The Black Genius – Some Thoughts and Examples

There are a few things progressive people can do with regard to differential IQ results. The current results* show US White IQ = 103 and US Black IQ = 89.8. That’s being somewhat generous with Black IQ, as I am wont to do. Others might peg it a couple of points lower, but whatever. There’s about 1 Standard Deviation separating the two scores. I have a feeling that a lot of what people call Black pathology flows right from this I STD.

For instance, when Black and White IQ’s are held constant, Blacks have 2 times the crime rate of Whites. That’s a 10

That right there implies that there is more than IQ causing Black crime. One of the projects of this blog is to quit fucking around with fake liberal/Left BS explanations for Black pathology and to figure out what is really driving this stuff, come Hell or high water.

One problem with the current White nationalist line about Black IQ is that there are way too many smart Blacks. The White nationalist line goes that Blacks are semi-retarded with a IQ of 89.8 (when 88 was the former retarded line and then PC people changed it to 88 and changed retardation to 73, throwing 1/3 of all Blacks out of retardation.

So the line is Blacks Are a Bunch of Retards. We’ve heard this line forever coming out of the Black IQ scores in Africa, which, at average IQ of 70, are in fact retarded. 5

The problem is that when you take these attitudes out into the real world, they don’t really pass the smell test. There are way too many smart Blacks. This is the first problem. So the scores in a way don’t make sense. It’s quite clear to me that Blacks are currently less intelligent than Whites in the US at 1 STD. Whether that’s permanent or not is up is another matter. But to listen to White nationalists, smart Blacks are few and far between.

In Africa, extrapolating from the tests, there might be

The problem is that when you look around at Black Africans, there are quite a few who are very, very smart. I know a fellow from Togo who has a Masters in Computer Science. He used to work for me, and he had that kind of sloppy Black genius, but he’s very smart.

Last I talked to him, he was in France involved with some super-brains at MIT doing cutting edge graduate IT theory work in stuff that I could barely even understand. He was thinking of going for a PhD in Computer Science. I’ve spoken to him, and he’s smart as Hell in all sorts of other ways too. I don’t know what his IQ was, but I was worried it was higher than mine, and I’m smarter than 999/1000 Americans.

I have also heard White nationalists make fancy arguments that because Blacks are so stupid, they have never created any “geniuses on the level of US Whites” and apparently never will. This bothers me.

Suffice to say that while clearly US Blacks are much less intelligent than US Whites, and clearly African Blacks are way too stupid for their own good and we must try to raise their IQ’s as a public emergency issue, in some way, the tests still seem to be underestimating Black intelligence.

Africa is an obvious case. Most Whites with IQ’s below 73 can’t drive a car, work, marry or live independently. They live in group homes and have very limited lives.

Black Africans, with an average IQ 3 points below the retardation level in the US, can drive, marry, have normal friendships, live independently, have children, etc. In short, they are able to function in a normal African society and do not need to be institutionalized, nor should they be institutionalized.

I talked to a lot of these characters when I did anti-scamming work. In some ways they were dumb as rocks, but in other ways they were smart as whips. In one case, we had an American with an IQ of about 76. She was sent in wild circles for months by these 70 IQ Africans with their wild schemes, games, stories and lies such that she was nearly driven nuts. They took for stupid and were running rings around her dumbass brain. Yet the tests say she was smarter than they were. Bullshit.

Long story short, yes, Africans have frighteningly low IQ’s, and many African problems surely flow directly from that. On the other hand, in some weird way, the tests are yet underestimating Black African IQ.

In the US, yes, Blacks are 1 STD lower in IQ than So many things, obviously, first of all, the achievement gap, flow directly from this fact. On the other hand, extrapolating out from these scores, we realize that there are should not be that many smart Blacks.

Yet, curiously, there seem to be way too many smart Blacks around than the stats would suggest. Alpha Unit, Car Guy and tulio types (commenters and writers on the site) should be quite rare, in fact, once you start looking around, it seems like they are everywhere, even in the Abagondsphere. Turn on Pacifica, and it’s full of smart Blacks. Way too many.

Something doesn’t make sense. Maybe it’s the Flynn Effect. According to the Flynn Effect of rising IQ’s in the US, your average Black today has the same IQ as the average White in 1960. That’s stunning, and doesn’t seem to make sense on so many levels, but the facts are true. In fact, James Flynn himself has verified that truth to me.

If Blacks are as smart as 1960 Whites, why are they so fucked up, and why can’t they create the 1960 White America? Once again, things don’t make sense. My conclusion is that it’s possible that US Blacks are perfectly capable of creating 1960 White America, it’s just that they are fucking up. Why, I have no idea, but you’ve seen the figures. Whatever reasons for them, lack of brains is not one of them. The conclusion is that Blacks are screwing up and need to get off the dime and get their shit together.

That Blacks have the same as 1960 Whites makes sense to me looking at my blog, at the blogosphere, and tuning in to Pacifica. There are way too many smart Blacks for the scores to make sense. But the intuitive reality makes sense if the entire scale has been flying upward with time. The old low is the new average. The old average is the new bright. We’re getting smarter, though Idiot Culture would seem to argue against that.

So we finally work our way back to the Black genius. if Black brains really are different on average (I say they are) then the Black genius will look different from the White genius. We may see this in a WN way of the Black genius is not even a genius, just a mediocrity, but that doesn’t seem to add up.

Black ideologues have long had the rather racist notion that Blacks have some particular thinking style that is not picked up on IQ tests and hence the tests are biased. I think this is nonsense in a way that it denies the realities of intelligence differences, but in a weird way, they may be onto something. As a race realist, I would go further and say that in fact Black brains are different on average from White brains. So Black intelligence and Black genius looks somewhat different from White genius.

To Whites, even some very smart Blacks seem sort of stupid due to sloppiness.

Their brain is going like a wild pinball machines, analogies, puns and references bouncing off each other like wild, but then there are spelling and punctuation errors and other fuckups. You call them on it, and the Black genius doesn’t seem to care. His brain’s going a mile a minute, all this genius stuff is pouring out like water over a broken dam, and Hell with the small stuff, errors and bullshit.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a good example of the Black genius. Here is his webpage. I wrote him a while back, offering to copy-edit his stuff, but in that Black either too proud of don’t give a fuck way, he never wrote back.

Here are two videos of two other Black geniuses.

One is Cornel West, the stunningly brilliant Black academic. The other is Micheal Eric Dyson, another incredible Black academic. This is where WN’s infuriate me. Both of these guys, especially West, are flat out top notch thinkers. I think West is up there with Tolstoy, Dante and Plato as a thinker.

Modern White philosophers leave me cold because I can’t understand them. West breaks all that BS down into street lingo that almost the average Black on the street could sort of figure it out. Watching his mind is facscinating. It’s like watchign a Coltrane jazz solo. It’s got to be the Black genius. Furthermore, think about.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1Q6v1xsvcI&feature=related]

The other is Michael Eric Dyson. Once again, the archetypal Black genius, brain as a pinball machine thing. He’s more like a great rapper than great Black jazz musician, but it’s more or less the same thing.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrRrlbiVRA]

How many Whites think like these guys? Not many.

Many very smart Blacks do not display the typical Black genius. Acculturated in White society, they don’t sound a lot different from Whites.

*Setting US IQ at 100.

East Germans Getting Nostalgic For Socialism

Repost from the old site.

Although there were reportedly some serious problems with East German socialism (the Trabant, the ubiquitous vehicle, was a piece of junk), with the recent chaos in world capitalism, many East Germans are now saying that they would rather have socialism than capitalism. A recent survey found that 5

Sales of Marx’s Das Kapital have tripled since last year and increased 100X since 1990, although sales as a whole remain low. The publisher expressed amazement and said that he never thought the book would sell well again. He said that even bankers and managers are reading it to try to figure out what’s going in with the turmoil in capitalist economics.

The switch from socialism to capitalism has not worked out very well in the East. Unemployment and poverty are very high. The outskirts of Berlin, Leipzig and the Baltic shore and doing well, but the rest of the region is doing poorly. It’s actually suffering depopulation.

One of the problems with East Germany was that the factories were really not competitive by Western standards. After reunification, they were bought by Western competitors and shut down. That seems devious. The Left Party, a genuine Leftist party, now has 3

One serious problem with Communism has been that, although in general it got rid of poverty, it was unable to provide more than a low standard of living. Nowadays, for better or worse, people want stuff. They don’t want empty stores, lines, shortages and crappy products. Social capital only goes so far with people. This is going to be a real challenge for modern socialists.

In addition, there was often great economic growth for decades, but then it all bogged down into bureaucracy. Another vexing problem to be dealt with.

The Role of Jews in the Left and Communism in the 20th Century

A commenter asks why there are so many Jews in the Communist Party USA. When I was getting their newspaper in 1998, it was stacked with Jews from top to bottom.

Don’t they know the the USSR effectively turned anti-Jewish starting from 1948? And being the most privileged elite group in America, what do they have to gain by being in the CPUSA?

Jews are very leftwing people. A lot of them are liberals, socialists, Leftists or out and out Communists. As far as why this is, much ink has been expended. You are urged to look into it yourself, and see what you can come up with. This is one of the Fascist Right’s main arguments against Jews – that they are a bunch of Commies. That’s why Hitler and the other fascists killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, to wipe out Judeo-Bolshevism.

The White nationalist Right and the Kevin MacDonald types continue to recycle this meme about Commie Jews who hate Whites and kill Whites. They go on and on about Bolshevik Jews who murdered 20-110 million Russian Christians, or some shit like that. This is the Czarist and fascist Solzhenitzen’s beef against Jews – they’re a bunch of Commies. Or they bring up Bela Kun. Or the German Communists in 1919-1920. Or the Polish Communists. Or on and on.

That’s one of the reasons I am a Judeophile. Jews are my comrades. They are one of the most Leftist ethnic groups that ever lived, and they played a great role in the development of the Left from 1850-on, a role that continues to this day.

There’s nothing great about Stalin turning anti-Jewish at the end, just more Stalinist paranoia and murder. The Jews built the Bolshevik state up from nothing. They created the state that Stalin ruled.

Most modern-day Stalinists and Communists are actually pro-Jewish, especially the ones in the Russia nowadays. Remember that Stalin made anti-Semitism illegal in 1926, and made the punishment the death penalty. I’m glad he did that! Plus he married some Jewish women and had some Jewish mistresses. He didn’t hate Jews at all; it’s a bunch of anti-Semitic wishful thinking shit.

Ilya Ehrenberg, a Jew, was Stalin’s chief propagandist in WW2. He wrote, “You’re either an anti-Semite or anti-Nazi, there is no middle ground.” He drew the line in the sand, and I still agree with that line.

The fascists still hate Ehrenberg with a passion so hot it could smelt iron. Go over to Stormfront and praise Ilya Ehrenberg, and they will probably try to lynch you on the spot.

Musings on Dual Loyalty, Judaism as Zionism, and Anti-Semitism

Repost from the old site.

Always-perceptive commenter James Schipper makes some astute, terse and cut to the chase comments on my post, The “New Anti-Semitism.” In it, he moves beyond the typically vulgar anti-Semitism that much modern anti-Zionism descends into and offers a perfectly logical explanation for the dual loyalty accusation leveled at Jews.

He also brings up some very difficult questions about the differences between Judaism and Zionism and whether there is really any difference at all.

Schipper:

If criticism of Israel = anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism, then we should be proud to call ourselves anti-Semites.

What is really wrong with Israel? It is not such a bad country for Jews, or even for the Arabs in Israel proper. I would rather be a Jew in Israel than an Arab in any Arab country. Israel was born in sin, but so was every country in the Western hemisphere. Israel is oppressive in the occupied territories, but by historical standards, this oppression is hardly unique.

The real reason for opposing Israel is that it does not see itself as the country of its citizens but as the country of all the Jews in the world. According to Israel, Jews in other countries are living in exile, are really Israelis and should be loyal to Israel.

In other words, Israel expects the Jewish citizens of other countries to behave like Israel’s fifth-columnists, and that is exactly what Zionists outside Israel are.

No political party outside Israel should accept Zionists as members, and no government outside Israel should appoint Zionists to a senior government job. Instead, Zionist should be encouraged to put their bodies where their loyalties are: in Israel.

Suppose that Italy saw itself as the country of all Catholics in the world and expected Catholics everywhere to defend Italian interests, then it would be behaving exactly as Israel does. That would also be a good reason for non-Catholics in other countries to look at Catholics with suspicion and to regard Italy with hostility.

The late Arthur Koestler wrote in an essay that after 1948 all Jews should choose one of two options: go to Israel or abandon Judaism altogether. He is right insofar as Judaism implies Zionism.

Judaism has always posited that Jews are a people and that Israel is their promised land, which is also the position of Zionism. If Judaism implies Zionism, then Jews outside of Israel, it they want to remain Jewish, should emigrate to Israel or else detribalize and deterritorialize Judaism, which may be denaturing it.

Theological question: Why does Obama allow bad things to happen and evil people to prosper?

More seriously, why did Obama appoint a hard Zionist as his chief of staff? It is not a good sign.

I agree with several things in this post.

First of all, he attacks some of the usual broadsides leveled at Israel and dismisses them.

What I find disturbing, and many Zionists have noted this, is the particular vehemence many Israel-critics level at Israel’s oppression of Jews inside Israel, while they are silent or even supportive of even worse oppression by states against minorities outside Israel.

White nationalists think it’s awesome for Whites to treat non-Whites like shit, except when it comes to White Jews versus “muds” in Israel. Kurds in the Arab World are treated awfully bad, Berbers less so but still poorly, and the Shia are oppressed all over the Arab World. There is open oppression and violence against Christians in Egypt and Iraq.

Baha’i are treated horribly in Iran, Sunnis less so but still poorly, and the Ahwaz have some good beefs. Turks treat Kurds horribly in Turkey. Russia has massacred 2

Japan treats its Koreans, Burakumin and Ainu pretty badly. The Hmong are still treated like shit in Laos, and the Montagnards are not done well by Vietnam. Pygmies are openly genocided and cannibalized as a matter of custom in Zaire, and the Khoisan are nearly murdered at will in SW Africa.

There is a real genocide of Arabs against Africans in Darfur, and another one, Arabs versus Christians, has just ended in South Sudan. Africans are routinely enslaved by Arabs in the Sahel.

We could go and on, but you get the picture. What is disturbing about all of this is that most Israel-critics are either indifferent to, ignorant of or even supportive of, the maltreatment of minorities above. Zionists are correct that this is either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

All, or most all, modern nations were born in sin.

This was due to the nature of the modern nation-building exercise, which typically involved ethnic cleansing or some sort of mass killing or genocide of any existing indigenous people, sidelining, subjection, forced assimilation (cultural genocide) or outright genocide against anyone not part of the dominant nation of the nation-state, and forced destruction of all languages but the one chosen by the nation-state or that is the dominant nation.

The Modern Left in the West, which has adopted Third-Worldism, minority-hugging and European hatred with gusto, errs in singling out Europeans for particular abuse in terms of nation-building. It’s been bloody and awful everywhere and at all times.

Schipper also points out that although Israel is oppressive in the Occupied Territories, by comparative standards, they are relatively mild. Considering the outrageous provocations and attacks of the Palestinians, I am amazed Israel has gone as easy on them as it has.

Arabs do not believe in fighting wars in a civilized manner, and the Geneva Conventions are regarded by them as Western comedy. Any Arab state faced with Palestinian-type provocations by non-Arabs would have been vastly worse than Israel.

Truthfully, just about every nation fighting an insurgency has been more horrible that Israel by orders of magnitude.

Consider this: according to counterinsurgency doctrine, enshrined by the US military and state and promoted by the US media and both US political parties, any civilian who “supports” an insurgency needs to be arrested, beaten, tortured and killed. All counterinsurgencies supported by the US have routinely massacred, mutilated and tortured to death insurgency “supporters.”

This has been true in every counterinsurgency in Latin America, in Indonesia in 1965, the US counterinsurgencies in SE Asia during the Vietnam War, the counterinsurgencies in Mozambique, Algeria and Angola, Russia’s counterinsurgency in Chechnya, India’s counterinsurgencies in India proper and Kashmir, in Sri Lanka against the Tamils, in Indonesia against the Acehese and East Timorese, in the Philippines against the NPA, and in Nepal’s recent Civil War.

In these counterinsurgencies, hundreds of thousands of “supporters” of insurgencies were murdered, tortured and mutilated, while the US cheered, poured in money and looked the other way.

In contrast, almost 10

Considering the provocations of the Palestinians, Israel has fought one of the cleanest counterinsurgencies in modern times.

Zionists are correct that these criticisms of Israel, combined with support for to indifference to much worse behaviors by non-Jews, are evidence of either ignorance or anti-Semitism.

But Schipper does hit it on the head.

The reason to oppose Israel is that it is not a state of its citizens. Israel openly says that it is the state of all Jews on Earth, not of its citizens. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable for non-Jews in every nation on Earth containing Jews to look upon their Jews as possible traitors and dual-loyalists. Dual loyalty, rather than being an “anti-Semitic canard” as many Jews shrilly screech, is actually grounded in immaculate reason.

Schipper also suggests that the wall between Judaism and Zionism may be little more than a wall of sand, and one that has been hit by so many waves that there’s almost nothing left.

Although anti-Zionist Jews offer various reasons for their non-support of Israel, the fact remains that Judaism has always said that Israel is the land of the Jews. Assuming the Messiah returns tomorrow, even Naturei Karta is willing to head to Israel and become fervent Zionists.

Hence the uncomfortable notion, typically parroted by ferocious anti-Zionists and some vulgar anti-Semites, that it is not just Zionism that is the problem, but Judaism itself, is lent some troubling weight. I don’t want to go near this thesis because to be honest, I’m a pussy when it comes to the Jewish Question.

Schipper finally suggests that the Jews of the world either renounce Judaism or practice what you preach and head to Israel. Once again, troubling stuff.

There’s nary a trace of anti-Semitism in Schipper’s comments, but the issues he raises are toxic as Hell.

Just some thought-meals.

Enjoy.

Schipper On Jews, Modernism and the Left

Repost from the old site.

Astute commenter James Schipper comments on the Statement on Jews and Antisemitism post:

Another intellectual flaw of anti-Semites is overgeneralization. Jews live in dozens of different countries and Judaism varies from superorthodoxy to reformism, but they see all Jews as the same. That’s only possible if Jews are seen as a race and if their race explains their behavior.I don’t think that Jews created modernity. It is the other way around: modernity created the post-ghetto Jew. Starting with revolutionary France, Jews in Europe were emancipated, that is, their separate legal status was abolished and they became ordinary citizens.

Since they still were outsiders to some extent, most of them were attracted to leftism, which, being the ideology of change, obviously would be preferred by outsiders. Conservativism is the ideology of those who are well-integrated in and happy with the status quo.

The fact that Jews are overrepresented among leftists has nothing to do with Judaism but everything with their minority status and their historical situation as often persecuted outsiders. We need sociological, not theological or biological explanations for Jewish behavior.

Biology explains only Jewish over-representation in intellectually demanding professions because there is every reason to assume that Jews have on average more innate intelligence than Gentiles.

