no solution to this problem.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The social-economic model, even if never explicitly stated as such, would be capitalism for corporations, socialism for individuals, and tyranny at the border, which is the inverse of what we have now. Warren Buffett agrees.

It’s the capitalism for corporations part that we are going to object to. That’s the whole problem right there.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The Democrats will stay hopelessly in shambles for the next few elections until minority GDP and population both over take that of whites.

I wouldn’t count on that if I were you.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Deregulation is hard for leftists to accept because of the strong tendency to falsely conflate wealth redistribution with government regulation.

It is in fact that only thing that redistributes income at all. Absent that you just have never-ending growth of inequality until you pretty much have feudalism. Neoliberalism (or Libertarian economics) has failed everywhere it’s been tried. It’s only success stories are when it’s mixed with socialism. Most of the world rejects neoliberal economics. The US is a holdout. There aren’t many others.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I suggest aptitude AND loyalty testing for immigrants to keep the stupids or anti-westerns out.

That’s fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: No explicit racism, but it would effectively bring in only Christian Caucasians from Europe, Africa and the Middle-East, liberal East Asians and light-skinned Hispanics.

We would object to this part. Of course we want mostly high-quality immigrants, but they don’t have to be any particular race. High-quality immigrants of any race should be just fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Currently, strong regulation of consumer goods & services exists because, ex post fact, individuals can’t afford to sue companies for the damages their products may have caused. As IQ’s, automation, access to on-line information, and personal income increase worldwide, people could rely less on byzantine jurisprudence.

I don’t understand any of this.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: But as I see the tsunami of technology and globalization approaching to totally demolish the justification for our current system, I can’t help but take preparations for the utopia. We must agree on which anarchist utopia to usher in, lest our system turn into a Blade Runner dystopia.

The future will not be any type of anarchism. In fact the future will see a greater role for the state.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: A Rundown of the “Conservative Left”

Here is a rundown on the “conservative Left” – liberal to Left on economics and centrist to Right on social issues.

Nazbols or National Bolsheviks– The classic socially conservative and economically Leftist group. Founded in Russia by Limonov, a writer. They never had much of an ideology other than some extreme nationalism, albeit not ethnic nationalism but instead “Russian Empire nationalism” -see below. Mostly they were just permanent rebels, almost perverse in that sense. They seemed to automatically oppose anything or anyone in power reflexively. Often tarred by the Cultural Left as fascists, Nazis, etc. However, Limonov himself was neither a Nazi nor a fash. His movement united people from the left, right and center in a populist nationalism similar to Peronism. More of a Third Positionist. Arkan’s Serbian Tigers of the Serbian National Party could be seen as Nazbol. Horribly marred by racism and even genocidism. They were guilty of genocide of non-Serbs in the Balkans. Milosevic may have been similar – a racist Communist (see below).

The Alternative Left or Alt Left – more Centrist than conservative on social stuff. Already splintered to Hell and split into 13 different wings, including a moderate sort of liberal-Left White Nationalist wing rejected by the others but nevertheless one of the founding factions. Movement was originally race realist, now dropped from program. Agnostic and silent – no comment – on race realism. Brocialist Left (Brocialists), also Partyboy Left, Fratboy Left, Trollblogger Left, Shitlord Left, or Asshole Left, sometimes very irreverent and offensive but mostly just trolls. Shitlord, shitposting and trolling tendencies. Some are “trollbloggers” like Max

The Realist Left. More liberal than left on culture and more between the Cultural Left and the Alt Left on social stuff. Their beef is more intellectual – opposition to postmodernism. They are also anti-Marxist though. Basically Keynesians with safety net.

The Old Left. Hard Left on economics. Quite conservative on culture. Think KPRF or the Russian Communist Party.