My view is that Jews in Palestine were not smarter than the people around them, but that it was the smartest ones that in Roman times were expelled from or left Palestine in disproportionate numbers. Those that stayed behind were eventually assimilated.

Surely there is nothing in the genes of the Jew that creates “the Jew”. When you delve into anti-Semitism, pretty soon, you find that most rightwing White racialist anti-Semites believe that the evils of the Jew are located in the genes. I consider this to be nonsense, but we shall await the findings of modern genetics. I doubt if anything will turn up.

Hyperethnocentrism along with tendencies towards insularity, clannishness, xenophobia, paranoia and and even racism tend to occur across all types of Jews. I feel this is due to culture. As evidence, I note that many converts to Judaism quickly develop all of these characteristics, often in spades. That seems to seal the case for cultural Jewishness right there.

Schipper neatly sums up why the Jews have been attracted to the Left. In all this time, I have never heard anyone say it quite so succinctly. Outsiders are attracted to the Left, so Blacks and Hispanics in the US vote Democratic. Those satisfied with the status quo are conservative, hence Whites in the US are conservative.

Schipper’s analysis also probably explains the new emergence of a considerable movement in the US of conservative Jews. Antisemitism in the US has been reduced to a shadow of itself, and Jews are more successful than any other ethnic group.

When they were still getting barred from country clubs, and when signs said, “No Jews or dogs allowed,” Jews had a great reason to vote liberal, whatever their economic fortunes. Now that they’ve got life dicked here in the US, a number of them are well-integrated in and happy with the status quo and the phenomenon of the rightwing Jew has appeared.

I doubt if the Jews who left Palestine were any smarter than the ones who stayed, but I don’t have a lot of proof.

I suspect that Talmudic culture, which developed in Europe after 900 with the solidification of the Babylonian Talmud, with its emphasis on learning (Jewish men who could not learn the Talmud left the ghetto and converted to Christianity), along with the smartest Jewish men being seen as the best marriage partners for Jewish women, had a lot to do with selection for intelligence and high Ashkenazi IQ, though I realize that this ought to also predict high IQ in Mizrachi Jews, and their IQ is not notably high.

Great Site On Ethnic Groups In China

Repost from the old site.

From the Chinese government.

That isn’t really the homepage; I can’t find the homepage, so just click to the left on any ethnic groups you want to read about.

Lists all of the official minorities, with a good anthropological background for them, along with a good history, a bit about the language, customs, religious beliefs, culture, etc., then onto recent history.

The history and recent history is written according to Marxist economic analysis, and shows how the coming of the Chinese Revolution really did improve things for many minorities.

I’ve been scared to read the part about the Tibetans and Uighurs.

I’m sure in the case of Tibet it will talk about how the revolution ended feudalism (Yes, there was real feudalism in Tibet.) in Tibet and made life better for most Tibetans. One thing no one tells you about the Free Tibet crowd was that the Dalai Lama presided over a particularly horrible modern form of feudalism, complete with castes and out and out slavery.

The site does provide a tremendous amount of evidence that the Chinese revolution has resulted in tremendous improvements in the lives of many Chinese minorities. Anti-Communists seem to be blind to that fact. Life in China in 1949 and the decades prior was no picnic!

It’s pretty cool to have an anthropological overview of lots of interesting ethnic groups written strictly from a Marxist perspective. More typical is this one, still very well-done, but written by hardline Estonian anti-Communists. It deals with the ethnic groups of the Former Soviet Union.

I wasn’t aware that the USSR had destroyed every single ethnic group in the country until these stalwart Balts informed me. I realize the Balts are pissed, but it needn’t taint your scholarship.

The Most Anti-Immigrant Ethnic Group in the US

Repost from the old site.

The American Indians of USA.

Obviously, they are all a bunch of ranting, raving, seething, vicious, genocidal, hate-filled scum, right? No, wait. They can’t be. Only White people can be racist. I forgot. Silly me.

So where are the Nutcase Liberal-Left and the Minority Professional Victims when it comes to abusing these vicious, evil US Amerindians? Nowhere to be seen. Why is that? They’re all busy beating up on those vile White folks.

Why are US Amerindians so anti-immigration? Think about it. Real hard.

The Incredible Shrinking Middle Class

22 statistics show that the American middle class is in bad shape and getting worse. Any reasonable Left party would do something to ameliorate these figures. Such a party is not the Democratic Party in the US. The Republican Party, of course, supports the bad guys on every one of the metrics below.

The Tea Party Movement is fake populism. On virtually every one of the metrics below, the Tea Partiers are with the plutocrats and against the have-nots. It’s “upper-middle class populism” except that such a thing is not really possible.

Actually, the Tea Partiers resemble a lot the petit bourgeois base that supported fascism in the 1920’s-1940’s in Europe. It’s important to note that in no European country did most of the workers support fascism. The blackshirts in Italy were formed in 1921. They ran through the cities and the countryside, smashing rural peasant and urban worker protests. The Brownshirts in Germany did much the same thing.

German workers never supported Nazism. They always supported either the Communist Party or the Social Democrats. It’s important to note also that the entire US media, as far as I can tell, supports the bad guys and opposes the middle class on every single metric below. That is because the media is owned by plutocrats.

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. • 61 percent of Americans “always or usually” live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007. • 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top • 36 percent of Americans say that they don’t contribute anything to retirement savings. • A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement. • 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. • Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008. • Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975. • For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together. • In 1950, the ratio of the average executive’s paycheck to the average worker’s paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one. • As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about • The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. • Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008. • In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 6 • The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America’s corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. • In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks. • More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying. • For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011. • This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour. • Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 – the highest rate in 20 years. • Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009. • The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

What Do the Chinese Think of Blacks?

Hacienda, a Korean nationalist commenter with an anti-White grudge, posts:

“all those groups seriously hate blacks”One thing whites HAVE to stop doing:

Stop trying to be the spokespeople for other races. How the f+ck do you know that Chinese REALLY hate blacks!

I have spent a lot of time around Japanese and Koreans. They seriously hate Blacks, way, way, way, way worse than Whites do. They are like how we used to be. It’s pretty much the same with the East Indians in the US. And I know for a fact it’s true about Hispanics. It’s not that these people hate Blacks and Whites don’t, it’s just that they are vastly more racist than we are anymore. US Whites have lost a lot of their anti-Black racism lately. Things are far different than they were 30 or even 20 years ago.

I recall that during Mao’s era, the Maoist regime used to send bright Africans to college in China. The Chinese male students would chase them down the streets threatening to beat them up and calling them monkeys.

Also, a number of Blacks came to a university town in China recently. As might be expected, they were great players and were quickly cleaning up with the Chinese girls. They would throw parties in their apartments. Only Black men allowed. Only Chinese women allowed. No Chinese men allowed.

The Chinese male students at the university staged a wild, violent riot over the Blacks “stealing Chinese women.” Things got so bad that the Chinese government moved the Black students out of the city.

I also heard one Chinese guy from the Bay Area say that he and every Chinese person he knew in the Bay Area despised Blacks. Turned out that a number of them had been victims of violent crime. In every single case, the Chinese person was victimized by a Black criminal. This was the genesis of their rage.

Those anecdotes, along with the fact that Chinese racial supremacism probably mirrors the Japanese and Korean varieties, lead me to think that Chinese are not too wild about Blacks.

Heck, Chinese don’t even like other Asians. They don’t even like non-Han Asiatics who are their fellow citizens in China. I have had them tell me that Chinese means “Han.” Anyone in China who is not Han is “not Chinese.” Implication is that they are inferior. Even the Cantonese Yue are considered to be barbarians. They are somewhat off the hook as they have been Hanized, but not totally.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Why Are Only White Populaces, Regions, and Countries in Need of Diversity?

In the comments to the post Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone!, tulio says:

My point, Robert, is that mass migrations of one race displacing another race has always been happening. For much of the last 500 years it was Whites displacing non-Whites off their land. The resources of the Americas, Africa, and Asia were used to make Europe wealthy and give it a big economic boost above others. Now these White countries are the wealthiest so they attract economic refugees.

These Indians moving to England aren’t moving there because they want to. Think about it, who wants to move to the other side of the planet where they are going to basically be aliens? They’re simply going there out of economic necessity.

Add to that the fact that Whites reproduce below replacement level and you have jobs to be filled. It’s just push-pull economics. Not some grandiose “non-White” conspiracy to eradicate the White genotype. If Europe were poor and China were rich, you’d see Whites going to China looking for jobs. People follow the money; it’s just that simple.

First of all, bad example. The Indians moving to the US are the middle class and upper middle class. They are on the high end of Indian society, and they live extremely well for Indians. They only come here because they can live better here and their country is a trash heap, mostly because they have turned it into one. So they are not moving here out of any economic necessity. They just want to move up in the world.

The examples tulio used were of invasions, conquests, settler-colonization projects, ethnic cleansings, and even genocides.

It’s frankly stunning that he compares “invasions, conquests, settler-colonization projects, ethnic cleansings, and even genocides” to the mass migration to White lands. It implies that possibly this is what is occurring in White countries. It also implies that the mass migrations to White countries are not a good thing.

Sure, people follow the money. OK, then why is the 3rd World not flooding into Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan? Why do the Western elites and Leftists not demand that Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan open up their borders to diversity and mass invasion displacing their cultures and gene pools? They only demand this for White countries.

It’s only White countries that need diversity! Now why is that?

We also see many articles in the US press about certain US cities, towns and regions that are “too White.” These places are said to be in need of diversity. How come Detroit doesn’t need diversity? How come Bell and Monterey Park, California don’t need diversity? Why do only White populaces and regions need diversity? The critics are not answering the question.

Add to that the fact that whites reproduce below replacement level and you have jobs to be filled.

This is another one of the lies of the Diversitoids: that White countries are not making enough babies so they have to experience 3rd World Nile-like floods every year.

Otherwise…otherwise what? The sky will fall? There are no labor shortages in White countries. Certainly not in the White country that I live in. In the US, the low birth rate is not a problem that needs mass immigration to be remedied. The low White birth rate here is not creating some horrible labor shortage that can only be fixed by having Calcutta crash through the gates.

I think there are several things going on here:

  1. Anti-White grudge politics. Most non-Whites don’t like Whites too much. They think we stole all of the money we have and got it through exploiting them and the people of the 3rd World. In many cases, they say that we invaded their countries and subjugated them. So turnabout is fair play. Since Whites invaded, conquered, colonized, genocided, and exploited non-White lands, non-Whites get to do it right back to us as revenge. There can be no other explanation for this mindset.
  2. The notion that White lands do not deserve their wealth. Supposedly we stole it, and non-Whites demand that we share it with them in the interests of fairness. But Marx never said that the way to make revolution was for the poor countries to invade the rich countries.
  3. The notion that White countries are automatically racist and possibly White Supremacist/Nazi. Most non-Whites and even Jews have been screwed over by Whites at some point in the past. They see a White country and they think crackers or Nazis. The best way to reduce the crackerness or Nazitude of the place is to mass invade it with non-Whites. Jews in particular have this worry. A top Jewish figure in the US commented on the declining White percentage in the US and the projection that US Whites will dip below 5
  4. Naivete. Blacks in particular think that White countries suck because “we be all raciss and shit.” They think by diluting the White population and turning White countries into Brazil, things will get better for Blacks. But that’s dubious. Is Brazil really a better place for Black people to live than the US? Really? You sure? We Whites have been pretty nice lately. If Blacks think Whites are bad, Blacks should wait until they have to deal with Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Latin Americans, or East Indians. Living under White rule will seem like paradise.

All of this suggests to be that non-Whites are not our allies on the question of immigration to White countries. They are always going to support mass immigration to White lands for one of the reasons above, which makes you wonder why we should even let them in in the first place.

The Problem with “White Countries for Everyone”

In the comments section for the Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, White Countries for Everyone! post, Erranter, a new commenter who is one of my smartest commenter, writes:

So, what can you do?

I really doubt my Numbers USA faxes have had much effect.

In fact, I’m beginning to accept the fact that “diversity is the future”. It won’t be all that bad. I look around at kids and see all colors playing together like never before. Sure, the multiculturalist philosophy has infiltrated our schools and brought a great deal of mediocrity, but without the myth of racial equality, wouldn’t there just be continuous conflict?

It seems necessary at this point, especially in CA where over half our population is non-white. I mean, you can’t tell 12 yr old that certain ones of them have higher IQs. And I’m not about to start deporting people en mass. I’d just like to see a drastic decrease in immigration, and mostly for population stabilization and not white preservation.

Sure, the average might go down a little bit but I never had much in common with the average and there will still be smart people here and there. Might be a little bit rarer, but oh well. We don’t breed. It’s our fault. It’s not like they’re doing anything wrong by being dumb. They can still be moral, helpful people, so long as they’re educated.

I mainly fear that the tribe will take over and all smart people will be taken out of positions of power due to excessive affirmative action in govt. Now that would be a disaster. As long as we have wise leadership we can get by. Human history is just getting by anyway. There’s always new problems.

Also, white American culture has shot itself in the foot because it readily has given up its culture and heritage for the sake of materialism and money. It’s not like people are listening to Bach and Beethoven and discussing Schopenhauer and Descartes in these little all-white towns. They might be quainter and cleaner than New York, but they tend to be culturally bankrupt and prefer it that way. Urbanity is hypocritical but it offers you a wider view of life.

This is probably just a typical liberal argument. Suffice it to say I still get pissed off driving through Oakland, Stockton, Richmond . . . (I could go on) and any other urban hellhole brought about by stupid, unrealistic policy.

As far as deporting people, the illegals have to go. I’m not interested in deporting anyone else.

The reason for the title is the hypocrisy of it all. The White elites, and of course, the rest of the world, have decided that White countries, and only White countries, need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites for a variety of reasons. Diversity, anti-racism, bla bla. But it’s only White countries that need to be mass-invaded by non-Whites in the name of diversity and anti-racism. Nowhere else on Earth is this invasion necessary. Only in White countries. What’s up with that?

The tipping point in Detroit was 2

This goes along with my philosophy of, “A Black a block. Spread em out and civilize em!” Mass concentrations of large numbers of Blacks in the US do not seem to be a good idea either for Blacks or for anyone else. Black culture in all its worst aspects takes over and the place goes to shit.

I don’t mind a little diversity. After all, I grew up in a California that was 20-3

Right now, I drive through town after town that looks and feels like it is a part of Mexico. There is a part of Los Angeles stretching for miles that looks and feels like San Salvador. In the San Gabriel Valley, you can drive for what seems like 10-20 miles through what looks like Taipei or Hong Kong. Most places in the world that look like downtown L.A. require a passport to get into them.

Here in California, we’ve always had immigration. The Mexicans, Blacks, Latin Americans, Samoans, East Indians, Filipinos, and Chinese are an integral part of this state. They’ve been here from the very start, or maybe 20-70 years afterwards. They’re part of the neighborhood. But for most of my lifetime, the immigration did not come in floods. I could go back to 300-400,000 legal immigrants a year no problem.

On the other hand, mass immigration to California, legal and illegal, has quite simply gone insane. It feels like we’ve been hit by a non-White foreigner tidal wave here. We never voted on this. No one ever asked our opinion on whether we wanted to be Foreigner Tsunamied or not. If put to a vote, most of us would have voted against it. We California Whites got race-replaced in our own homeland. Try it sometime. It doesn’t feel so good. Not only that, but the race replacement of California Whites has not led to a better California. Instead, it’s fucked up the whole state.

Many Blacks speak out in favor of turning the US into the United Nations. I’d like to ask them, “What exactly is in this for you?” How are you benefitting from the US being turned into a living zoo of Homo Sapiens? And I’d like to point out that we US Whites have been better to you Blacks than any of these immigrants replacing us will be.

Jews Are Not the Problem

A commenter asks:

Robert, you claimed that anti-Semitism on the Maury2K blog was disturbing to you. As a leftist, ask yourself this question: what have Jews done for workers and the left in recent years, I mean other than pushing for more wars in the Middle East and promoting neoliberal economics.

National Bolshevik retarded anti-Semitism is indeed disturbing to me, and the more I read it, the less I like it. If this is socialism, it’s the Socialism of Fools:

Trotsky was a Jew. The defeat of Trotsky by Stalin was the defeat of Jewish plutocracy by Stalin’s workers revolution. Why was Trotsky a “plutocrat?” Because he was a Jew, dontcha know?

Retarded.

Why are Jews not the enemy?

Simple, the Jews as a voting group are the most liberal and progressive group in the US. If you look at the US liberal-Left, it’s full of Jews. I was on the Left for many years. The Communist Party USA is Jews from top to bottom. So are the Greens and other Left parties. Jews completely dominate the entire US Left, and your average US Jewish voter is the most progressive voter in the US.

Jews lead movements. Sure, a few promote neoliberalism, but neoliberalism is simply what is promoted by the entire US capitalist class, 9

The US Gentiles support Israel and wars in the Middle East. Bush and Cheney knew what they were doing. No Jews secretly pushed them into war. They wanted war with Saddam going back years, but for reasons of US imperialism for the most part. Israel was a side issue, and Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, could give a flying fuck about Saddam’s threat to Israel.

The entire US Republican Party is pro-Israel. And it’s not because Jews force them into this. It’s ideological. US conservatism at the moment is fanatically pro-Zionist. That is its ideological nature, and it has little to do with US internal politics, since Jews don’t vote Republican anyway.

Israel is a settler-colonial and imperialist state that is allied with US imperialism. As promoters of US imperialism, the Republican Party is deeply allied with Israel. Plus they see Israelis as Western Judeo-Christians in a sea of evil Muslims, so they support them on that basis  – the US Republican Party is now deeply Christian fundamentalist on an ideological level.

As far as the Democratic Party and Israel, the Democratic Party under Obama is the most anti-Israel Administration since Nixon 1972-1974. And it’s led by Jews. A Jew, Rahm Emanuel, is leading the anti-Israel charge with this Administration.

US Jewry is tiring of Israel’s crap. The gap between US Jewish liberalism, anti-racism and multiculturalism and Israeli Jewish fascism is becoming too wide to bridge. Israel’s bullshit is endangering US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US Jews are not so dual loyalist as you think. They are loyal to the Jews, sure, but only up to a point. First and foremost, most US Jews are Americans and American patriots. A liberal and progressive Israel would win their loyalty, but Israeli fascism is getting too blatant these days. Hence US Jews are cutting the strings of their aprons to Israel.

What is Cultural Marxism?

This is a question that requires a long answer. This is as good an answer as any.

Abagond and the whole crowd over at his site = Cultural Marxism. Tim Wise, Robert Jensen, that whole crowd, that’s Cultural Marxism. Idiot radical feminists who hate men, that’s Cultural Marxism. Hispanic Aztlan revanchist shitheads are Cultural Marxists. Afrocentrist dumbasses wailing against Whitey, that’s Cultural Marxism. Radical queers pushing extreme pro-gay lunatic politics, that’s Cultural Marxism.

The Cultural Marxists pushed Identity Politics in the 1960’s. The result was the retarded division of White men from White women, White workers from Black and Hispanic workers, straight workers from gay workers, and all sorts of idiotic bullshit. Divide the workers, you know. The game the Right always does.

Except this time it was “Left” retards doing it. It defined Whites and males as the enemy, and Whites and males acted as you might expect: they fled from it like smoke from a burning building. Straight into the arms of the enemy, the Right. But the Left gave them this shove, or kick in the butt, in the first place.

That’s what it is, in a nutshell. Personally, I think it sucks, but that’s just me. It all goes back to Herbert Marcuse in the 1960′s. Originally it was a Left philosophy, so it was sort of ok in a way, but now it’s been taken over by bourgeois characters, mostly Black and Hispanic bourgeois who are not really Left people and often push rightwing economics. They just use it as grudge politics to try to get a bigger share of the loot for their bourgeois ethnic group, and a grudge against the bourgeois Whites supposedly not being nice enough to the Black, Hispanic, etc. bourgeois.

At worst, it is simply bullshit anti-White politics for the bourgeois of any race:

Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites are evil, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff, Whites need to give up stuff.

Combine that with rightwing neoliberal multinational corporate capitalism. Mystery Shit Anti-White Worker Casserole!

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever here for any White worker. It fucks him when he walks in and fucks him again when he walks out. No one wonder it sells to White workers as fast as turd cupcakes. White workers are not as stupid as you think.

There’s nothing progressive about this politics!

Anti-White propaganda + neoliberal corporate multinational, multicultural, invite the world politics does not benefit White workers in any way, shape or form!

National Bolshevik Blog

Maury2K’s blog.

Worth a look. I hate to say it, but this is somewhat up my alley. I don’t like NB’s at all. They’re a bunch of racist and ultranationalist expansionist shits. Nonetheless, this Maury2K guy is one of the most reasonable I have found yet.* Good articles on how the Western Left has mega-fucked up.

I will vote Republican only over my dead body. You will literally have to kill me first. I can’t imagine any situation in which I would vote Republican. Bottom line is I end up voting Dem most of the time. Sometimes I vote Left, like Green or Socialist, just as a protest vote, if I think the election is a done deal.

Even though these National Bolsheviks are racist fucks, they are socialists and on the Left, and I would much rather ally with them than with these traitor invite the world, invade the world Democrats. The Western Left is hopeless and frankly, pure evil. It’s 10

Politics is the art of compromise, as my late father used to say. Your allies are typically the lesser of two evils.

*I have some worries on this site, such as his position on civil rights and what looks like some anti-Semitism, but I’ll swallow that pill over the Western Left Open Borders White race traitor horse pill any day.

Leon Trotsky, Barack Obama And The Black “Vanguard Of The Revolution”

Excellent article on Vdare by Raymond V. Raehn. Although this is rightwing stuff, I am afraid that there is a lot of truth in it. Certain aspects of this piece, here and there, are noxious and even poisonous, but many others are spot on. This is a very complex piece covering a vast array of subject matter. The author is a brilliant man who did a good job of putting the material together.

Kevin MacDonald did previous work on the Frankfurt School. His analysis seems, as usual, to be quite correct.

The question is how much truth is here?

As a Leftist, it is painful to admit that there is a lot of truth here, although the whole thing seems like a vast rightwing conspiracy theory. I say this because I worked on the Left for many years, I have known many Leftists, spoken to high-ranking members of major Left parties, etc.

The project of the Western Left is indeed “the disuniting of America.” Many do believe that Whites must become “traitors to Whiteness.”

The Western Maoists have even redefined the US White working class as a hostile element who have identified with imperialism and earn their living and riches via assisting in the project to rip off the Third World. Some have even said that Western Whites need to be put in gigantic re-education camps after the revolution, their land taken over and distributed to non-Whites, etc. Others, often Maoists, champion a Black state in the Southeast and an Aztlan Hispanic state in the Southwest. Of course we Whites get no state of our own.

It is for all these reasons that the Western Left has failed so spectacularly.

Way to go, tools.

Define the White working class as a hostile element, abuse and attack them, tell them they “need to give up stuff” so their property can be redistributed to non-Whites, advocate treasonous “disuniting of America,” on and on. Way to win over White workers. Of course their project has been a breathtaking failure. And the workers who ought to be joining the Left are confused, apathetic or at worst going to Tea Party rallies.

Feel free to read and discuss this piece. There is a lot here and some it I’m not so sure of.

How the PC Left Utterly Fails in Their Analysis of US White Racism

9

However, all US White nationalists completley hate Blacks. The hatred of Blacks and to a lesser extent Jews is what the whole project is all about.

Supposedly there are a few who don’t hate other races, but just want to be left alone, but I don’t think I’ve ever met one. Sure, it’s possible.

White nationalism is the far end of White racism in the US. White racism is a continuum, ranging from extremely mild to full blown Nazis. What pisses me off about antis, Race Traitor magazine and Abagond types is that they insist that all White racism is the same. We’re all the same. We’re all racist. Those of us who are a tiny hint racist are just as evil as the KKK guys. It’s all the same thing. The only Whites who get a pass are the Race Traitor mag types.

In this way, these people totally fail in their analysis of White racism in the US. Yes, the idiots who devote their lives to the study of racism in the US (which only means White racism, since that’s the only kind of racism that exists) have totally and completely failed at this analysis. It’s hard to imagine how they could have failed in a worse way.

The far end White Supremacists often understand White racism quite well, and you can often read well-articulated and thought-out analyses on their sites. Where they error is only in thinking that most US Whites are open to their project. Not over our dead bodies, guys.

White racism exists in the US. Sure. In fact, I think that the overwhelming majority of US Whites are racist to some slight degree at least.

A coherent analysis of White racism would be an interesting sociological project. Maybe someone ought to take it up?

The White Race Traitor Left in the US

A reasonable progressive commenter from the UK, the brilliant and reincarnated Abiezer Coppe, is stunned by the insanity of the US Left, as exemplified in the Red Flag for White Bulls post:

More weirdness from the US of A. How anyone can take this stuff seriously! Is Race Traitor aligned with any…uh…social movement as we understand it? Or is it highly marginal like White nationalism?

I am not sure how big this movement really is in US culture. It seems a lot bigger than it is because it is so huge in academia and on the Left. But most Americans laugh at academia and the Left. You won’t find much of this talk in the mainstream US press, though it is starting to gain followers among anti-racist Blacks (like here), Hispanics and Asians (most of whom simply have a racial grudge against Whites, and are not really progressive in any other way). You’ll never see views like this in the US mainstream media, not yet anyway.

But! The entire Western Left is into this crap! Retarded or what? As a logical consequence, I have known White Leftist workers who despise the US Left as anti-White and “only cares about the Blacks and the Mexicans.” I joined the Communist Party USA a while back and told them about a friend who was also a Communist. The CPUSA very much wanted to give him a membership, but when I asked him, he refused to be associated with them, as he saw them as “anti-White worker.”

The Left in the US is simply insane, and they have completely blown off (and blown it with) the US White working class.

Also there is a large but not really Left* “Cultural Marxist” movement in the US which buys into this nonsense. A lot of them are not Left at all on economics, instead they are moneyed bourgeois, Blacks, Hispanics or even Whites (often Jewish), who promote this anti-White crap for a variety of reasons. The Black and Hispanic bourgeois, while rightwing and pro-elite on economic matters, wants to stick it to Whitey for racial reasons. I should make alliances with these rightwingers why now?

There are sectors of the White “Left” in the US now that have abandoned economics altogether. The article above exemplifies the only way that they are “Left” at all anymore. Stick it to Whitey Left. They combine the nutty anti-racism above with, of all things, neoliberal economics! They support multiculturalism, fuck-Whitey anti-racism, worship of everything non-White, Open Borders in White countries, and neoliberal economics! What that is called, I don’t know. Smells like Shit Stew!

In some ways, they are a faction of the “rootless cosmopolitan” internationalist pro-multinational corporation neoliberal elite which is loyal to no land and knows no borders. This is the Screw Whitey “progressive” branch of that elite. They share with the rest the neoliberal economics, the support for Open Borders in White lands and the support for multiculturalism (really multinational corporate McWorld).

*Commenter (and great writer) Lafayette Sennacherib says these folks are not Left since they are rightwing on economics. As he notes, when you take economics out of the Left, nothing remains. You’re not on the Left anymore. I concur, and Saint Karl in Heaven surely agrees. Therefore, this weird Cultural Marxist-neoliberalism stuff is not any kind of Left politics at all. What it is, and whether it is liberal, Centrist or Right, I have no idea.

The Socialism of Fools (Fools Please Read This)

The socialism of fools, or “socialist anti-Semitism,” is as stupid as any other variety. It relies on childish and immature thinking, with a lot of ill-thought out observations and conclusions along the way.

1. I hate capitalism. 2. Jews are capitalists. 3. Get rid of the Jews, get rid of capitalism. Doh! 4. Fail! Gentile capitalists take over for the Jews. 5. But the Gentile capitalists are different, they are “good capitalists.” 6. Yeah right!

Truly idiotic! It’s so retarded, I can’t believe that anyone falls for it. But taking it apart requires some real thinking, and especially a grounding in Marxist studies. Once you grasp the nature of class, class interests, and class struggle, all this crap about “Jews as capitalists” fades away. Jewish capitalists are bastards. Well, maybe so. But not because they are Jews, only because they are capitalists!

There is another “reformist” line that says that there is some real, pure capitalism, which is real nice. Tastes great, less filling, only 300 calories per serving! On sale today while it lasts!

But this really cool, nice, groovy capitalism got all fucked up by some “Jewed-up capitalism” like we have here in the West.

This relies on a faulty understanding of political economics. There is no nice Gentile capitalism. There is no Jewed-up evil capitalism that deviated from the true religion and caused the glorious true blue good capitalists to be tossed out of the garden, bringing death into the world, and all our woe.

Capitalism is capitalism, folks. It works the same way all over the world. The capitalists all work together. The Jews, the Gentiles, everyone. They pursue similar or even identical capitalist interests.

By the way, Jews don’t run the banks anymore either. Even David Dude admits that. They used to run the banks in Europe, but a little event in the 1940’s pretty much ended that matter.

Henry Ford, in The International Jew, documents how uber-tribal Jews in the US made a run on investment banking, which was partially penetrated, before Gentile solidarity stopped them. While the Jews are quite strong in US investment banking, to this day, they don’t control it, as there are probably more Italians than Jews on the floor of the NYSE.

They next made a run of commercial banking, which was stopped cold by Gentile solidarity.

When Jews act like this and make runs on industries (not sure if they do it anymore), only Gentile solidarity will stop them. For Gentile solidarity, read racism or discrimination. All the Gentiles get together and agree not to sell to any Jews and only sell to Gentiles. This strategy is necessary because the Jews are trying to buy the Gentiles out, then the Jews will only sell to other Jews.

Fight Jewish ethnic warfare with Gentile ethnic warfare. Don’t wage warfare any worse than the Jews do. Limit it to discrimination. Don’t harm the Jews in any way.

Problem is that once a society becomes “Jewified” as the US is now, it’s going to be hard for Gentiles to be racist enough to stop any future Jewish runs. But the Jews now are a lot more deracinated than they were in 1910. Yet the Russian Jews nowadays probably still act like 1910 Ellis Island Jews, so that’s a problem.

The solution to this, as with any aspects of the Jewish Question, is the assimilation of the Jews. Assimilated Jews won’t make runs on industries or institutions.

Thanks, fools, for reading this post. The unexamined life is not worth living. He who is not busy reading, is busy sleeping. Education lasts for a lifetime. Consider this a brief tutorial. Like good socialists, we didn’t even charge you!

Why Do People Support Illegal Immigration?

In the comments section, Bay Area Guy lays out some typical arguments for why people support illegals. I feel he is wrong in some of his arguments:

Leftists want illegal immigrants for future votes, and also in order to weaken whites and lend further legitimacy to their anti-racist arguments (ie. I frequently hear Tim Wise type anti-racists say, “as the U.S becomes more ‘of color’ we’ll need to make serious changes”).After all, the more non-white the U.S becomes, the more you have to enact policies that help them, right?

Neocons and conservatives want illegals for cheap labor.

The key is to go after employers and leftist elites who tolerate this crap.

I have a hard time with this argument, BAG. It’s typical to say that the Left wants all these illegals in order to weaken US Whites. Is there any evidence for this? I don’t see any.

Keep in mind that I was on the Left for many years. I have met and talked to Leftist Presidential candidates on the phone and in person. I am a member of the Communist Party USA and I have spoken to top ranking members. I have met with local Communists in a local Commie group. Suffice to say I have been around the Left for 20 years. I’ve also known a lot of Jews, including a Jewish media multimillionaire. Never once have I heard a Leftist or Jew say that we need to import all of these illegals in order to weaken US Whites.

Why do people support the illegals? Mostly they are ideologues who believe in Open Borders, though they often do not say so. They believe in “the right to migrate.”

For the Hispanics, it’s obvious. Their relatives and friends are a bunch of wetbacks, and if not, they are loyal to La Raza.

I doubt if many average working class Hispanics support illegals so they can flood into the US take over whole parts of it for the Hispanics. Your average Hispanic simply does not conceive things in those terms. The only people who talk like that are upper middle class bourgeois Hispanics with a university education. Some Latino politicians talk like this too, but they just want to get re-elected. Your average Chicano cares zero about Aztlan, and if you polled them, they probably don’t even know what Aztlan is.

Your average Chicano is not an idiot, and Mexico and the rest of Latin America is full of White people. So “Whites” can easily be “Latinos.” All we have to do is speak Spanish and adopt Latino culture. Since your average Hispanic comes from a a region with over 100 million Whites, they don’t see Whites per se as the enemy. Gringos, maybe. Whites? No way. They don’t think in racial terms since they themselves are not a race.

Around here, you will see Chicanos ranging all the way from full White through myriad shades of mestizo all the way to pure Indian. They all hang out with each other, and no one thinks anything of it. If I spoke Spanish fluently, I could join them and be one of the “White Chicanos.”

Furthermore, around here a lot of Chicanos have figured out that when towns go 95

They suck so bad in many ways that many Hispanics are starting to leave since there “are not enough Whites left to keep the place civilized,” more or less in their own words. So the Hispanics need Whites around, at least a few of us. When the Whites all leave, Mexico creeps in. And that’s what the Hispanics came here to escape from.

Now! Once the illegals are here, it is another story. Does the Democratic Party want to legalize them to get future voters? Maybe. But the last bill that hit Congress would not have legalized them for 18 years. That’s a long time to wait for voters.

More probably, the Dems support amnesty out of liberal ideology and in an effort to get Hispanic votes. If you come out against illegals, you screw yourself out of the Hispanic vote. If you want their votes, you go pro-illegal, ideology be damned. As the Hispanic vote increases, terrifyingly, mass amnesties look like more and more of a sure thing.

Another reason liberals support illegals is due to sympathy. Many liberals think it is cruel especially to break up the families of the illegals. This take on the issue especially effects females. Many others think there is no way to deal with the issue but via amnesty. Others (usually Jews) think anti-illegal = White racism. They don’t like White racism, so they go pro-illegal.

If you are on the Liberal-Left, you must support the illegals. If you don’t, you are slammed, shamed, and shunned in some pretty cruel ways. You get called racist, fascist, Nazi, KKK, reactionary, pig, hater, bigot, all sorts of stuff.

Liberal-Left types are sensitive people, and their whole worldview is made up in part by not being any of those things above. To get called names like the above is really jarring and painful for leftwingers, and I suspect many Lib-Lefties are simply bullied into supporting illegals. There are a number of Leftists who refuse to speak with me anymore in part due to my heresies on these matters. It is still painful for me to think of how they called me racist, fascist, Nazi, etc. and how they refuse to speak to me anymore.

Obviously, not just neocons and conservatives but the entire US business sector, supports the illegals for cheap labor.

In addition, here in California, many Whites with money support illegals. We joke that as soon as you buy a house, you start supporting illegals. All of a sudden you have all this yardwork to be done, and many White homeowners around here want to hire cheap illegal alien labor to work around their homes. On the other hand, many lower class, poor and working class Whites totally despise illegals since they have destroyed the low end job market in the state.

An Intelligent Comment on Daily Kos

What’s the unemployment rate in California, 1

I’ve seen the Mexican Government issued “Go be a paisano in the US” pamphlets with my own eyes. Maybe they didn’t think an American who could read Spanish would ever see them, but the pamphlet was telling the poor to go “retake the American southwest”. That’s a fact.

So the California Latino voter knows there is far more poverty in Mexico than there are jobs in California. It doesn’t do them any good to bring in more cheap labor and get tossed into the unemployment line, and then be just as poor as they were originally when their unemployment benefits run out.

We really need to stop this race based political thinking. Does the fact that I have Greek ancestry mean that I want the whole of Greece immigrating over here without the jobs to support them? No, so why would a Latino trying to hang on to his job want that either?

Illegal Immigration supports two groups of people. The CEO’s trying to exploit them for cheap labor, and the politicians trying to exploit them for votes. Everyone else knows they’re being scammed.

This is a great comment. Predictably, it was pummeled by the next four commenters. The last one told him to shut up, as Daily Kos is a pro-immigration reform (amnesty) site. Daily Kos represents the Left wing of the Democratic Party. Those four comments that followed were quite predictable, and it shows why the liberal-Left in the US is absolute shit.

Let’s go over this comment bit by bit. It’s quite possible that unemployment is over 1

I can tell you from personal experience here in California that the illegal alien tidal wave has had a disastrous effect on working class Americans. My friends were all Whites, so I can only speak to its effect on working class Whites. But I don’t see why it hasn’t hurt working class Hispanics and Blacks too. At the very least, it has glutted the low wage labor market and nuked wages down to a very low level.

It’s an absolute effect that the sickening rightwing Mexican elite uses illegal immigration as a cynical way to dump their poor on us. Poor that in any decent society they ought to be taking care of. But Mexico is an extreme class society that at its base is very rightwing.

The rich in Mexico, via the state, spend about as much on health, education and whatnot as the Haitian state does. They are just another evil 3rd World elite that has turned its country into a shithole by refusing to share with the rest. Like India, like the rest of Latin America, like the Philippines, like Indonesia.

That the US Liberal-Left fully supports the rightwing scum elite in Mexico in this rightwing and deeply anti-progressive project (shoving millions of their poor up here so they don’t have to create a decent society in Mexico) is infuriating. Why is the Liberal-Left in the US supporting a bunch of rightwing shits in Mexico? But you will never hear one single peep about this on the US Liberal-Left. One can only conclude that they are in bed with the Mexican elite in this game.

Similarly, the poster notes that the pamphlets that the Mexican government hands out that explicitly urge its citizens to go to the US also openly tell them to “retake the Southwest.” This shows that the Mexican elite is the enemy of America, and that Mexico is in a sense an enemy state.

It’s an enemy state because it continues to lay claims on the US Southwest. When you go to school in Mexico, you get a steady diet of revanchist propaganda about how the US Southwest is really a part of Mexico. 5

The poster also points out the insanity of race-based politics for California Latinos. Your average working class Latino citizen is not helped by the illegal flood. You can make a good case that he is harmed by them, and that illegals throw a lot of California Latinos out of work too. So why do California Latinos support illegals? Loyalty to La Raza. Your race trumps your pocketbook if you’re a Chicano? Wow.