Dirtbag Left, etc. Left economics. Other groups think the are too SJW. Basically brocialists. Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kuklinski, Cenk Uyghur, etc. Anti-SJW, irreverent. Partyboy Left, Fratboy Left, Asshole Left. Brocialists.

leftypol -longstanding 4chan sub. Marxist on economics but somewhat anti-Identity Politics (Idpol), nevertheless quite left on culture but not nearly as far as the Cultural Left. Sort of Cultural Left 1995, if you will.

Third Positionists. All sorts of groupings. Vary a lot but tend to be nationalists but not ethnic nationalists – anyone can come to the nation, assimilate, and be a national – French post-Revolution nationalism or Russian nationalism. Russian nationalism like French nationalism is assimilationist nationalist and typically not ethnic nationalist, accepts many minorities into the “empire” of the Russian state, Orthodox but warm towards moderate Islam and assimilating Jews, very pragmatic.

Peronism – longstanding socialist nationalism of the “common man” or shirtless ones and populist in that sense. Somewhat socially conservative. Like Nazbols in uniting right, left, and center around a populist nationalism. Also contained both Marxist and fash wings!

International Socialist Movement –  runs International Socialist Review website. Trotskyist but pragmatic, longstanding anti-Idpol on  a Marxist theoretical basis.

“Conservative Left” – There are others that are part of existing states. However they are marred by ethnic chauvinism, racism, fash tendencies, authoritarianism, brutality, or even genocidism. Erdogans in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, Arab nationalists like Baath Party people in Syria and Iraq, Burmese regime, Qaddafi’s green socialism in Libya, Iranian Revolutionary Left or even the existing state, Putin in Russia, Lukashenko in Belarus, Duterte in Philippines, Sandinistas, ETA in Basque Country (dissolved), and even Hamas &  Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to some extent. All former Communist countries were conservative on social stuff with left economics.

Red Tories – Canadian group. Liberal-left on economics, a bit conservative on social stuff but not too much. Moderate heterodox movement.

George Wallace supporters – left populism marred by racism.

Strasserists – “White Nationalist Left” or worse Nazi Left or Racist Left in the original incarnation. Heimbach’s Traditionalist Workers Party, Tom Metzger, etc. I appreciate Metzger’s populist support for workers – albeit White workers – and ferocious anti-bossism, anti-rich rhetoric. Both are Strasserists, but they are terribly marred by racism- Metzger’s followers have murdered minorities and Heimbach’s movement was very racist. Original Strasserists disliked Jews on an economic instead of racial basis and rejected Nazi scientific racism. Nevertheless, modern Strasserists have committed racist murders against Jews, so I don’t see why the reason for their antisemitism is important. They are extremely marred if not discredited by racism. Basically Nazi Communists, if that term even makes sense. Strasserists were very pro worker and anti-capitalist, I’ll give them that. There is a huge Strasserist wing on Stormfront. Most people don’t know that.

“Economic reductionists” – slur directed by mainstream Left towards the conservative left. Also often called fascists, rightists, conservatives, racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, etc. probably falsely because conservative Left types are not even as bigoted as conservative Republicans, instead more centrist on minority and women’s issues, and in general most conservative Left groups support equal rights based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

We can go on and on here. Jack London was a sort of Racist Left akin to the WN wing of the Alt Left. The US Left was like this pre-Kennedy. Many US working class and union members are still like this, now scandalously abandoned by the Democrats and US Left as Deplorables, and hence voting Trump and Republican in vast numbers. I think the Democrats need to let these folks back into the fold, but we’re too busy screaming at them and calling them bigots and rednecks. Hence we have Trump as President and a Republican Congress. Way to go Cultural Left! Keep electing Republicans!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Complete Deterioration of Literary Criticism in the Last 40 Years

I like to read literary criticism sometimes because it’s some of the hardest stuff out there to understand, at least for me. Forget philosophy. Don’t even go there. Lit Crit is different. With Lit Crit it’s hard as hell to understand and it’s incredibly smart and dense, but you can pretty much understand most if not all of it, so it’s worth it. I call it giving my brain a workout, and to me it’s similar to going to the gym for your body.