Transcript of My Latest Interview July 7, 2010

Interview July 7, 2010 with Reason Radio Network. The comments at the end of the post are hostile, but the site’s audience and hosts tend to be some mixture of paleoconservatives, White nationalists and anti-Semites. That’s not exactly where I am coming from, but I will interview with anyone, and most of the Left won’t touch me with a 10-foot pole.

I’ve been looking over your blog, and we talked about these labels as in Left versus Right, and I know you were describing yourself as a liberal, but you’ve been getting people describing you as a Third Positionist. The 3rd Positionist movement is a nationalist movement, but it’s not necessarily ethnonationalism – it could just be putting your country first. But they reject both Communism and capitalism, but they could sometimes incorporate some Marxist ideas. What is your take on being described as a 3rd Positionist?

I don’t know, I’m totally confused about 3rd Positionism – I don’t really know what it is, I don’t know what they want. They’re Euros, but the 3rd Positionists of the past were fascists and Nazis. But clearly they are pretty sui generis, and they are hard to pigeonhole and understand.

It’s a difficult movement to define. They don’t have a figure like the Marxists have Karl Marx and the capitalists have Adam Smith. I know that the 3rd Positionists have been smeared by being described as fascists.

It isn’t necessarily fascism, but it is true that when the fascists came to power, they said that they were nationalists, and that they were against the Communists and the capitalists. But you could be a 3rd Positionist and you could be a civil libertarian or you could be very authoritarian. Even among 3rd Positionists, there are a lot of different nuances within the ideology.

3rd Positionism is about as hard to pin down as fascism. Fascism is hard to pin down too. The fascists said that they were against both capitalism and Communism, but they just said that to get people to go along with them. It’s always been a rightwing movement. It’s never been anti-capitalist. The Nazis had the Night of the Long Knives, and they killed all of the socialist and anti-capitalist Nazis. There was a Nazi guy who was a big 3rd Positionist hero, but I can’t remember his name (Note: Gregor Strasser).

Is it Godfrey Feder?

No.

He was their economist.

No, see, when Hitler first started out in 1921, they drafted this Set Of Principles, and they called themselves National Socialists, and they had a pretty socialist, anti-capitalist economic project. And they got a lot of support. There were people on the Left who were even going Nazi, and there people who were going back and forth between the Nazis and the Communists in the 1920’s during all of that turbulence.

And in the early 1930’s, the Nazis were getting funded by major German industrialists. They were getting funded by the corporations. This is what almost nobody knows. The German corporations were behind the Nazis all the way. That’s where they got their money.

But there were bankers funding Bolshevism too. Like Jacob Schiff helped finance the Bolshevik Revolution. So there definitely were industrialists financing both sides. But I think they just want to make a profit. War is one of the most profitable things.

Why would a banker finance Communism? The international bankers generally did not finance Communism. That’s simply not true. There’s no money in it for them! Communism is the biggest money loser in the whole world for capitalists.

But the government still needs to borrow money whether it’s Communist or capitalist. The other thing is that when the Czar was in power, he was more of an economic nationalist and he did not want to do business with these bankers, so the bankers did have some incentives for financing Bolshevism.

Those Jews like Schiff, they did not make any money at all off of Russia going Communist. It was a gigantic money loser. The whole thing with Schiff was all about Jewish ethnic politics.

Yes, because the Czar was anti-Jewish, so it was more an ethnic thing than an economic thing.

Believe me, that’s all it was – revenge on the Russians. And a lot of the Communists were Jews. It was just let’s get rid of these anti-Semites and put some pro-Jews in power. Schiff was not acting in his class interests by doing that. This whole idea of bankers funding Communism, well, hey, I’m kind of a Commie myself. I mean, I wish they would give us some money!

There weren’t any Gentile capitalists who financed Communism.

Why would they? There are a few rich people who are Communists, but that’s rare. If you study Marxism, then you understand class, and so many things that people do are based on their class interests. People have class interests. Why would a rich capitalist finance Communism? Why would I buy someone the guillotine that’s going to chop my head off? It’s totally operating against your class interests. There’s no point to it unless you’ve got some kind of ulterior motive.

They have an ulterior motive unless they are already in power. But there’s socialism in different forms. There is socialism that is directed against the rich and also it’s possible that the elites are using a form of socialism to keep down the middle class. That’s not true Marxism, but it’s selected socialism to target a different class.

I don’t agree with that sort of rightwing populism. That’s just crazy. The elites hate socialism period. But there are some elites who go against their class interests and ally with the poor because, well, maybe they grew up poor or maybe they’re just nice people. But they are basically supporting a project that is going to cut their income.

And why would they do that? I mean a few of them will, just because they’re good people or they are self-sacrificing. But in general, the rich pursue their class interests, which is to retain their wealth or increase it. And they certainly do not support projects that are going to decrease their wealth.

You don’t think that rich liberals have ulterior motives?

Rich liberals are just nice people. They’re just nice people who feel guilty, and they’re willing to give up their money and share it with others, and that’s all there is to it. They’re self-sacrificing people. They have no ulterior motives or any of that. The notion that they do is rightwing populism. It’s crazy.

But 3rd Positionism ties in with populism. You’ve heard of that label producerism is the idea, not so much Right or Left, that the middle class is being exploited on both ends by both big government and by big business, especially the banking elite.

Well…The middle class typically is exploited by the rich under capitalism. Studies have proven that under neoliberalism, which is radical capitalism, the bottom 8

A lot of the middle class people align with the rich, the capitalists and the corporations too, but they are not really acting in their class interests when they do that. The middle class does not understand their class interests. They want to be rich. They typically align with the rich. But it often doesn’t make much sense for them to do that.

But you said that the Left doesn’t really represent the middle class either mainly because the Left is for Open Borders. You wrote a recent article where you said both the Democrats and the Republicans, the Left and the Right, is one big Corporate Party.

In the US, that’s true because the Democratic Party isn’t really a Left party anymore. It’s sort of a rightwing party instead, and it’s all just corporate politics. They just represent the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class. The Democrats are sort of for the middle class to a greater extent than the Republicans are, but I don’t think either party is for the poor or low income people anymore. Supporting them is considered to be a total loser.

The Democrats used to be for the poor, the low income and the workers, but supposedly, that’s why they were losing elections, and that’s why they went to the DNC model. The corporate Democrats decided that this is the way to win elections – be pro-corporate, get the corporate money, beat the Republicans at their game. That’s the DNC – the Democratic National Committee, and that’s where they’re all coming out of now. Even Obama, he’s a DNC guy.

I noticed that you commented on the new American 3rd Position Party. We were discussing on our show about the pros and cons of explicit racial activism, but you mentioned on your site that the A3P is probably one of the most pro-worker and anti-corporate parties in the US.

I think that what’s interesting about that is it’s showing you that these labels about the Left and the Right don’t make a lot of sense because a lot of people might hear about the A3P and they might think of it as a rightwing party, but you were saying that you looked over their platform, and you agree with a lot of what they have to say.

Well…it’s just a sad statement on the state of affairs of the Western Left. It exemplifies the total failure of the Western Left to support the workers, especially White workers, or just workers period, the low income, the working class, the poor. Especially the Whites.

They are opposed to all of these people, and the Western Left pushes anti-White politics. They are pro-non-White. They’re pro-Hispanic, they’re pro-Black, and they’re anti-White. And when they are pushing mass immigration, that’s just a spear into the heart of the White worker…the low income, the poor and the working class Whites, who are my people…those are my people. It’s just a sad comment when these rightwingers, who are almost fascists…when the fascists are the only people who are standing up for workers anymore.

Hold on now, when you make a statement referring to them as fascists. Now you’re entitled to your opinion, but if you look at the platform, they say they’re for Constitutionalism. What specifically about the platform is fascist?

Well…I think they said something about encouraging non-White immigrants to go back to their countries. “We’ll even give them money to go home.” But there’s nothing much in there that’s specifically fascist. It’s a very moderated program. Yet they are calling themselves 3rd Positionists, and 3rd Positionist is fascist…And the A3P is explicitly pro-White in the US.

The leaders of the party are White Nationalists. Kevin MacDonald is a White Nationalist who is sympathetic to fascism and Nazism. The leader of the party (Note: William D. Johnson) is an explicit White Nationalist who called for throwing all non-Whites out of the country 20-30 years ago (Note: Book penned in 1985 under the pseudonym of James O. Pace). That’s where these people are coming from.

Those are their leaders – they are coming out of the White Supremacist movement, the White Nationalist movement, which is a pro-fascist movement in the United States. And that’s how they totally failed, because, in being pro-fascist, they have blown off the entire White racist, White supremacist – especially Southern White Supremacist – segment in the United States.

Most White racists and White Supremacists in the US of the old White Supremacist types – they hate fascism, they hate Nazism. They fought in WW2. The Southerners fought in WW2. They were slaughtered in WW2 by the Nazis.

Southerners are pro-British. Their roots are in the UK. Hitler attacked the UK. The pro-White movement in the US – the White nationalists, the White supremacists – they’re pro-Nazi, they’re pro-fascist! That is the biggest loser project! I know White people. Most White people want nothing to do with fascism or Nazism. Why does pro-White politics have to be fascist and Nazi? That’s no good. These people are losers. That’s the biggest failure in White politics right there.

The Left likes to link the Southern nationalist types with Nazism but most people don’t know this but along with Jews…White Southerners and Jews were the most gung-ho groups about fighting WW2.

My mother was present in that era and I asked her, “Well, those Southerners were racists. Wasn’t Hitler’s seen as a pro-White regime?” and she said, “Oh no! I lived during that era and everybody hated the Nazis.” There were more pro-Nazis in Pennsylvania than there were in the entire South! The only Americans who were pro-Nazi were ethnic Germans, and then after Pearl Harbor, they basically just disappeared or went underground or shut up. The Nazis had zero support in the South.

The Southern White Supremacists liked democracy. My Mom said that Americans hated the fascists because they were a dictatorship…and they were persecuting Jews. And Southerners didn’t really care anything about Jews back then. Who cares about Jews?

And the Nazis were not seen as pro-White at all. I mean every White person was pro-White back then. Why would you line up with Nazis? And the people that the Nazis were fighting were pro-White. France was pro-White. The UK was pro-White. Denmark, everyone in Europe was pro-White back in those days.

So being pro-White was the norm, but what happened was the Establishment took it up, and they tried to link being pro-White with being with Hitler. But it’s a psychological thing, because if your enemy is telling you that if you’re pro-White, you’re like Hitler, psychologically, you’re going to think, “Well, maybe Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy, and maybe I should be pro-Hitler.” Would you say that that’s the roots of it?

Well…I’m not sure, I don’t know why the pro-White movement has gotten into Nazis and fascists and all that, because I think that’s the biggest mistake they ever made. For instance, there are probably still a lot of White racists down in the South, but I don’t imagine that most of those people like Nazis or fascists.

I think it’s one faction of the White Nationalist movement that might be Nazi. But it’s a problem that it might be guilt by association because in the White Nationalist community, they are going to network together, and if one person is their friend…if they have a political associate who might say something pro-Hitler, it’s going to rub off. So you’re saying that that’s one of the biggest barriers, because groups like the ADL along with the media – they’re going to try to link anything that’s remotely pro-White with Nazism and fascism.

Well…that’s simply not true. The old White Supremacists in the South, the neo-Confederates, and there are still many, many, many Southerners who believe in this stuff, and there are even White racists all over the country who subscribe to that, and they don’t want anything to do with Nazism, and they don’t even like fascism either. So the White movement is simply insane. Why have they taken up Nazism and fascism? I don’t know.

But for 20 years after WW2, White Supremacism and White racism was going gung-ho all through 40’s, the 50’s and into the early 60’s the Civil Rights Movement. They weren’t waving Nazi flags or supporting fascism. They were pro-democracy, pro-American, pro-European, and they hated Nazis and fascists.

If you look at the A3P, they are pro-democracy and pro-Constitution, so I don’t want to smear that party because I agree with what they are doing, but you do make a legitimate point that through guilt by association…maybe someone is affiliated with someone who may have those views, but the party itself, the platform and agenda put out by the party, is a Constitutionalist party that’s for democracy and individual rights.

Yes, the A3P could hardly be called a fascist party. There’s not a whole lot of fascism around anymore. Even the European Right, the Hard Right in Europe, they’re not all that classically fascist anymore – the BNP, the British National Party – is not all that fascist, they’re democrats last time I checked. They support civil liberties. The old fascism of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s – it isn’t really coming back.

You see, fascism mutates. Pinning down fascism is like pinning down a blob of mercury. Fascism is like a chameleon. It changes colors, it changes shapes, it can be anything. It will take on the forms of other things. Who’s that guy who wrote Babbitt? Sinclair Lewis?

He said that fascism, if it comes to the US, will be wrapped in a cross and an American flag.

Exactly. Fascism takes on whatever forms it needs to take on to get in. It’s this very weird movement that’s very, very difficult to study, to define. They’ve been studying it since the 1920’s, and there’s some really good literature coming out in recent years – a lot of it can be found on a blog called Orcinus. There are some excellent pieces there that talk about something called “pseudo-fascism.”

Some of the top research right now on fascism is coming out of Political Science departments. They are trying to exactly figure out…what it is! Because…nobody…really knows…what fascism is! And the fascists are experts are concealing their motives, at lying, at not calling themselves fascists, at calling themselves anti-fascists.

You talked about Sinclair Lewis, well, Huey Long, who was a popular political figure in the US in the 1930’s, he said that fascism will return to the US, but perhaps under the title of anti-fascism.

That’s what they do. I’ve seen fascists on the Net, and they called their enemies fascists! It’s really weird and confusing. If you hang around Usenet sites that have a lot of fascists, after a while, your mind starts spinning around, and you start wondering if you are a fascist yourself. And they try to convert you to their movement.

They are like these shape-shifting forms that change into these other things and say all this contradictory stuff, and they’re just all over the place. They’re sneaky, and they’re tricksters, and mainly they confuse you. They confuse people, and that’s how they get people to support their project because often people don’t really know what they are supporting. They’re not up front about their aims – that’s another aspect of fascism. It’s basically a popular movement against the Left.

And populism can be a good thing, but fascism, it is an ultra-authoritarian movement. So I don’t think that being a racist automatically makes you a fascist. Even if you are a White Supremacist, one aspect of fascism that is essential to it is a reliance on a totalitarian form of government.

Well…certainly that is true, and all of those old-style racists in the US, and especially in the South, they’re anti-fascists! They hate fascism, they hate Nazism, and this crazy pro-White movement has blown all these people off by cheering on fascists and Nazis. What’s the matter with them? I don’t get it. For some reason, Hitler is held up as a hero of the White race. No he wasn’t! Hitler probably killed more White people than anyone in the 20th Century. What kind of hero is that?

Hitler did kill millions of White people, possibly even more than Stalin. I don’t get it. I think it’s just psychological where the enemies of people who are pro-White, they keep labeling pro-Whites as Nazis, and then they end up taking that label. Because when someone keeps calling you something, psychologically, you take up that label.

Well…that might be part of it. You call a man a thief enough, and eventually he might start stealing. “Well, if you’re going to call me a thief anyway, I might as well just start stealing.” And with the White Supremacists, since the 60’s, there’s been a total war on White racism coming out of the anti-racist movement. And that’s one thing the anti-racists have done really well – we pathologized racism, in particular, White racism, because, well…White racism is nasty, it has a bad history, and most White people don’t want to be racists anymore!

I think most Whites are racist in minor ways, but hardcore White racism has been so pathologized that most Whites will not take extreme, explicit racist stances anymore. So the only people out there taking explicitly pro-White stances are people who are so crazy that they don’t even care.

So it further stigmatized it so there’s no room for a healthy or more moderate pro-White movement.

There are no moderate pro-White movements!

Well, Pat Buchanan, he seems to have the best model because he basically is pro-White. He writes in his book, Death to the West that he does have a strong preference for White culture, and he laments the demographic change. But he’s able to appeal to a lot of people that White Nationalists can’t, and he has a following among conservatives where even people who are not White can admire him.

Well…Buchanan is basically…White politics. White politics isn’t really White Nationalism. The Tea Parties are White politics. The Republican Party, increasingly, is White politics. But you know Buchanan is sort of pro-Nazi himself. That’s a real problem with him.

Well, he’s not really pro-Nazi. Instead, he takes the position that the conservatives around the time of WW2, they were not explicitly pro-Nazi, but instead, they took the position that the Communists were a lot worse than the Nazis, or that defeating the Nazis wasn’t really worth it because Eastern Europe fell to Communism and Western Europe fell to multiculturalism. So that’s sort of where Pat Buchanan is coming from.

Break

The conservative movement around WW2 was under a lot of pressure, and the conservatives later changed their position – some conservatives nowadays will say that the Nazis and Communists were equally evil – there are even some who go out of their way to say that the Nazis were worse. I saw Denis Prager speak several years ago, and he said that he thought that the Nazis were even worse than the Communists, and that’s usually the position that the Left took.

Isn’t he a Jew though?

Yes, he is, so that’s a logical position but part of it is this Jewish influence for the neoconservative movement that has had a huge impact on the conservative movement in the US.

Well…I’m coming out of the WW2 Left, and those are my heroes, my comrades. The fascists and the Nazis are my enemies. They killed my comrades. If they ever come back in power, they will kill me, and I have no sympathy at all for those guys. And it’s not even a question of overall who was worse. See, I don’t think Stalin killed 20, 40, 60 or 110 million. I think Stalin killed 2.5 million. I don’t agree with those figures. Those are Nazi lies as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t believe that that famine was a deliberate famine, you know, the Holodomor, that fake famine that the Ukrainians go on about? Do you know what that famine is? The Ukrainian famine, the Holodomor?

Yes, I know what you are talking about, but it’s important to note that there is definitely a double standard when it comes to Communist atrocities, there can be an open discussion. But if you debate the Nazi atrocities, if you’re in Germany, you can actually go to jail for that.

Well…you can still debate the Nazi atrocities. And the legitimate figures for how many Jews were killed ranges all the way down to 4.2 million. So you can say that there were no 6 million killed, there were only 4 million, and that doesn’t make you a Holocaust Denier. And there are people who say it was over 6 million.

Anyway, historians pretty much agree about the basics. The debate’s over about the Holocaust. They did kill anywhere from 4 million to over 6 million Jews. That’s just the bottom line. There’s no further discussion about it. And the Holocaust Revisionists and the Holocaust Deniers have an ulterior motive, which is to bring back Nazism and to do the Holocaust all over again, and this time do it right.

So you’re saying that people who try to downplay the Nazi atrocities, their goal is to bring back the Nazis.

That’s correct, exactly.

For European nationalism, the accusation of Nazism is used as a weapon to suppress that nationalism, to make it pathological. But the other argument with regard to Zionism, if you look at Norman Finkelstein. His parents were actually Holocaust survivors. He wrote that book, The Holocaust Industry. And Israel has long stood by that, and they’ve used as a shield to be immune from any criticism.