I recently read a couple of Hemingway’s best short stories. Then I found and read two Lit Crit articles about them. Lit Crit is very useful this way. If you haven’t already read the work, I’m not quite sure how useful it is or how much you would get out it. But if you’ve read it, Crit is often great for explicating the work and explaining deeper meanings, themes, etc. hidden in the text.

One was in a journal called Journal of College Literature from 1980. It was remarkably down to earth for a Lit Crit journal, especially the issues around published around that time. So I started going through a few decades worth of the journal.

I noticed that the Lit Crit from ~40 years ago was much different and frankly much superior to the gobbledygook out nowadays. It then focused on individual books and was fairly straightforward, simply looking for explications of the events, characters, plots, and themes in the book.

As I moved forward a couple of decades, everything changed. Now it was all postmodernism. Lit Crit about individual works were less common. The crit became ridiculously politicized with SJW and PC Leftist slants towards everything. Now I am a Leftist myself (albeit a weird one) but for the life of me, I do not understand why we need to litter our Lit Crit with Leftist political theory.

In addition to Marxism, there was also inordinate focus on women (feminism, mostly a joke field called Women’s Studies), gays and lesbians (from the lens of a ridiculous and bizarre field called Queer Studies), Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other non-Whites (same thing- focus on non-fields like Black and Hispanic Studies), on and on.

Pretty much all they wrote about were these “oppressed minorities.” Cringey Queer Studies essays searched for and discovering non-existing homosexuality in perfectly straight stories (Did you know Moby Dick is a gay novel?) and secret homosexuality in completely straight authors (Did you know Shakespeare was gay?). It’s weird and stupid.

There was also a strange attempt to find some silly “woman angle” in novels where women were not particularly important to the story.
There was also a focus on older books written by women and minorities which are apparently good books merely because they were written by a minority or woman and not for any other reason.

Why Lit Crit has to be all about oppressed minorities is beyond me. Fine, some minorities are oppressed. We need a politics to address that. But why trash up Lit Crit with leftwing obsessions with minority groups? Last time I checked, straights, Whites, and men also existed. Can we maybe keep the politics out of our Crit and just talk about the books without turning everything into a political rally?

Another worse problem went along with this. The essays became dominated by postmodernism and were much harder to understand. There were references to philosophy scattered all through everything (particularly unintelligible Continentals like Sartre, Derrida, Lacan, Cixous, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Foucalt, Frankfurt School, DeLueze and Guattari).

That’s all fine and dandy but why can’t we keep unintelligible philosophers out of our Lit Crit? What do incomprehensible Frenchmen spouting nonsense have to do with the novels we read?

It is true that the essays became much more demanding, but there was also a lot of silly talk about things like the Body (?), the Male Gaze (!?), the Text, the Author, the Reader (Barthes), on and on with weird, silly postmodern concepts.

In addition, somehow they became strangely repetitive in that they obsessed over the same postmodernist tropes and views in essay after essay. After a while, it seemed like I was reading the same essay again and again and learning little about the actual books being discussed.
Finally, it became quite boring as a result of this repetition.

tl/dr: Lit Crit has completely deteriorated over the past 40 years. It’s now a swamp of barely comprehensible postmodernism and obsessions with women, gays and minorities. Leftist politics and incoherent Continental philosophers litter every essay, turning it from a brain workout into muddy slow trod up a mountain in the rain without boots or a poncho.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: Venezuela: The Chavistas Are Not Perfect: Errors of the Maduro Government in Venezuela

The government has indeed made some errors.

Maduro would not float the currency forever, hence inflation raged. But the inflation was caused by the economic war. But still. They had some ideological opposition to floating the currency. Also they thought it would be extremely unpopular by wiping out savings.

That was a huge screw-up for the longest time. Sure, the opposition caused the problem, but Maduro didn’t have the guts to fix it. Maduro’s not an idiot. He just didn’t have the guts to make the tough choice. Chavez would have done it.

And it is true that they did not keep up the oil infrastructure well. With the oil rents they could choose to sink the money back into infrastructure or give to the people via social programs. Granted, they did both but they privileged giving it out as social programs, and this did cause infrastructure deterioration.

There’s other stuff too. All that talk of death squads?

Well, it’s bullshit as they don’t kill the opposition. What’s going on is there is an insane crime problem, mostly in the slums, for the longest time. Reasons are complex but it’s mostly habit. The crime rate has been awful forever. Well, the state police raid the slums to try to deal with this crazy crime wave, and they’ve been pretty vicious about it. The “death squads” are just cops executing criminals or criminal suspects during raids in the slums. It’s dirty but it’s not political.

A couple of opposition people fell out of high windows while being interrogated by the internal police. I believe they were thrown out. These guys were officers in the military who participated in coup plots against the government, so I guess the state was particularly mad at them for being traitors.

The prisons are horrible and there are regular prison riots all the time. They are put down by force. Latest one, 37 people died. It’s a complex problem going on forever, but Chavez was trying very hard to do something about it. The penal system and cops have always been brutal and vicious. It’s an institutional thing. This goes back before Chavez even.

Yes, there are ELN and FARC guerrillas in Venezuela, and yes, they do use it as a hideout. The Chavistas mostly leave them alone, but there have been some arrests.

The guerrillas are now running a lot of the gold mining areas and taxing the gold. Actually the guerrilla brought the crime rate down a lot, and they were much less brutal than the drug gangs or even the Chavista government! There are 1,500 ELN guerrillas in the gold mining areas right now. The government just leaves them alone, doesn’t bother them, and lets them run those regions.  Mostly they just turn a blind eye to them.

They’re not perfect.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Alt Left Definition of Racism

Have you heard of the anonymous academic La Griffe du Lion?

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/

His best is where he explains how low black IQ may have cost Al Gore Florida and the Presidency.

http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/elec2000.htm

First of all, he’s not anonymous. He’s been doxed already.

Yes I have heard of him and he’s absolutely horrible. He’s a sociology professor at some university. I hate tossing the word racist around promiscuously like SJW’s do, but let’s face it, some Whites are indeed racist against Black people,  and he’s definitely one of them.

I’m not talking about race realism, which is just reciting facts that Black people don’t want to hear. Race realism per se is not racism, but 99% of race realists are actual racists, so I see why people say race realism is racism. However there are a few that are not. That’s basically been the project at this site since forever: to create a progressive, non-racist race realist discourse. It goes beyond that but that’s a good starter.

Race realism with a tone of animus is racist. Race realism without animus is not racist at all. I define racism as animus and I also propose that as an Alt Left definition of racism. And La Griffe De Lion is racist in that sense. He has actual animus towards Blacks and it shows in his writing.

 

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: The Alt Left and Libertarianism: Similarities and Differences

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: “We need a judicial system but not like this. It’s got to be dramatically reformed. We have way too many laws. The cucks, women, cops, narcs, and police state types have succeeded in making just about half of life illegal. Seriously.

Half of crimes should just be abolished because they’re chickenshit offenses. For a lot of that stuff, just let people settle things among themselves.” – Sir Robert of the ALT SINISTER

Don’t you mean the minarchy, a.k.a. The Libertarian Church, excommunicated and decentralized from the Roman Pope?

No, we are not minarchists. We sort of want a minimal cop presence though. Or just a friendly cop presence. Remember the cop on the beat who knew everyone? Like that.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: “The Street is a sort of living being constituted of the sum total of all of the minds of all of the people on the Street. It is actually extremely intelligent, even brilliant, in a street-smart sort of way.” – Sir Robert of the ALT SINISTER

Don’t you mean the invisible hand of the market, a.k.a. The Libertarian Jesus?