Well, yes, there’s a good argument about the Holocaust as a religion. And Finkelstein does a good job on that. Finkelstein is not a Denier or anything like that that he is accused of. That’s not true. The Dean of Holocaust Studies is a guy named Martin Gilbert. I think he’s dead by now, but he puts the figure at 5.1 million. I don’t think it was 6 million myself. I think it was 5.7 million. Just because you say there were no 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust doesn’t mean you’re a Denier. There is still a lot of debate on the issue. There’s no real debate on the basics.

But you think there are similarities…You were saying that Israel has been going in a fascist direction.

Right. Well, on the Left, we’ve always called Zionism fascism. We think it’s fascism for Jews. It’s been a fascist movement from Day One, from the very start. We on the Left don’t like any ethnonationalism.

The reason that the Left doesn’t like Zionism is because they see it as kind of a hyper ethnonationalist movement. But I think there is also an anti-Zionist Right. They see Zionism more as a form of internationalism.

Zionism? As a form of internationalism? See, that’s crazy though. That’s nuts. That’s just anti-Semitic whackery.

But they are occupying another people’s land.

It’s a colonial project. It’s a settler-colonial project. It’s an imperialist project. It’s an ethnonationalist project. It’s a fascist project. There’s nothing progressive or Left about it. Where’s the internationalism? Internationalists don’t persecute minorities in that fascist way like the Israelis do. That’s not what an internationalist does.

Well the thing is that the Israel Lobby is by far the most powerful lobby in the US.

It’s one of them. There’s actually another one that’s more powerful. I think that the Oil Lobby or the Military Lobby is bigger.

The Military-Industrial Complex.

They are the most powerful ethnic lobby, for sure. Our elections are all about Jewish money. And the whole pro-Israel thing is all about Jewish money. The Jews have the US Congress by the short hairs, and they control the US Congress and government on the Israel issue to a pretty significant extent.

I think that that is why the anti-Zionist Right says that Zionism is internationalist. Because they manage to simultaneously support things like multiculturalism and immigration and also Zionism. I think it’s this extreme double standard.

Well…They’re supporting fascism for Jews over there in their homeland. Fascism for Jews is good for Jews over in Israel, but on the other hand, there isn’t any fascism for Jews over here in the US. Fascism in the US, or anywhere else in the world, is bad for the Jews, always, and so is ethnonationalism, because it’s always going to turn on the Jews. So in the Diaspora, the Jews always promote multiculturalism and whatnot as a way of diluting their enemies and making the Diaspora societies more friendly to the Jews. It’s all about what’s good for the Jews.

That’s where you get that word “internationalist” that Henry Ford wrote about.

Henry Ford was a great man! I like Henry Ford. I think he’s unjustly maligned. The International Jew is a good book, and I like it. But he’s wrong about some things. See, the main thing is that back then, Jews were internationalists because they didn’t have roots to the land. They were internationalists in the sense that their only allegiance was to their international Jewish community.

They weren’t real true internationalists. It’s more that they weren’t nationalists. They were basically traitors! The Jews have always been traitors, and they still are to some extent nowadays because their primary loyalty is to their international Jewish community and not necessarily to their own homeland. And they will screw their own homeland if it’s good for the Jews. When it comes down to either supporting the homeland or supporting the Jews, they will support the Jews! And that’s the big problem with the Jews. That’s why the nationalists hate them.

Yes, it’s definitely the cause of anti-Semitism. You’re saying that you’re against anti-Semitism.

Right.

But you support rational criticism of the Jews.

Right.

But how do we deal with this? Because there is a flaw in anti-Semitism since the Jewish leadership relies on anti-Semitism to get their followers more radicalized and ethnocentric. But at the same time, I don’t want to give the Jews a free pass either. How do you propose that we deal with these issues?

Well…when you get into anti-Semitism, you are basically falling into the Jews’ trap because the Jews want you to be an anti-Semite! That’s the way I see it. Now, personally, I don’t think the Jews are very important!

The only people who think Jews are important are:

1. Jews. 2. Anti-Semites.

I don’t think that Jews deserve all this attention that we are giving them. They’re just this little pissant tribe, and I don’t think they are deserving of all this interest and obsession. When you go anti-Semite, you’re giving the Jews what they want. You’re telling the Jews that they are important, when they are not! And…anti-Semites created Israel!

You’re strengthening Zionism. Because the whole idea of anti-Zionism is that we anti-Zionists want the Jews to be able to live peacefully in the Diaspora. We don’t want them all running to Israel because of Diaspora anti-Semitism. If you’re an anti-Semite, you’re chasing them over to Israel!

It’s interesting because Helen Thomas was saying that Israel should be dismantled and they should all move here but if Israel was dismantled…I know some on the anti-Zionist Right who support returning that land to the Palestinians. But what would happen is that they would all move to Europe and the US. So I can sort of see what you are getting at.

Do the anti-Semites really want that? I know anti-Semites who support Israel. Their attitude is, “We sure as Hell don’t want the Jews in our country!”

I’m not sure if the BNP is anti-Semitic or not, but they support Israel.

The BNP has anti-Semitic roots, but they recently did a turnaround and now they are pro-Jewish, they are Judeophilic, they are pro-Israel, they are Zionists. And it’s all because they are anti-Islam. It’s all because they don’t like Muslims. The BNP doesn’t care that much about Jews. Jews are not that big of an issue in the UK anyway. The Jews in the UK are very well assimilated, and they don’t have a lot of power there.

The big problem in the UK is not the Jews, it’s the Muslims. They’re setting off bombs!

Well, with Europe and the US, we have to look at them differently because they do have very different issues. If you look at Europe, the Muslim issue is huge there. In the US, the Muslim community here is pretty small. With the Muslims, they try to stir up fears about Islam to get support for wars in the Middle East.

The Muslim community here is as big as the one in Britain! The ones in the UK are just not assimilated very well. They are Pakistanis from the former British possessions, and they are just not doing well. It’s more a question of assimilation rather than numbers. We are fortunate in the US to have such a well-behaved Muslim community…so far!

But you think there could be an issue here in the future.

Yes, definitely, definitely. I mean I would not want to allow millions more Muslims to flood into this country willy-nilly. No, not at all. And I think we need to be very careful about the Muslims that we let in here. We need to make them take things like loyalty tests. I don’t know, I don’t know. Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries are not that great of a thing. They tend to get really agitated and radicalized. They tend to make demands for Sharia law.

They’re…they’re like the Jews! They’re not loyal! They have dual loyalty. Their primary loyalty is to the Ummah and barely, if at all, to the nation. They will actually set bombs against their own nation because the nation is fighting the Ummah. The Ummah is the Muslim community of the whole world. U-m-m-a-h.

You do think that they have an imperialist agenda too. We are being kind of imperialistic towards them in the Middle East, but they do want to spread their religion through demographics and move throughout the world and have as many kids as possible.

Islam is extremely imperialist! That’s a definite fact! One thing you can say about the Jews is they are not imperialist. They don’t want converts. They don’t want to take over. If you want to convert to Judaism, you go to a rabbi, and tell him you want to convert to Judaism, the first thing he’s going to ask you is, “Why? Why do you want to convert to Judaism? Why do you want to do that? What do you want to do that for?”

Do you think that is for racial purity reasons?

No…Jews just don’t convert. Religions either proselytize or they don’t. Jews used to proselytize and take a lot of converts, but they haven’t been doing it lately for some reason. Jews just don’t convert people. It’s not their thing. There are other religions like that too, especially in the Middle East. That philosophy has its roots in purity stuff, but it’s generally not a very good idea for your religion to not accept converts. It’s a way to make your religion go extinct – don’t accept converts.

I haven’t really studied Islam. I haven’t looked at the texts, so I don’t want to make claims about a religion if I haven’t studied it. But if you study the history of Islam, it’s definitely a pretty imperialist religion. With Europe, the Muslim leaders definitely have a goal to take over Europe.

Sure! And so do the ones in the US! If you read the statements of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, it’s run by Islamists, and they say the same thing as the ones in Europe do – that their goal is a Muslim America. And that’s what’s scary about these people. I don’t think we should be letting a lot of them in. As long as they are only

What is the level of growth in that community in the US?

Not that much in the US. They have a few converts here and there. Actually, a much greater problem in the West in terms of Islam is that a lot of Muslims leave Islam. In the UK, 1

Has that happened in Europe at all?

In the UK, about 1

Do you think it’s a motivation for terrorism to come from a sexually repressed culture, and they see the West as being sexually immoral. You’ve heard that argument. How much of a role do you think that plays?

Hmm…I’m not sure. They kill women for violating Islam, but they also kill men. In Muslim-majority countries, they will kill guys for leaving Islam. The thing about Islam is that, from the very start, Islam has not accepted people leaving their religion. They do not accept apostates! They kill them! They’ve always done this, from Day One.

I was talking to my Mom about that, and she just acted like, “Well, that’s just the way they are. Muslims don’t like that. They’ll kill you if you leave.” She didn’t say it like they’re evil, but more that this is just the way that they are. They’ve been this way for about 1,300 years. It’s the nature of their religion. But that’s their imperialist nature right there! Because they accept lots of converts, but they won’t let anybody leave! It’s like a house that’s an Open House. Anybody in the neighborhood can come in, but once you’re in there, they lock the doors, and you can never get out.

It would be like a country that took in all these immigrants, but will not let anyone leave the country.

Yes! Especially with the goal of, “We’re going to be the biggest country in the world and take over all the other countries.” And they have emissaries all over all the other countries in the world trying to make their Muslims dual citizens. It’s true that Islam has a world conquest agenda, and Al Qaeda and folks like that are absolutely explicit in their goals of taking over the world. I’ve read Al Qaeda’s statements. And I’ve been interviewed by the FBI too about Al Qaeda. Because I did some research on them.

Yes?

Yes I know something about Al Qaeda. It was funny, I called the FBI back one time, and I asked for the Bin Laden Division, because they’ve got this Bin Laden Task Force. And it was Friday night and they said, “Oh, they’re gone for the weekend!” I thought that was lame. I think the Bin Laden Task Force should be working 24-7. This FBI guy called me back and they did an interview with me. I didn’t really like it too much because they always treat you like you’re a suspected terrorist.

Yes, they think you’re a suspected terrorist if you’re going to them with information.

Yes, I don’t like to be interviewed by cops either. They always treat you like you’re a suspected criminal. That’s just their nature.

I don’t think that’s intentional, but it’s just what they are used to doing as part of their job.

Well, he wanted to find out if I was a Muslim! He was like, “Are you a Muslim?” I was like, “No way!” And he was breathing easier. I told him I was a Leftist, a Left-winger, and he was like, “Oh well, we’re not worried about you.” The FBI is worried about American Muslims, especially converts. White guys like me convert. And quite a few of those guys go super-radical. Because converts are often crazy.

They’re more radical than the people who are born into it because they joined just for that purpose, to embrace that belief system.

In many religions, even the converted Jews…the Jewish converts often go really nuts.

I’ve met Christians who converted to Judaism. They started out as Christian Zionists and that was their motivation for joining Judaism.

The Jews say that the Jewish converts are simply nuts in many cases. They’re like these fanatical Jews. And it’s interesting too, because the Jewish converts often take on a lot of these supposed “Jewish genetic tendencies.” They become extremely ethnocentric, they become paranoid of the Gentiles. These are not genetic tendencies! The ethnocentrism, the paranoia of the Gentiles, the tribalism.

Some people think that those traits are genetic.

Yes! I don’t agree with that.

But who’s been saying that it’s genetic? I think it’s cultural. Who’s been saying that?

Well, the Nazi thing was that there was something wrong with their genes.

Well, I see what you are saying. I know that way of thinking.

Kevin MacDonald has suggested that too, and boy is he wrong.

He has brought it up. I read his blog a lot, and I think that MacDonald’s main view is that it’s a culture, a political ideology. Do you think that he has mentioned the genetic aspect?

I think he mentions something about that. If you read his Trilogy of books, he suggested that Jewish character traits might be genetic. I think that’s crazy. Supposedly the Jews are really aggressive verbally and in business, and they can be rude.

Well, I think that’s cultural too, because the Jews are verbally and in business, extremely aggressive. But physically, Jews are not aggressive at all. Jewish guys have a reputation for being wimps. Jews commit almost no physical violence or violent crime. Jews are bad at sports. So…what did they inherit? Some sort of gene that made him extremely verbally aggressive but at the same time extremely non-aggressive as far as physical aggression goes? That doesn’t make any kind of sense.

Well, Jewish behavior is definitely cultural, since it also depends on where they grew up. If they grew up in New York or if they grew up in a small town in the Midwest is going to make a huge difference. I was reading about this story. There was this rabbi, he went to Peru and he got these Peruvian Indians and he took them to Israel and they turned into these fanatics after about 5 years.

Yes, they probably started acting more Jewish than Jews in New York that are 500 years Kosher. That shows you that one can take on those psychological tendencies of the Jews. It’s simply a cultural thing. I could be like that. I could be like that if I converted to Judaism. I could get really paranoid of the Gentiles and really hyperethnocentric, I could get really acquisitive, really verbally aggressive…

You grow up in a culture like that…and those people from around the Mediterranean, they tend to be that way anyway. They tend to be verbally aggressive, really emotionally expressive…They’re really into business too. Jews act a lot like Arabs, that’s the thing. They get in your face, but they’re really warm too, they embrace you, and when they’re talking to you, they’re like two inches away.

Top Maoist Leader Killed in India

Azad, one of the top leaders of the CPI-Maoist party leading the insurgency in India, was just killed in Andra Pradesh by the government. The state said that they killed him in a shootout, but as in so many cases, they simply murdered him. They arrested him several days ago, then took him out in the forest handcuffed and blindfolded, then shot him.

This is how they murder many Maoists who they capture. Like Colombia, El Salvador or Guatemala during their civil wars, the Indians don’t take a lot of POW’s in their insurgencies. If you’re going to be captured by the state in these conflicts, you may as well kill yourself or go down fighting. Arrest means death in most cases.

Another top leader, Chandranna, was also captured in Andra Pradesh.

It’s a blow to the rebels, but they should handle it ok. They have a chain of command, and there are folks waiting to step in in case any top official is captured or killed.

The group has not made its leaders into folk heros as the Peruvian Sendero Luminoso did with their leader, Abimael Guzman. In the case of Sendero, the capture of Guzman at the peak of the group’s power led to the collapse of the group. But it should not end any well-organized insurgency.

In the Algerian Civil War, the French kept capturing and killing “the top leadership” of the insurgents so many times that it got ridiculous. The Algerians just replace them with other folks, and the war went on.

New Maoist Attack in India

A huge new Maoist ambush in the Bastar Region of Chattisargh killed 27 police and wounded 10 others. About 100 rebels opened up on the forces from a hilltop as they were returning from a patrol. I understand that the Operation Red Hunt in the region is winding down because the Monsoon season is starting up in Bastar.

India Has No Right to Exist

In the India Is a Shithole piece, James Schipper suggests that India has been free of significant civil strife:

Another thing for which India deserves credit is that, despite being one of the most multinational states in the world, it has managed to avoid serious internal conflicts. In terms of national composition, India should not be compared with the US but with Europe, which is of course divided in about 40 different states.

This is not true. Kashmir has been on fire since 1968 or so. There are now 500,000 troops locking the place down, and every day, another young Kashmiri or two at least is killed.

India was born in blood and sin, like the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and various settler-colonial states.

The difference is that the Indian state, incredibly, attacked her very own people from the start of the Indian state enterprise, and has been at war with them ever since. In this sense, India is an utterly failed state like Myanmar or Indonesia, two other former colonial states who have been battling insurgencies from the start from parts of the former colony who never wanted to join the new state.

India has about as much right to exist in its current form as Myanmar does. India is a failed state. It’s has failed to properly rule or provide for its people, and tens of millions of its citizens never consented to join the new state in the first place, but were dragged in kicking and screaming amidst slaughters.

Parents who can’t raise their children get their kids taken away. India’s children are its nations and peoples, whom it can’t and won’t care for because its ruling class is negligent and doesn’t care, like a crack-addicted Mom. Hence, India has no right to rule the peoples of the Northeast, Kashmir and Punjab and the Indian state in its current form should be dissolved as surely as Israel should be.

The Northeast has been in rebellion, often armed rebellion, nearly from Day One. There have been scores of armed groups fighting the state in that region, and many are still active. Bottom line is that India has no right to rule the Northeast, and as India is a cesspool anyway, why should the NE people be forced to live in a sewer? Let them secede and negotiate their way to modernity.

There is now a huge Maoist rebellion going on the East. There are easily 100,000 Maoists, and they have millions of supporters.

There was a huge rebellion in the Punjab a while back. It’s over, but it was nasty.

There is a continuous low level conflict going on with India’s Muslims, who regularly set off horrible bomb attacks on India’s Hindu cities. The Hindus are now responding by bombing India’s Muslim cities. Further, there have been many cases of inter-religious violence, mostly pogroms of Muslims by India’s Hindus and sometime riots by put-upon Indian Muslims. These pogroms started with the birth of the Indian state and the splitting of Pakistan, and to be honest, have never stopped.

In addition, there have been hundreds of killings of Christians in the East by Hindus, including burnings of churches and entire towns, pogroms, etc. This is ongoing as I write this.

One Party, Two Wings

It’s simply nuts that the Obama Democrats are some sort of a socialist or Communist political party, as the lunatic reactionaries in the Republican Party insist. These people are out of their minds. As socialists and Communists, would we not be the first folks to be cheering on our savior Barack? And why would we not do so? We would pretend that he is just another pro-corporate, anti-worker politician, if he were a real Leftist, why?

We are not so devious. It is the Right that is devious.

The truth is that there is one political party in the US, the Corporate Party. It has two wings, both anti-people, anti-worker, anti-society and anti-nation. The liberal wing is called the Democratic Party. The conservative wing is called the Republican Party.

The Corporate Party always has a minority project of:

  1. The Rich
  2. The upper middle class
  3. The corporations

Their project is in favor of these folks and opposed to:

  1. Society at large
  2. The public interest
  3. Investors
  4. The national interest and the nation itself
  5. The environment
  6. The consumers
  7. The workers
  8. The middle and working classes
  9. The low-income and the poor

The Corporate Party project is always an eternally class project. The dilemma of the Corporate Party is how to get the majority of the 2nd group to oppose their interests and their class interests in order to support the first group and harm themselves in the process.

The Corporate Party do this via a stupefying array of nonstop lying, bullshit, dissembling, sophistry, code words, trickery, linguistic games, psychological warfare and brainwashing, nonsense, crap, religion, racism, homophobia, sexism, bigotry, jingoism, ultranationalism, and whatever other silliness they can dream up. To do this, they utilize the entire media, which they generally control under capitalism.

It takes a lot of thinking to figure out, first of all, that you are in the second group and that the first group is lying to you, and there’s almost no one around to help you put the jigsaw together, so most folks in the second group just fall for it.

Part of the problem is that the Corporate Party brainwash most folks in the 2nd group into believing that the 1st and 2nd groups do not even exist, hence there is no class struggle. If that fails, they try to convince the 2nd group that they are actually members of the 1st group! There’s no one around to help you wade through this tsunami or horseshit, so most in the 2nd group just fall for it.