No, I didn’t mean the market. The Street regulates itself but look at how many bodies it leaves behind.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: “The Street is a sort of living being constituted of the sum total of all of the minds of all of the people on the Street. It is actually extremely intelligent, even brilliant, in a street-smart sort of way.”

Who is that fine writer? Oh, it’s me! Damn, I wrote that? That’s some nice prose! Sometimes I go back over my old stuff and think, “Damn that was good!,” but then I often think I can’t write like that anymore.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: What is the practical difference between Libertarians and the Alt Left? I don’t see a big difference except that you want universal health care and basic income paid by taxes. If you can keep the pigs from slaughtering civilians, you earned some free medicaid. It’s a compromise I am willing to make.

Yeah, in a lot of ways we are super-civil libertarians in the ACLU sense. We are Left on just about everything else except the Cultural Left. But even there we are halfway between the Cultural Left and the Republican Social Conservatives.

And we are far Left on civil liberties. You know, if you get out there on the Far Left, they’re pretty anti-police state, anti-cop, anti-prison, anti-carceral state as they call it. And yes, they do resemble Libertarians in that sense and so do we.

Horseshoe theory and all that. But the Alt Left is somewhat of a horseshoe movement, or it exists at the place where the Left meets the Right. As one Alt Left thinker said, the Alt Left starts at the place where Ralph Nader on the Left meets Pat Buchanan on the Right. Or possibly at the point where Mussolini was tiring of Marxism and shifting towards fascism. Which is sort of Third Positionist.

Someone else said we resemble early Frankfurt School before they got into cultural critique so much.

We are also a syncretic political movement. And there are definitely some Third Positionists in the Alt Left, that’s for damn sure.

There is even a White Nationalist branch of the Alt Left! All the other wings hate them, but it is run by one of the founders of the Alt Left, Brandon Adamnson. And the Alt Left did start out as an Alt Right split, so we are rightwing in that sense. Sort of Leftie Alt Right types. In fact, Brandon had “the left wing of the Alt Right” as his motto for a while. Actually I made that up and said that’s what we were.

Brandon and I were originally hangers-on on the Alt Right but didn’t like certain aspects of it. I didn’t like the raw, naked racism. That’s just gross to me. I am more of a race realist and a “tell it like it is when it comes to race” guy.

Brandon is more of a liberal-Left White nationalist. He’s always been a liberal-Left type guy, but then he got into WN, and he felt increasingly uneasy with all that awful conservatism or reaction on there. It literally made him sick. So he split.

You know Juan Peron? We are sort of Peronists, too. And we are nationalists. Screw this internationalism BS. And Peron did indeed call his movement something like socialist nationalists or something like that. And we are that also. Tulio once called us Redpilled Leftists. That’s a good one, too.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: “White Socialism” and the Class Character of the Recent British Race Riots

Clavdivs Americanvs: Rank-and-file Libertardians might just secretly be White-Power Commies who like guns but know that any socialist regime will disproportionately tax them and give to the niggers. Oh the humanity!

There are more WN supporters of White Socialism than you think! And you would be surprised at who they might be. Majority Rights is headquarters of some of them, including Daniel, a major thinker.

There is a huge number of White Left types or National Socialists on Stormfront. There are whole large sections for them. Many are young Americans too.Tom Metzger always pushed some sort of White socialism or working class class-conscious populism. His racism is horrible, but I like his economics and the class character of his working class project against the bosses and the rich.

Of course almost all European WN’s are coming from a socialist viewpoint. There’s no such thing as conservative economics or Libertarianism over there. Everybody hates it.

The UK is probably the only exception since the specter of Maggie Thatcher appeared.

However the Left is huge over there, and they are quite militant and radical. Even those wild racial riots in the UK a while back over police brutality had a class character. Most rioters were Black, mixed race, and Pakistanis.