In the midst of this, we have an interesting development called the American Third Position Party. It’s really the closest thing to a White nationalist party in the US today, although they do not have a separatist platform. That they advertise themselves as a party for White Americans means that they are willing to blow off 3

What’s frightening is that the American3P Party is probably one of the most pro-worker and anti-corporate parties in the US today. The Left parties can’t possibly be pro-worker as they are committed to Open Borders, which is de facto anti-worker.

It’s a pretty sorry state of affairs when, amidst a colossal economic downturn, the only parties with a pro-worker project are the fascists.

Thinking historically, remind of you of anything? Yikes.

Alt Left: India Is a Shithole*

This article sums up what modern India is all about, written by a fairly progressive fellow named Sean Kelley. I’ve been studying India for a while now, and the more I study it, the angrier I get. India, quite simply, sucks. Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks and then sucks some more. I don’t know how long this suckiness has been going on, maybe forever. When the British first showed up, they were appalled. They tried to civilize the place, but the small-c conservative Indians kept objecting to getting civilized.

What sucks? India sucks. What about it sucks?

First of all, the state.

The Indian state has sucked from Day One, birthed in blood-soaked imperial and neo-colonial sin like America, Australia and Israel, with even less of an excuse as a long-abused colony themselves. Now, via alliances with imperialist America, the UK and Israel, India seems to be aping the worst aspects of its former imperialist and colonialist master. Like a crime victim going on a killing spree. Of all the ways to react.

The lousy nature of the Indian state is of course rooted in Indian society, as all states are rooted in the cultural formations of their societies. The Indian state sucks because Indian society sucks.

Why does Indian society suck? It’s hard to sum it up. First of all, you have one of the most callous and uncaring ruling classes, with the usual upper middle class allies, found on Earth.

Missing the good old days? Go to India. Nostalgic for debt slavery and bondage, feudalism (the real deal, not the semi-feudal modern kind), slavery (child and adult), child labor, shit in the streets like the Middle Ages Europe pre-Black Plague? Go to India. It’s all there in spades.

Even more appalling is that no one in India gives a damn. The bourgeois either live in denial or could care less if the lower classes live, die, or flop, gasping, somewhere in between.

The poor are too stupid and/or ignorant to know better, and many think that their savage and inhuman abuse, like something out of 1400’s England, is actually religiously ordained by God Himself. Sure, the bourgeois sold the poor this rope to hang themselves with or gave it to them, but they wrapped it up all up in one of the most barbaric cultural-religious systems known to modern Man, Hinduism, to give it the staying power of superglue.

The article makes clear that neoliberalism has ruined India beyond its prior Hellishness. Which is possible, since you don’t need to read Milton to learn that Hell can always get worse.

The pollution and the filth.

The pollution and filth is destroying India and turning it into an actual open cesspool/sewage ditch/garbage dump. One that traverses the whole country. It’s not only nauseous to breathe or look at the filth that surrounds you without respite, but it’s actually literally sickening. A visit to India means a continuous low-level infectious illness from all the filth drowning out your world.

Worse, Indians don’t care. See that guy shitting on the sidewalk? Pay no attention to him. OK, he’s getting up and walking away now. No problem, just don’t step it. The rich pay the trash collectors to keep their neighborhoods clean, and the Hell with everyone else. A callousness reminiscent of Anglo-Irish absentee landlords in 1820’s Ireland.

The one good thing about neoliberalism is a decline in bureaucracy. You gut government so there’s not much left. Bureaucracy means too many idle government slackers wasting time and messing around when they should be working. It could also mean an insanely underfunded state, which is probably the case with India.

The government doesn’t give a damn about anything but the rich. The state exists only to suck up to the rich or in its human form to move up classwise and become part of the elite class. The state cares nothing about workers, consumers, the environment – Hell, about anything relating to the people.

Everyone who works for the state is a crook, and they are all on the take. Schools and hospitals in rural areas are empty. Doctors and teachers collect salaries and never show up for work.

Nothing works. The electric grid is down most of the time, but you pay at the end of the month anyway even if you got little or no energy use out of the system that month. The roads are nightmarish, traffic is horrifyingly dangerous, and everything is so congested it makes Los Angeles look like a breezy Sunday drive in the country. The ports don’t work either – they look like something out of 1900. Let’s see, the ports don’t work, the roads don’t work, and bureaucracy stifles everything. How is this neoliberal paradise economy supposed to function anyway?

It’s tough in this neoliberal paradise to even purchase a product. Getting a hotel room is a pain in the rear end. Buying a new SIM card for your cellphone is a nightmare best avoided.

The one thing that everyone raves about in India is the trains. Nearly all Indians will insist that the trains are wonderful. Maybe 5-10 years ago they were, but not anymore. The traffic has maybe tripled since that time, and almost no new cars or lines have been added as you would expect neoliberals to do. The lines are Hellish, and customer service is probably better in Hell itself. Worse, no one cares. Even worse than that, Indians think Indian Train Hell is Paradise itself.

Malnutrition effects 5

The starvation and malnutrition levels are actually worse than in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Kelly echoes this by saying that he’s been in 50 countries the world over, and even Ethiopia was less of a shithole than India. That’s a powerful indictment. To the Africans’ credit, most Africans, despite their IQ’s, will readily admit to you that their country is a shithole. They don’t like it, and they want change. Good for them.

The first part of getting out of a hole is not just to stop digging but to realize that you’re in a nasty hole in the first place and would prefer to climb out rather than digging your way towards China and sure death.

Indians not only won’t stop digging, they think that trying to dig your way to China is some kind of a cultural-religious noble endeavor. Any Samaritans stopping by to toss them a rope or offer a hand are showered with abuse for refusing to acknowledge that the Indian’s deep dug pit is actually the greatest civilization created by man. Predictably, most sane folks throw down the rope, say the Hell with em, and walk on.

The Indian keeps digging as the water fills in around his muddy and beaten feat. Hunger gnaws at his belly. In response to his dim and plunging prospects, he can think of nothing to do but shout, “Glory to Bharat!” while cursing Muslims, Christians and those nasty British. With every breath, the water’s creeping higher.

You wonder why I support the Indian Maoists. Of all of the people in India, only the Maoists seem to have a bat’s chance in Hell of negotiating some kind of a future lessening of the mess above. Everyone else is cheerily on board for stasis or worsening.

*About the title, I would like to sincerely apologize to all of the actual shitholes in the world. They were just poor innocent holes, sitting there in the ground minding their own business until some mean person came along and filled them up with shit.

I am truly sorry, shitholes, I didn’t mean to compare you with India.

Trailer for Oliver Stone’s South of the Border

Here.

Looks pretty good. Interviews with Raul Castro in Cuba, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Kristina Kirchner and her husband Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Fernando do Lugo in Paraguay and Lula da Silva in Brazil.

Those South American accents the Presidents are speaking are really wild. I could barely understand a word any of them were saying.

Comes with another silly article in the Guardian by an interviewer who conducted a 1-hour interview with Chavez for the Guardian. Stephen Sackur’s interview is a bunch of distorted crap, as usual.

Yes, there is inflation in Venezuela, mostly due to an overheated economy but also due to the fact that the poor have so much more money now that they are buying so much more stuff. Also the producers are withholding products from the market to create artificial shortages in order to drive prices even higher. The US allies in Venezuela think that prices are not high enough!

Yes, there is an economic downturn, similar to one occurring all over the world, like in the US and Europe. I suppose the downturn there is due to the fact that capitalism is a failed system too?

Yes, there is unemployment in Venezuela, but the rate has been cut in half from 1

Chavez is not “manufacturing poor people” as the opposition media owner claims. The poverty rate has collapsed under Chavez. He cut poverty in half.

He has not turned the oil, agriculture and power industries into vast state bureaucracies . The oil sector has always been state-run, but it was run by the elite for their own benefit. Chavez made it into a company that works for the people. He got rid of the elitist bureaucrats. The vast majority of the ag sector is in private hands, mostly in large estates. The state has only conducted some land reforms and turned idle land over to landless peasants. The power industry has been nationalized, true, as it has been in many European countries. So what?

Yes, the bolivar was devalued, a good idea. This was an economically necessary move and there was nothing wrong with it.

7

RCTV was shut down for many reasons. Keep in mind that they supported the coup in 2002. If a TV station was a co-conspirator in a military coup to overthrow the US government, would it still be on the air. Anyway, they were kept on the air for years after the coup. They failed to abide by many reasonable regulations that they were asked to abide by, including keeping decent records.

They refused to abide by these rules in order to force a showdown with Chavez. Yes, they got suspended, but all they did was go to cable, where most of the Venezuelan media is anyway, like the US broadcast media. So they are still on the air and as wildly anti-Chavez as ever.

The owner of Globovision was arrested for economic crimes that he committed. The arrest warrant was issued not by Chavez but by a court. The charges are crimes related to his auto business. Chavez is cracking down on crooked businessmen all over the country. Too bad.

Yes, there is state corruption in Venezuela. It effects both Chavistas and economic pols in the states and cities that they rule. Corruption is a long-standing problem in Venezuela dating back to the early days of the Republic. It’s not going away anytime soon.

Interview with CPI (Maoist) Spokesperson Gopalji on the Current State of the Revolution in India

Great interview with an Indian Maoist spokesperson from the Monthly Review. The interviewer is hostile, as you might expect. The talk took place in Jharkand. We don’t hear much about Jharkand these days, but lately the Maoists have seriously overrun almost the entire state. The lower half of Bihar to the north is also seriously overrun as is the far east of West Bengal.

I believe that the situation in Jharkand is different from Chattisargh. Chattisargh is almost all adivasi tribals, but I think there are more Dalits involved in Jharkand – that is, it’s not a totally adivasi rebellion.

The spokesman answers a lot of good questions.

No, they are not opposed to mining and industrial development, only such that harms the interests of the people.

In the Maoist army, cadre of all different castes sit down at the same table and eat together. You won’t fight that scene in many other places in India. That right there is an excellent blow against caste. The spokesman actually mentioned caste and Dalits quite a bit, probably because of the dynamics of Jharkand. That’s a good thing, because they have been criticized by Dalit groups for ignoring the caste question.

The Maoists have their work seriously cut out for them. They need to expand a lot, and this Green Hunt offensive is a great opportunity. They need to move into urban areas from small towns to cities. They need to establish a foothold in the universities among professors and students, and also in the K-12 public schools. Making inroads with urban workers and slum dwellers is a must. Also, they need to move out of Eastern India and into the center and west of the country. But organization will be a lot more difficult in the West in Punjab, Gujarat and Rajasthan.

This interview answers a lot of questions about the Maoists and counters a lot of state propaganda. It’s long at 52 pages, but if I could get through it, than you can too.

In this wide-ranging interview, Gopalji discusses many important issues including: The development of Revolutionary People’s Committees and the Maoists’ efforts to establish fully liberated base areas; the agriculture, education and health projects the Maoists have built; how they conduct military operations to avoid harm to local people; Operation Green Hunt and moves towards a fascist police state; the challenge of developing the revolutionary movement in the plains and among the working class and petty bourgeoisie in the cities; how the Maoists plan to defeat the powerful Indian military and state; and what a New Democratic state would look like in India.

Interview with Gopalji, Spokesperson of the Special Area Committee of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) in a Forest in Jharkhand, Eastern India

by Alpa Shah

Communism in the rest of the world seems to have collapsed. What hope do you have of achieving a socialist state in India?

The claim that there is no hope for socialism and communism, that they are dead, is mere propaganda unleashed by the imperialists and the apologists of capitalism. The 20th century saw the first round of revolutions led by the working classes and the toiling masses of the communist parties in various parts of the world – the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Revolution in Vietnam and many more. The 21st century will see a new wave of revolutions led by communist parties such as ours in India.

Massive socio-economic and political transformation takes time. The bourgeoisie took at least 400 years to achieve victory over feudalism and even then they entered into unholy alliances with the feudals in order to fight the working classes. These alliances are still prevalent today in many countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America in order to stop the revolutions of the toiling masses led by the communist parties.

After the Great Depression II, the recent economic crisis, there are very few takers of the bourgeois philosophy TINA, ‘There is No Alternative,’ to capitalism. Many intellectuals, many people in the developed countries, in the capitalist countries, have turned to Marx’s Das Kapital. Recent developments in the world have proved the theory of Marx, the invincibility of Marxism and the inevitability of socialism and communism.

Only socialism and communism can eradicate hunger, poverty and inequality and solve problems, such as that of climate change, which our planet is facing. In India we are trying to achieve a New Democratic Revolution as part of the world’s socialist revolutions.

What stage are you at in the Indian revolution?

In general we are in the phase of guerrilla warfare. This means that the armed struggle against the state is the principal form of struggle and armed organization is the principal form of organization.

In some places, such as in Dandakaranya and in some parts of Jharkhand, we have formed Revolutionary People’s Committees (RPC’s), which are the organs of alternative people’s power. If this continues, we will be able to build base areas.

Base areas are places where the enemy, the ruling classes (that is the Indian big-bourgeoisie and the landlords) do not have any organ of power – any military, any police force, or any administrative apparatus – and where people develop their own organs of power, their own army and their own administrative apparatus to implement economic policies of the people by the people’s government. Our immediate target is to build base areas in certain pockets of our country.

What are the strategies you are using to achieve a base area?

Our guiding ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Our strategy is ‘protracted people’s war’. Comrade Mao taught us that the poor nations, the nations where semi-colonial, semi-feudal systems are in existence, should take the path of protracted people’s war – making bases in the countryside and then encircling the towns from the countryside.

This is the strategy taken by the communist party here in India and it is the strategy taken by Maoists in semi-colonial, semi-feudal countries all over the world. In India, there are certain changes; it is not exactly similar to pre-revolution China. So we have made certain changes in our tactics to suit the changes in our concrete conditions.

What are the main differences between the conditions that existed at the time of the protracted people’s war in China and the conditions in India now?

Internationally we are operating in a world where there is no socialist country or bases to seek help from. After the WWII, various national liberation struggles forced the imperialists to renounce the old form of direct colonial rule. So they resorted to neocolonial forms of exploitation. Internally, India now has a centralized and militarized state that has reached the remotest parts of the country. Transport and communications are far more developed. Chieftains who had their own armies dominated the Chinese countryside.

In India we don’t have such a situation. The loathsome caste hierarchy with a strict Brahminical order is the backbone of Indian feudalism and there is uneven development in every aspect of the socio-economic and cultural realms. The Indian ruling classes ruled this country for over 60 years in a so-called ‘democratic’ framework. India has a much bigger urban petty bourgeois class and a huge working class force.

It is a county of numerous nationalities at varying degrees of development. India has a long history of revisionist practice that still has considerable influence over the toiling masses and these revisionists have proved themselves an apologist of this reactionary rule.

There are also big differences in the process of building the army and the base areas. In China they already had a base area and an army. Even before the formation of the Communist Party, the Kuomintang was leading a bourgeois democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism. We had neither a base area nor an army when we began. We started with a small squad and have been able to form a People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army.

So our struggle will be longer and different. Additionally, we have vast plain areas that need a somewhat different treatment than hilly and forested regions. The importance of urban work and the need for organizing the working class is greater in our country. Apart from organizing a strategic united front of the four classes, we are also making a special effort to organize adivasis, dalits, women, minorities and various nationalities.

The Indian bourgeoisie exists in some form even in remote parts of India. We see the effects of capitalism in all the nooks and crannies of remote villages here – people who want motorbikes, mobile phones, notions of private property, individualism. What hope do you have of creating an alternative set of values in the world?

The people know that our party is fighting for an India structured around principles of equality. We want an India where individuals cannot amass capital and private property while simultaneously driving large sections of the society into poverty. We are here to make a corruption-free India where corruption, dishonesty and lies have no place; and where honesty, labour and truth are rewarded.

They also know that we are fighting against discrimination based on gender, caste, religion and other sectarian identities. For instance we encourage inter-caste marriages. We want a society where no one is bigger or greater on the basis of his or her birth.

While the effects of capitalism and its affiliated values are certainly in the rural countryside, a vast section of the society is against their corrupting and deteriorating effects. By and large the peasants and the workers support the values that we are fighting for. They participate in the struggles, based on these values, that our party organizes. They are fond of our cultural troops, read magazines and listen to the audio-cassettes and the CD’s that we release.

Our supporters also appreciate and promote the values that are perpetuated within the party. For instance, caste hierarchy has no place in our community. People from different castes eat from the same plate amongst our cadres: a concept that is generally unthinkable for many people outside our party.

Women are treated equally to men and there is no division of labour based on gender roles within the party. Our cadres are not paid a salary; they live a simple life that meets basic needs without unnecessary luxuries. They appreciate the values and visions of living that are being created within the party and are here to promote them beyond the party. There is much hope that these values will spread like fire across the Indian countryside, despite the efforts to trample them out by the Indian big bourgeoisie, because our supporters are increasing on a daily basis.

Why are you boycotting elections in your strongholds?

The Indian parliament and constitution actually represent the big bourgeoisie class and the big landlord class – not the people, not the toiling masses or the middle classes of India. So for any basic change, if you want to bring any basic change in the lives of the ordinary masses, you must first bring a new constitution and a parliament based on that new constitution.

So any action like participation in elections will actually strengthen the same reactionary parliament that is causing havoc, which is causing tragedy to the lives of the ordinary people. That is why we call upon people to boycott the elections. They must boycott the parliament itself that is reactionary and anti-people.

India is often declared one of the world’s largest democracies. Clearly you disagree?

India is not even a bourgeois democracy. It is actually a semi-colonial and semi-feudal state. The vast majority of people in India do not have any democratic rights. The transfer of power from the British in 1947 went into the hands of the comprador Indian bourgeoisie and the big landlords – the tested servants of the colonialists. In fact these two classes served the British imperialists in pre-independence British India.

The vast majority of the people did not get any rights. The new government talked of land reform but in practice they did not give land to the actual cultivators. People did not acquire equal opportunities in the case of jobs, or in access to health and educational facilities. Corruption has become a way of life in India. Now crores of people are dying of hunger and diseases.

People are not allowed to speak openly and to organize, although they have written provision for so many things in their constitution. In fact the constitution carried majority of acts from colonial rule and has been prepared under their instructions. How can a bureaucracy, which was serving colonialism till yesterday, become democratic, pro-people and patriotic overnight?

So this claim of independence of 1947 is actually not for large sections of the Indian people who achieved no democratic rights. Moreover, today the Indian parliament obeys the dictates of the WTO and the World Bank. It is actually carrying out the instructions of US imperialism – the chieftain of world imperialism.

The Indian ruling classes claim that India is a federal and secular republic. But how federal are they? The Kashmiri people are fighting for the implementation of the provision of the plebiscite for a separate Kashmir and the people of the Northeast are fighting for their cause, for their own nations.

Observe how brutally the Indian government is treating them. Analyze the center-state relations. They claim that the provincial governments have so many powers. But actually the power is centered in Delhi and center-state relations are very feudal. The central government is least interested in decentralizing power to the state governments. When capital is concentrated in the hands of the comprador big bourgeoisie, backed by imperialists, how can you expect the decentralization of power?