Only corporate outfits were looted or burned, and focus was specifically on the tax-avoiders which are well-known in the UK and are widely hated for that. Can you imagine a majority of White Americans being infuriated by corporations that don’t or hardly pay any taxes? Absurd. Hell, most US Whites would probably cheer those corporations on and wish there were more of them.

Small businesses friendly to the locals were generally unharmed. It’s amazing how much class consciousness the Blacks and Pakistanis have over there. Could you imagine Black rioters in  the US being that class conscious? I’d almost support more Black riots if they were.

When Thatcher died, there were riots all over the UK. She was hanged in burning effigy in a number of places. Fires were set, and there was quite a bit of ruckus. This happened mostly in the poorer, working class, and housing project areas. Could you imagine the US White poor and working class being this class conscious and burning Reagan in effigy? It’ll never happen!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: This Really Is Fascism

Or rightwing authoritarianism. Or a rightwing dictatorship. Actually it looks a lot more like that than fascism per se, but most rightwing authoritarian states and dictatorships are frankly fascist. We need to get away form this idea that fascism is only this thing that occurred in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Read some of Trotsky’s early works on fascism. He wrote some of the finest descriptions of fascism ever written.

Fascism can also be seen as palingenetic nationalism. The phoenix sprouting from the ashes. It occurs during a time of a downturn in the nation’s fortunes. The fascists promise a return to the glory days of old, typically invoking blood and soil nationalism, national mythologies, etc. And that is precisely what Trump is doing here – Make America Great Again is a palingenetic nationalist slogan.

Another excellent definition of fascism is “a popular dictatorship against the Left.” It usually occurs during a period when there is a serious threat to Capital from the Left. The capitalists invoke fascism as a last ditch effort to preserve capitalism from the threat from the Left.

Now, onto the Trump Administration. You keep wondering what is the limit of what people will tolerate until they finally say they’ve had enough. It’s like every day brings some new unheard-of outrage or unprecedented assault on our basic norms and values. And no atrocity seems to wake people up. With each new offense and crime, people shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh well.”

It looks like half the population is ok with what is basically fascism or rightwing authoritarianism along Latin American or 3rd world shithole (Philippines, Indonesia, etc.) lines. Pathetic. We’re now a wealthy version of a banana republic.

Think about that real hard. We now have a fascist political party in charge of our country, and nearly half of the population of this country is ok with that, which means that close to half of Americans are now out and out fascists.

Quit the patriotardism! There is something terribly wrong with Americans and perhaps there has been for some time or even all along.

After all, this latest recrudescence has been building since 1964 and particularly since 1980 in its quasi-fascist variant. The roots of this fascism are in American culture. Quit the flag waving. There’s nothing to be proud of anyone.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Massive Fail: India Is Actually More Messed Up Than Sub-Saharan Africa!

You don’t actually believe that Africa is somehow better off than India?

Yes, I absolutely do. Less outdoor shitting, lower malnutrition and starvation, fewer women dying in childbirth. I was appalled. India is even more fucked up than Sub-Saharan Africa! Talk about pathetic. You need to stop defending your shithole, man. Face it, it’s a shithole. SHI is right. Embrace the fact that it’s a shithole, drop out of Indian society, and be done with it.

Many Africans haven’t even come out of the hunter gatherer lifestyle

This is absolutely false. The White Nationalists (in other words, the nigger-haters) say this all the time. I went and did some research on it, and nope, there are only a few hunter-gatherer societies left in Africa. Almost all sub-Saharan groups are agriculturalists, either tending small plots which is the norm or growing crops on large plantations.

Africans in fact may have been the first to invent agriculture 12,000 YBP in the Gambian Highlands. As with so many things human, once again, Africans did it first. Africans have had plantation agriculture since 1,100 YBP. It started in East Africa around Tanzania and places like that.

Africa overall, may also have more land but probably has less habitable land than India, so putting all these things into perspective, I don’t see how India could have a higher rate when there is no open defecation in South India, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, there may be very little in Jammu, none in Kashmir/Ladakh, and very little in Northeast (I’m assuming Assam is the only one where it may be common).