As far as the claim of being a secular country is concerned, you have seen the state initiated and promoted massacres of the minorities over the years. Their claims that India is a democratic, federal and a secular republic are a big farce.

What does democracy mean for you?

Our immediate aim is to achieve a New Democratic Revolution. In a New Democratic India, power will be in the hands of a four-class alliance – a strategic united front where no one class is in power – the workers, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.

This new state will liberate the peasants from the clutches of feudalism. It will liberate national capital from finance and comprador capital, confiscate finance and big capital and assets, and write off the foreign loans. It will seize the surplus land from the landowners and distribute it among the landless and poor peasants. It will eradicate each and every instance of imperialism and feudalism in the realm of economy, culture and politics.

The New Democratic Revolution will thus bring a truly federal and secular democratic republic of India that will give the oppressed nationalities a right to self-determination and even to secede. That India will not favour any religion: religion will be a private affair. It will bring an India in which people have not only equal opportunities in jobs, medical and educational facilities but also the objective conditions for everyone to avail of them.

The united front of the four-class alliance will be organized under a decentralized organ of power of the people called Revolutionary People’s Committees (RPC’s). RPC’s will represent the majority of the people of India and will be elected by a truly representative body of the people. In fact in the countryside where our struggle is currently strong, particularly in Dandakaranya and Jharkhand, this united front, whatever classes we have in the villages, are already being organized under Revolutionary People’s Committees (RPC’s).

In Dandakaranya we have RPC’s at a village level, at a block level, and in one or two places at the district level too. These are in rudimentary form at present, they are just emerging.

In the last elections you blew up schools and hospitals in the areas where you have a strong presence. Why?

In our areas of struggle, the state’s paramilitary forces are establishing police camps in the schools. You will find hundreds of schools in the struggling areas where the enemy forces have built up camps. We blow up only those schools where the police regularly establish military camps for their combing operations – not all the schools.

The case of blowing up a hospital is rare. It is in fact very rare to have hospital buildings in the countryside and even in those cases where there may be hospital buildings, they are not functioning as hospitals: the doctors never visit them and there are no medicines.

As far as schools are concerned, this government is least interested in educating the boys and girls of the toiling masses. You can see the conditions of the education system, the way in which they are privatizing the whole education system and how the boys and girls of the ordinary people of India are unable to have advanced studies.

In some places where we have blown up schools, we talked to the villagers, to the supporters and sympathizers of the movement, before blowing them up. And in some places we are rebuilding the schools. Please be clear that when we blow up schools we make sure there is no one in the school and that we are also running many of our own schools in the countryside.

If the government stopped using the schools as military camps, there would be no need to blow up the schools. The High Court recently passed a verdict that schools should not be used as police camps. But even after this verdict the security forces have not vacated the schools. Many schools in the countryside are actually being built for military purpose, and the police humiliate the students and hamper the studies there. That is why we are forced to blow up a few schools.

India has made huge investments in developing the nation. Why are you so critical of the government’s development program agenda?

There are two things. First is the development programs of the government and second is more broadly their concept of development.

All these development programs are actually a part of their strategy of Low Intensity Conflict (LIC). This is a reform and dole program. The Indian government is least interested in the development of the common people. Even according to their own estimates, 7

This is the case after 62 years of so-called Independence! In 2000-2001, the average availability of food grains for an Indian was 157 kilograms, now it is hardly 140 kilograms. So this is the pathetic condition we have. On the other hand, a few Indians are becoming billionaires and the Indian state is boasting of that.

What the Indian government is actually trying to do through these developmental works is to create their social base in the form of petty contractors and other middlemen – becholia, we call them. Their aim is to divert youth who are naturally coming towards the revolution. So many youths are being diverted to petty contracts. These are sugarcoated bullets. Just observe the development projects in the countryside.

Even today, more than 6

Even this much-publicized NAREGA, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, is a big flop because it has so many lacunae in it. Corruption is everywhere. People are not getting wages. The claim is to give employment for 100 days per person. But people are not getting employment even for 10 days. Moreover, NAREGA neither provides a permanent and stable form of employment nor does it challenge the power structure of inequality in our countryside.

So what they are trying to claim as developmental projects are not developmental at all. They are part of their strategy of Low Intensity Conflict to fight the armed struggle, the struggle of the people of India.

More broadly, there is much to criticize in their concept of development. The development of the country should not be related to Sensex and GDP growth rates. The government thinks that the development of the comprador big bourgeoisie, landlords, a few bureaucrats and multinationals is the development of the country.

For us the development of the people is actually the development of the country. They are least interested in solving the fundamental problems of the people. Their development is dependent on imperialism that just prevents our country from becoming self-dependent. Following the instructions of the World Bank and the World Trade Organization, the government is promoting the policies of globalization, privatization and liberalization. They are trying to sell out our natural resources, our land, our forests, to the Indian big bourgeoisie and their imperialist masters.

Coincidentally, the natural resources are mainly concentrated in the areas of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Orissa where the Maoists have a strong presence. More than 8

I will give you some examples. In Singur they sold land with the help of the so-called left government to the Tatas. In Nandigram they sold it to an Indonesian bourgeoisie, the Salem group. And in Lalgarh they sold it to Jindals. And in all the three places, we organized movements against this naked selling of cultivable lands of the peasants and against the displacement of the peasants. And in all the three places they were forced to withdraw.

In Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh we are fighting against the plunder by the comprador big bourgeoisie of iron ore and coal. And in these areas, the adivasis, mainly the adivasis but also the nonadivasis, the moolvasis, will be forced to vacate their homes and villages.

They will be displaced in great numbers as they have been in the past for the sake of so many ‘development’ projects. So now we are fighting against this plunder. We are fighting this implementation of liberalization and privatization. That is why they are saying that we are against this kind of development. Now it is for the people to see who is against the development of ordinary citizens.

So are you against the development of mines altogether?

No, we are not against the development of mines or the installation of plants and factories. We are against the plunder of our natural resources, our motherland, by the Indian big bourgeoisie and their imperialist masters who are plundering them only for their own profit. The Indian government is not interested in opening plants and mines for the betterment of the people.

The people in these areas – they will be forced to vacate their areas. The people will be thrown out. They will become wage earners in towns. They will be displaced in great numbers as they have been in many development projects earlier. In earlier cases where they built mega projects in Bokaro, Tata, and other places, people couldn’t get sufficient compensation – most people did not get land or homes or proper jobs in the plants that were built. Hundred and thousands of people, adivasis and moolvasis, were displaced.

So what is the guarantee that this will not happen again? That is why we are organizing people against such plunder and such loot of our natural resources. We won’t allow the plunder of our land and our natural resources by the imperialists and their allies, the Indian big bourgeoisie.

Under a Maoist government a few things will be kept in mind before opening plants and mines in these areas.

First, such plants and mines are nationalized and must be used for interest of the country. They must not be open for the profit of certain capitalists, bourgeoisie and multinational corporations.

Second, in general the cultivable lands should not be taken for mining and other things.

Third, if taking such land is unavoidable, then proper compensation must be given to the affected families. They should be given appropriate compensation for the land. They should be given jobs, they should be given homes, and some lands for cultivation. The New Democratic state will look after the welfare of the displaced people.

Fourth, these mines and plants must be eco-friendly. You must consider the ecological factors while opening these plants and mega projects as this is becoming a vital thing in our lives, in the lives of the human civilization.

And fifth, people must be taken into confidence before you start such projects; they should be taken into the management of such plants and mines. In our state, when we will build a New Democratic India, we will take into account all these things.

You say you are against the corruption. However, it is widely reported that you fund yourself through the black economy of development schemes coming in through the state. How do you justify participation in the very systems of corruption that you are against?

This is not corruption. This is taxation. In the areas of our struggle, we are the authority that is serving the people. We therefore tax those who are amassing wealth through major development programs and their contractorship in order to use this wealth for the service of our masses. We are using the funds to accelerate our struggles and we are using them in radical reform programs under the leadership of RPC’s.

We have rules and norms around how we tax people. For instance large schemes and operations are taxed more than smaller ones. We don’t tax the building of schools, hospitals, small tanks, tube wells etc. We also have rules and norms around how we use the fund collected. So we are not simply collecting money for private gain – that would be corruption. We are collecting money for the service of our toiling masses.

Your struggles against corruption, against caste discrimination, against feudal values are also the struggles of human rights organizations and NGOs. How do you differentiate yourself from such organizations?

Social, political and cultural values are based on the economic structure. Unless you change the economic system any talk of reforming social-cultural and political values is just a farce. The NGOs and the government human rights organization fight cases on an individual basis and from within the system. Feudal and imperialist values are part of their system.

These organisations are being nourished by the system itself. Unless you eradicate the system, you overthrow the system, you can’t have another system that will promote an alternative set of values, the democratic values. Fighting individual cases of caste discrimination or discrimination against women, or discrimination against dalits and adivasis, won’t take us far; it won’t eradicate the system.

You must eradicate the whole system. And in order to eradicate the whole system of feudal and imperial values, you must seize power. The NGOs and the human rights organizations don’t go for the seizure of power. They fight within the confines of India’s pro-elite constitution. In most cases they work only as safety-valves for the state whose credibility is eroding fast. That is the limitations of their conception.

In areas of Jharkhand where the party has been around for 20 odd years, what are the concrete achievements of the Maoists?

The first and foremost achievement is that the toiling masses, the landless laborer and the poor peasants, have emerged as a political and military force in India. In our struggling areas feudal authority has been demolished to a great extent. The struggling people have developed a guerrilla army of their own in the form of the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army.

The second important achievement is the dignity and place in society that the dalits and adivasis have attained in the face of the historic discrimination they have endured. Wrong practices such as abuses against women, abuses against dalits and adivasis, and the dominance of the upper castes and outsiders in the forest areas are all changing now.

The third is the emancipation of forests that were under the control of the forest department, the corrupt and repressive forest officials. Even the lower level staff were quite repressive and they were controlled by the forest mafias and landlords. The forests are now completely liberated and the people are free to use the forests according to their needs. We have been able to control deforestation.

The fourth is the achievements of the antifeudal struggle. People in our struggling areas are enjoying democratic rights. We have seized thousands of acres of the lands of landlords and in many places, most of the places, the landlords have been ousted from the villages. In many places we have implemented land ceilings – sometimes radical ceilings – decided by our party locally. And surplus in lands have been distributed amongst the landless and poor peasants. In many places, the peasants are cultivating the land.

The wages in Bihar and Jharkhand in agriculture were very low. The wages for the collection of kendu patta and other forest materials such as mohalaun patta were also very low. So we organized people to demand a hike in wages. Now people have a comparatively better wage rate. Usury, that is mahajani, has been widely abolished. You won’t find the old kind of mahajan or money lender any more in the struggling areas.

In our struggling areas we have stopped theft and dacoity. Apart from this, we have abolished the auction of tanks, river beds, bazaars, orchards etc by the government to big contractors. Now these resources are free for the people to use.

In our areas of influence there is almost no communal riot. The Sangh goons just cannot dare to organize this. In a few places where they have dared, we have punished them as in the case of Swami Laxmanand in Kandhamal, Orissa.

Another important achievement is that till now we have been able to restrict to a great extent the implementation of various Memorandums of Understandings that the state government and central governments have signed with the big bourgeoisie and the multinationals – so they have not been able to plunder the land, loot the resources, as comfortably as they might have thought they could.

As far as our developmental schemes are concerned – unless you seize the power centrally, it is not possible to implement pro-people policies thoroughly. But even then, in places where we have formed RPC’s, we have tried to develop pro-people economic policies.

For instance, we are promoting the formation of cooperatives in agriculture and other related occupations. Secondly we are trying to develop methods of cultivation in the backward areas – we are digging up canals, wells and tanks – mostly through shramdan – voluntary labour. And we are opening schools and hospitals. We are giving medicines at subsidized rates. These things we are doing where we have formed RPC’s. But all these things are in rudimentary form.

The Indian Government has labeled you a terrorist organization. How do you respond to this?

The first thing is that this labeling is a part of a so-called ‘War on Terror’ unleashed by the US imperialists. The Indian ruling classes are fast emerging as favorites of US imperialism in South Asia. Actually the ruling classes of India are vying with the Pakistani ruling classes to be the favorites of US imperialism.

So what does US imperialism mean by terrorism? Any movement, or any mobilization or any act of protest that goes against the interest of US imperialism, that goes against the hegemony of US imperialism, which goes against the grand design of US imperialism of a new Empire, is being labeled ‘terrorist’ by US imperialists.

The governments in Asia, Africa and Latin America are labeling the nationality movements, and the movements of the toiling masses in their countries, as terrorist. In India too, the ruling classes are labeling the movements waged by the people under the leadership of the Maoists, the nationality movements in the North Eastern Provinces, and the nationality movement in Kashmir as terrorist movements.

The labeling of the Maoists as ‘terrorist’ gives more power to the police to arrest any person who is progressive and democratic – he/she need not be related to any mass organization of CPI(Maoist). The police forces are able to pick people if they speak against any undemocratic method, any repressive method, of the state. This includes journalists, lawyers, intellectuals and civil liberties activists. So first of all, we severely condemn this labeling.

Second thing is that there are some significant differences between us and those who commit terrorist acts. Terrorist activities generally cause indiscriminate killing, including the killing of innocent people. We condemn such killing and we are totally against such actions in which innocent peoples become victims.

We have never supported even a small action that harms an innocent villager. Wherever our armed unit has committed such a mistake, we readily come out to make self-criticism on such things. We are totally against the killing of innocent citizens; we are against indiscriminate killing.

Moreover, we are not going to make India into a theocratic state. Religious fundamentalism is often observed in terrorist acts: some organizations using terrorist activities claim that they are working towards building a theocratic state. This is entirely the opposite of what we want to achieve in the New Democratic India.

Our ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. We are fighting for a truly federal, secular and democratic Republic of India. The labeling of CPI(Maoist) as a terrorist organization is very malicious. It is full of cunning through which the Indian government wants to befool the people, deceive the people, by sheer propaganda.

As far as our functioning is concerned, the terrorist labeling is not going to affect us. Our party in any case has been functioning underground from the very beginning. So the only thing that the ‘terrorist’ label will achieve is that that it will give more power to the police forces to harass the common people, especially in the struggling areas.

The government has just declared that they are going to wipe you out totally in three years’ time. The largest military offensive against the Maoists has begun. What are you facing?

We condemn the Indian government’s military offensive against the Maoists. This plan is totally in tune with the imperialists – actually the Indian government has planned this offensive at the behest of US imperialism. This United Progressive Alliance government, under the leadership of the Congress party, is quite fascist in nature. When Chidambaran says that we won’t talk about development before the Maoists are wiped out, you can observe the reactionary content and the fascism of his intentions.

Repression campaigns are not new to us. We have faced so many repression campaigns in the past. But this is the greatest one. They are deputing 75 battalions of paramilitary forces along with an equal number of state forces to fight the Maoists. The rein of the operations is in the hands of the central government and the Central Reserve Police Forces are in command.

They are in addition preparing so many commando forces – like the Special Task Force, Jharkhand Jaguar and Cobra, the Indian Reserve Battalion, the Special Auxiliary Police, in the line of the Greyhounds. And they have established many jungle warfare schools at various places.

In Chhattisgarh they have started the military campaign in September 2009 – you know in one month they killed at least 27 people in two massacres – 27 innocent people. They burnt 12 villages. They looted, they raped and the burnt. Thousands of people have been force to flee, to vacate their villages. They are fleeing to Andhra Pradesh and Orissa.

In Lalgarh they have deputed 7,000 forces in just one district. And they are just killing innocent villagers. In Jharkhand they have also begun. You know the result is that they are going to involve even the army and the air force in so many disguised ways. You know all this means that they are going to kill many thousands and thousands of innocent people.

And the whole area of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal that is very rich in mineral resources and that this government is trying to sell to the imperialist comprador big bourgeoisie and other big contractors will then be clear for them.

There are many aspects of this offensive, this repression campaign. There is not only the military side; there are other sides too – what we call in Hindi, sam, dam, dande, ved (fear, temptation, punishment and division). So they are also strengthening their intelligence network. They will spend much more money in developing coverts and developing intelligence sources from the local people: police informers. And they won’t keep any record – this is the instruction of the central government – they can spend much money on this work.

Next, they have passed many black laws and they have allowed state governments to pass black laws to suit their needs. So actually what we are going to have is a complete police state in India. And again the centralization of power in Delhi will be observed more.

The state governments will lose much of their powers in the enforcement of laws and in maintaining what they call ‘law and order’. So the government is obviously not taking this movement as a democratic movement, and when Chidambaran says CPI(Maoist) is a terrorist organization, their stand is clear.

What they will add to these campaigns is the vicious propaganda against us that they have already been spreading. For instance, the notion that leading Maoist leaders are making money and there has been a large embezzlement of party funds by the party leaders. They spread the rumor that there is sexual anarchy in the party; that the Maoists are against development; and that Maoists are promoting the cultivation of opium; and that Maoists are obstructing the Public Distribution System.

They want to brand us as criminals; they claim that we kill innocent people. Every day you will see advertisements by the police in the form of news reports in the newspapers. Sometimes there are hoardings in the towns – propagating so many incorrect things about our party and our movement.

Moreover, the corporate media – both the TV channels and the newspapers and the other forms of the media that are controlled by the corporate world – are supporting the government and putting forward the government’s stand in spreading propaganda against our party, and against the leadership of our organization. The corporate media is supporting the government wholeheartedly.

So in the coming days we will see that this military offensive will bring India to a complete fascist state where not only the struggles raised by the CPI(Maoist) but also the struggles raised by the ordinary citizens against displacement, against the job losses resulting from privatization, against hunger, against anti-people economic policies – particularly agricultural policies – and many such struggles will face brutal state repression and all will be clubbed in one term, ‘terrorist’.

Any honest struggle will be branded terrorist; that is what you will see in the coming days.

Armed struggle involves a lot of deaths along the way. There are media reports that a thousand people a year are dying as a result of Maoist-related violence. How do you justify the death of so many people?

First, who are those whom the party eliminates? Annihilation is the last choice. We only annihilate those reactionaries – the landlords, the police agents and the members of the gangs raised by the government – who do not accept their crime and do not surrender before the people’s courts. The government and the corporate media create propaganda against us – that many people are killed in Maoist-related violence. I don’t know the exact numbers they are claiming and what they are propagating but a part of it is malicious propaganda against us.

Second, see the other side of the picture. What are the hundreds of thousands of army personnel and paramilitary forces doing in Kashmir and the North East? Each and every day they are killing youths in fake encounters. What are the paramilitary forces and state police doing in the areas of Maoist struggle – particularly in AP, and in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand? They are killing youth in hundreds.

And do you remember the pogroms of the minorities organized by the ruling classes? The anti-Sikh riots in 1984, the recent murders of thousands of Christians in Orissa, and the 2002 riots in Gujarat? How many people have the Hindu chauvinists and the state forces killed?