They do. 60% of Indians shit outdoors. Highest rate in the world.

Dude, stop. Defending India is a fools’ errand that leads nowhere, and you end up lying all the time because the only way to defend India is with lies. Come to think of it, that’s pretty pathetic right there.

I would also like to know where these stats are from and how did they actually manage to conclude that this number of Indians are openly defecating.

A while back when organizations were promoting the war on open defecation, I did the research. And yep, India was worst. 60%. Pakistan had 34% though, which is also pretty bad. Indonesia also had a pretty high rate, surprisingly.

And when I did my research, not only was Africa lower (I think 25-30%, though it seemed to vary), but African people and governments seemed to think that open defecation was a bad thing. The people themselves seemed embarrassed and disgusted by it. This made me think a lot of better of the Africans. At least they think it’s messed up!

In contrast when I looked into India, I found that a lot of Indians simply didn’t care or else actually preferred to be streetshitters. I don’t know what to do about India. Sometimes I think India needs Maoism. Total Cultural Revolution. Not The Cultural Revolution , which definitely had issues, but the cultural revolution that the CCP initiated as soon as they got in and which they pursue to this very day.

I am so sorry. But when you are actually more fucked up than Sub-Saharan Africa, of all places, man, you got problems. When even some of the worst failos are beating you, man, that’s fail with a capital F.

And while it may be difficult to have pride if you are a Sub-Saharan African (though I think they should anyway), Black Africans can at least take  pride in the fact that so many of the biggest milestones in the development of Homo sapiens that left us able to be this civilized were actually initiated by Africans.

All the way up to agriculture. Yep, Africans did it first once again. They started smelting iron awful early too. In fact, Africans were smelting iron even before Europeans were 2,900 YBP! Sure, Africans didn’t advance much beyond that, but still, being the first to reach so many of humanity’s milestones is pretty cool. And Africans can also be proud of the fact that they are more socially advanced than Indians!

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: A Postmortem Autopsy the Journalistic Profession in the US

I’m a journalist. We journalists should all try to be objective, whatever our biases. As a journalist I am committed to only one thing – the truth. If it my side look bad, oh well. If it makes my adversaries look good, oh well.

Most journalists nowadays are whores and stenographers paid to pump out column inches of lies made up by the Deep State and of biased news in favor of the American Oligarchy (the rich and the corporations and the US government they occupy that does their bidding), day in and day out.

I’d venture to say that there are only a few honest journalists out there, and most of those are on the Left. Not liberals. Screw American liberals. I mean the  real progressives and Leftists, who properly despise US liberal Democrats.

All journalists associated with every large US newspaper and newsmagazine and every TV and radio news station except Pacifica and often PBS are nothing but propagandists for the American Deep State, who are the people who ultimately run this country.

I believe that The Interpreter, the Gray Zone, Mint News and Global Research all do excellent work.

Of the big guys, I only respect Seymour Hirsch. Last of a dying breed. Committed to discovering the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, politics be damned.

On the other side of the pond, Robert Fisk is a stand in for Hirsch. There are more too. For some reason the Euro journalists are far less corrupted than our presstitutes.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

Alt Left: White Supremacists Are the Worst Whites and White SJW’s Are the Best Whites

The White Supremacists are actually highly degenerate and backwards Whites. They want to go back to the backwards, barbaric and frankly un-White behavior that we used to engage in and that the whole non-White world continues to engage in.

White liberals and Leftists, who bizarrely hate Whites, promote the best White behavior of all and in a sense are the best Whites of them. In fact, they are almost too good. They are the equivalent of the guilt-ridden neurotic who thinks they are the most terrible people on Earth when in fact they never do anything wrong and live their lives like saints.

The White Supremacists instead are like psychopaths and Cluster B types – they are the worst humans of all.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

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.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20