Right from 1947, from Indian independence, the state forces were very much hand in glove with the Hindu chauvinist forces. The corporate media and the media persons should expose the other side of the picture too – how the minorities are butchered in state-sponsored pogroms; how the people belonging to the oppressed nationalities in the North East and Kashmir are being eliminated; how the dalits and the adivasis in the struggling areas of central India are being killed by the state forces in organized killings in the name of Salwa Judum and such projects.

And lastly, do you know that during the last few years, 500,000 peasants have committed suicide because of anti-people economic policies? In the last one year, 2008-2009, thousands of peasants have become daily wage earners?

Many people are dying of hunger. This republic, as Utsna Patnaik calls, is a ‘Republic of Hunger’. So who is responsible for such deaths? Who is responsible for the death of thousands of people dying out of starvation and hunger, from so many diseases? People are left with no other option. No one is going to listen to you. This violence has been imposed by the state on the people of India.

You are waging a war against one of the world’s emerging global economic superpowers. India is a very strong state. What hope do you have of achieving success?

There are two parts to this question. It is true that the Indian state is very powerful. We are quite aware of the strength of our enemy.

However, in a war, arms and armed personnel are not the most important things. The most important thing is the people. Who is getting the support of the people? We think that we have been waging guerrilla war for the last 40 years with very, very little armed strength. It is because of the support of the people in these states that we have been able to consolidate ourselves.

And naturally because we are a party of the people, we are a party of the common man, the toiling masses, so the appeal of the program of our party is much more than those of the comprador and those of the ruling classes. So the most important thing is the support of the people. It is people’s support that will ultimately decide the fate of the war.

The second important thing is sticking to the guerrilla policies, the guerrilla methods of warfare. If we could implement the guerrilla policies of warfare completely and thoroughly and in a more and more meticulous method, and if we continue to win the support of the people of our country, we do believe that we will win this war.

If we can achieve these two things then it won’t be possible for the ruling classes of this country to abolish us, to finish us, as they are claiming. There is every chance that we will survive not only this offensive, but also many such offensives, and defeat them.

As the war intensifies, though, as the military campaign of the government rises, inevitably a lot of ordinary poor peasants are going to get caught in the war in between. You have your AK47s, your landmines, and your 306s to protect you. But there are going to be a lot of bloody deaths of ordinary villagers in the process. How can you justify this?

Sorry, you are putting the question in the wrong way. This is not a war between the CPI(Maoist) and the Indian state. This is a war between the people of India and the Indian state. What is CPI(Maoist)? What is the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA)? It is nothing but the organized strength of the people.

So if they harm the CPI(Maoist), if they harm PLGA that is fighting under the leadership of CPI(Maoist), then actually they are harming the organized strength of the people. And the people understand this and that any such war is not a war against a party, it is a war against the people – we should look at the whole situation in this perspective.

In the same way that you do not distinguish between the CPI(Maoist) and the people, surely you cannot differentiate between the people and the present Indian government? For example, many of the policemen who are your main targets are coming from the same houses as some of your own supporters and cadres. So why are you killing policemen from poor village backgrounds in the process of the war?

It is true that in ambushes the policemen who are killed generally come from humble backgrounds. However, they have only ever been targeted when they have been on their area domination operations, on their combing operations, and they have come to suppress the people and the people’s movement.

I can give you a few examples. You know there are many policemen and armed personnel living in our struggling areas who are serving the police department and army elsewhere. Their families are our supporters. Whenever these officers return to their home village in festivals or on vacation, you will not be able to cite a single example when our party has harmed them.

Secondly, rarely have we harmed any home guards that are from the villages.

Third, we restrain ourselves from harming the zila police, the district police, who are actually in the main the local people. Whenever we have ambushed the policemen, we have ambushed them when they are coming as combat forces, when they come to suppress the people, when they come to suppress the people’s movement – only then they have been targeted.

In a war, if your enemy is using the persons who come from your own class, it is inevitable that they will become a target of the offensive. Our appeal to the policemen, to the army personnel, is that the state they are serving is not their state. The ruling classes they are serving are actually against the interest of their families. So it is better they come out from this reactionary army, reactionary police department, and join the PLGA.

P Chidambaram, the Home Minister, has been calling you to the negotiating table. Why don’t you go?

P Chidambaram actually proposed that the Maoists must lay down arms before they call them for any kind of negotiations. Then, after a massive protest by the intellectuals and progressive persons, he is now saying that the Maoists must abjure violence before the government can call them for any kind of negotiations. This simply means that the government is putting conditions that are unacceptable to us.

You just can’t have negotiations at gunpoint. You have your paramilitary forces inside the struggling areas and you are making statements daily that you will depute more and more paramilitary forces into those areas and you will depute choppers and all that. Then you say that the Maoists must come to the negotiating table: you know this is just unacceptable. In many press statements and press conferences time and again we have made it clear that we are not averse to negotiations.

But, for any kind of negotiations – history tells us that for any negotiations – you must have an atmosphere for the negotiations. In this particular condition it means that if you have your forces in the struggling areas and if you make threatening statements every day, it means that you are trying to have negotiations at gunpoint – that you are expecting us to surrender actually.

What conditions do you want for negotiation?

There is only one condition – that the government must make an atmosphere that is congenial for negotiation. Concretely speaking it means that the government must withdraw the paramilitary forces from the struggling areas, one. The government must release the revolutionary leaders and cadres and must treat them as political prisoners, number two.

The government must lift the ban from our party and the government must not prevent the democratic mass movements. These things are the basic things, but we can talk of so many things – such as the government must suspend the memoranda of Understanding that they have made with the big bourgeoisie and the imperialists. These are not the conditions – these will make the situation favourable for any kind of negotiation.

Good God, Are You Kidding?

In Germany, the “Freedom Democratic Party,” who call themselves “liberals” filed “anti-Semitism” and “support for a terrorist organization” charges against three members of Die Link, or The Left Party for sailing on the Turkish flotilla to Gaza.

Israel Shamir has written about this before.

Go to Israeli fora, and they shudder when discussing modern Germany, land of the Hitlers to the End of Time. German anti-Semitism is everywhere, they say. Even German rats scurrying down Berlin alleyways in the dead of night have it in for the Jews.

But Shamir points out that instead of being some horrorshow of unreconstructed Nazism, modern Germany is practically Tel Aviv on the Rhine. Endless Jewish browbeating of Germans, nonstop demands for money and especially gold (How does that play into the grasping Jew stereotype?) that resemble an eternal shakedown, continuous, nearly tic-like German genuflecting and apologies to Jews. Face it: modern Germany is just another Israeli Occupied Territory.

Institutes for the Study of Jewish Culture and Holocaust Studies have sprung up like mushrooms all over Germany. There are probably more professors engaging in this pro-Judaic scholarly masturbation than there are Jews in Germany.

Jews have come back to Germany, 100,000 of them. You would think they would keep their heads down, assimilate and try to make nice, but they’ve been stirring up trouble as usual.

The Anti-German Movement is a curious and problematic Leftist movement. A product of splits on the German Left, the Anti-Germans are part of the pro-Israel Zionist Left.

The Anti-Germans are mostly Gentiles, but there is also heavy involvement of German Jews. The theme of the movement is the terminal evil of Germanness. Since the founding of the state in the 1870’s, and really, long, long before, Germanness has been a font of evil. It started with the Kaisers and World War 1, where somehow the Germans were more at fault than the other crazy parties.

A seamless carpet rolls back centuries to early German culture, tainted back hundreds of years into the past with the roots of Hitlerism. To the Kaisers, to the First War, to Nazism and the Holocaust, it’s all one roll of Jew-hating, imperialistic, malevolent, tainted dough.

Even the Second War did not exterminate the German evil, since it is set in the German soul like a diamond in a ring. Germanness must be destroyed, excised, cut from the hearts of Germans like a bloody Aztec ceremony. Only after this exorcism can the world rest in peace. You can imagine how this goes over with your average German, still more or less a nationalist, despite it all. After what happened to them 65 years ago, it’s hard to believe that the German Jews returned to pull this shit. How do they expect Germans to react?

The charges filed against Die Link are part of this masochistic flagellation of the German soul, part and parcel to the game, along with the drooling suckup to the Jews.

At some point, the groveling apologies, the self-abdication, the blackmail of billions, it’s all got to end. At some point, you need to let bygones be bygones and move on.

But does the Jew ever bury a grudge?

Never forgive, never forget.

That’s a pretty hardass stance.

It’s also a recipe for interminable conflict.

Making Sense of Kosovo

Repost from the old site.

Updated March 25, 2008:

Via Joachim Martillo, we have Backgrounder on Kosovo/Kosova.

This is one of Martillo’s pieces that I am going to support in full.

Almost the entire Western Left, and part of the libertarian Right, seems to be opposed to independence for Kosovo. This is a most sorry state of affairs and has a rather shameless history. I am very happy that Martillo has come out in favor in independence for Kosovo, no matter how problematic it may be. I am afraid he did so only because he is a Muslim, but no matter.

A background in the Balkan Wars of the 1990’s is helpful, if not essential, in understanding the declaration of independence by Kosovo.

It is also important to understand where the Workers’ World Party, of which Sarah Flounders is a member, is coming from. I don’t know a lot about them, but this Wikipedia article is a good primer.

WWP is a Trotskyite split dating from 1958. They split from the Socialist Workers Party, a standard Trotskyite group.

Their reasons were: the candidacy of Henry Wallace for President in 1948, support for Mao’s revolution in China and defense of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.

The SWP opposed all of these.

Mao is opposed by all Trotskyites, mostly on human rights grounds but also on the usual ultra-Left basis of not being socialist enough. Wallace’s candidacy, a revolutionary candidacy in the US in that an explicitly socialist candidate actually ran for office and got lots of votes, was probably opposed on ultra-Left reasons that he was not a Communist.

The invasion of Hungary would have been opposed on the basis that the USSR was “Stalinist”.

Trotskyites have always had a reputation of not being very pragmatic. In some ways, they are the ultimate splitters.

The WWP retains some Trotskyite leanings in that they are highly critical of Stalin. However, after Stalin died, they supported the USSR. Many Communist parties chose sides after the Soviet-China split, but the WWP continued to call for a union of all socialist countries, no matter what their ideology. In this sense, they are somewhat unique.

They also started supporting all states that were seen as resisting US imperialism. This led to difficult stances such as supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

It is in this context that they opposed the breakup of Milosevic’s Communist Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s and thereafter supported Milosevic on the basis that he was a Communist. In this they reflected the views of most Communists and Leftists the world over – they supported the fascist Milosevic just because he was a Communist.

WWP is also behind International ANSWER Coalition, which led many antiwar marches. Ramsey Clark has unfortunately been associated with this group. I do not think much of the WWP.

Fascism is a nasty virus, and like many viruses, it can grow in most any human being and certainly can unfold in any society. This is what makes it such a dangerous and deadly enemy. In many ways, Russia is now a fascist state. Even Communist Vietnam has fascist tendencies of various types. It can even be argued that break away from Iran and take most of Iran’s oil wealth with them. Iran should not be expected to put up with that. A similar situation exists in Angola with Ahwaz, the Basque Country, Catalonia, Corsica, Brittany, Wales, Scotland, the here and here), Burma (separatists here , here, here, West Papua nor to its rule over Aceh, and its criminal performance in suppressing these rebellions cements those negations.

India never had any right to rule Kashmir and certainly does not now. Palestine at least ought to declare Kosovo-style independence. This blog has always supported the struggle of the Sahrawis in Spanish Sahara. The island of Bougainville deserves support for its separatism from Papua New Guinea.

In Russia, the republics of the Caucasus deserve support in their drive for independence. This includes the Chechens, the Ingush, the Dagestanis, Karachevo-Cherkessia and Kabardino-Balkaria. The Tuvans seem to deserve the right to secede also.

The situation of the Mari, Chuvash , Bashkirs , Udmurts and Tatarstan are much more difficult because none of these republics exist on Russia’s borders. States should not be forced to carve out enclaves inside their own borders. All secessionists need to cleave off lands on the borders of existing states or even split existing states. The notion of independent islands wholly surrounded by a single state is preposterous.

In India, the nations of the northeast were never part of India and their secessionist movements should be supported. Nor can India ever be said to have existed at all until 1949, as under the British it was merely a collection of 5,000 separate princely states with ever-shifting borders.

In China, the cause of Taiwan and Tibet is clearly moral and East Turkestan also seems to have a valid cause. Abkhazia and South Ossetia should be allowed to cleave off from Georgia, and they already have anyway, de facto, though Russia is supporting these movements for only the most cynical reasons. The Tamils of Sri Lanka deserve support, despite their terrible tactics.

I have much more of a problem in supporting Islamist separatists in the Philippines and in Thailand. First, their tactics are horrible. In both cases, Islamists, as they always do in wars, are simply massacring non-Muslim civilians in countless numbers.

The Koran provides justification for mass murder of non-Muslims in wartime, so this is typical behavior of most Muslims when they go to war with non-Muslims. The historical antecedents are too painful and numerous to count. Furthermore, the war against the non-Muslims often takes near-genocidal proportions.

There are examples in this century from Indonesia (Muslims massacred animists in West Papua and Christians in slaughtering Christians in the 1840’s-1860’s) and Iraq (more mass murders of Assyrians in Iraq in the mid-1800’s) and the worst of all in India around 500 years ago, when Muslim invaders murdered up to and possibly more than 50 million Hindus in the worst genocide that the world has ever seen. Quoting Will Durant:

The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

This continues a tradition set in the early days of Islam, when invading Muslims often committed massacres of non-Muslims in various places they conquered. Notable examples occurred in Palestine and in Iran. The only conclusion is that when Muslims fight wars with non-Muslims, they are frequently genocidal conflicts, and this genocidalism is sadly sanctioned by language in the Koran itself.

As such, it is difficult to support a bunch of Islamist murderers in the Pattani region of Thailand and in Mindanao in the Philippines. In Mindanao, Muslims are only 2

Hawaii deserves to go free, but the movement has no support except among Hawaiians, about 2

In most cases, like baby birds from the nest, these colonies need to be tossed out on their own. Most are welfare cases anyway that take in far more from the Western state they are umbilically attached to than they donate in services. In other words, to the colonizer, they are a gigantic money drain.

This begs the question then of why these colonies even exist, since the logic of colonialism, which is all about the loot, demands that money-losing colonies be cut adrift. In some cases, there are imperial reasons, in others, there is simply the logic of colonialism. Once a nation becomes a colonist, the power rush is as addicting as crack. It’s a tough habit to break.

Two essential rights are at stake here.

First is the right to self-determination. This has even been ratified by the UN.

The other is a totally phony “right of a state to be secure within its borders”, which was dreamed up by states after World War 2 in their paranoia over national secessionism. This principle has no standing, as state borders have been shifting forever, and many states have only the most dubious standing for drawing their borders wherever they did.

It’s clear that the only progressive stand worth taking is in favor of self-determination. However, we should make exceptions in certain cases as above, and only real nations should have the right to secede. The right to secede should not be granted on economic or purely political grounds (such as the rightwing state of Zulia in Venezuela the rightwing Sarah Flounders’ article below entitled Washington Gets a New Colony in the Balkans is fairly typical of the criticism of the Kosovo declaration of independence.

While the USA does a lot of evil in the world, the breakup of Yugoslavia may at least initially have been a project of the German government, which for historical reasons was much more interested in an independent Slovenia than the USA was.

Neocons like Joshua Muravchik fairly quickly saw a possible opportunity to cultivate a pro-Israel Muslim population (either Slavic or Albanian) in a divided Yugoslavia. Finding such a Muslim population has been a holy grail of Zionism since Herzl created the character of Reshid Bey in Old New Land (Altneuland).

Sorting out the various claims about Kosovo requires awareness of the changing boundaries of the region. Here are two maps of the Ottoman Vilayet of Kosovo:

The first map of the Ottoman vilayet (province) of Kosovo, from 1875-1878. Kosovo is now much reduced in size from this vilayet.

The second map of the vilayet of Kosovo, from 1881-1912, shows shifting boundaries once again. Kosovo today is much smaller than this vilayet.

Claiming that Kosovo is the historical center of Serb culture is somewhat tendentious. The Ottoman Vilayet of Kosovo was larger than present-day Kosovo, and its borders shifted during the 19th and early 20th century.

Territory that had been Ottoman Kosovo is today divided among Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Greece. Kosovo regions that were in some sense the historically important Serb centers have for the most part been incorporated into Serbia, Montenegro or Macedonia. Here is a current map of Kosovo:

A current map of Kosovo, much shrunken from its former vilayet. When Serbs scream about Kosovo, you really need to ask which one they are talking about.

Ethnic Albanian Kosovars could probably legitimately argue that they rebelled from the Ottoman Empire during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 in order to achieve independence or union with Albania, whose independence European Great Powers endorsed in 1913, but the Serbian government opportunistically used to rebellion to expand Serbia at their expense.

The Serb obsession with controlling all of Kosovo results from the development of a nationalist mythology that focuses on the Battle of Kosovo (Косовски бој, Kosova Savasi, Bitka na Kosovu, Beteja e Kosovës, or Schlacht auf dem Amselfeld).

The mythology has little connection to the facts. Lazar’s army (the “Serb” side) included Croats, ethnic Albanians (who were mostly Orthodox at that time period) and probably Bosnians. Murad’s army (the “Turkish” side) included a large contingent of Serbs.

The population composition of Kosovo/Kosova in the 14th century and later is disputed. It was not unusual for a close relative of someone with a Serb name to bear an Albanian name. Later Serb literature refers to Albanized Serb populations, but the description is dubious. Bilingualism was simply common, and the ethnic boundaries that exist today really only came into existence in the 19th century.

The following paragraphs are propagandistic:

Yugoslavia was born with a heritage of antagonisms that had been endlessly exploited by the Ottoman Turks, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and interference by British and French imperialism, followed by Nazi German and Italian Fascist occupation in World War II.

The Jewish and Serbian peoples suffered the greatest losses in that war. A powerful communist-led resistance movement made up of all the nationalities, which had suffered in different ways, was forged against Nazi occupation and all outside intervention. After the liberation, all the nationalities cooperated and compromised in building the new socialist federation.

There simply is not much evidence of Ottoman exploitation of ethnic or religious antagonism either from Ottoman or non-Ottoman sources. The Ottoman rulers generally tried to discourage local Balkan hostilities because they were administratively costly and interfered with tax collection.

The omission of any mention of Czarist Russian imperial interference shows bias.

Terminology like Jewish and Serbian peoples is questionable. Yugoslavia contained Jewish populations of Ashkenazi ethnicity and of Ibero-Berber refugee ethnicity. The term “Jewish people” comes from Zionist propaganda. While there is a Serb ethnicity, there is no Serbian ethnicity because people of many different ethnicities live within the territory of Serbia.

The implicit attempt to connect Jewish and Serb losses during WW2 is misleading. Serb politics in the lead-up to WW2 had clear fascist and Nazi currents.

While many Serb political leaders wanted to work with Germany, the German government rebuffed them because too many Germans and Austrians blamed Serbs for WW1 and the subsequent dismantlement of the pre-WW1 German and Austrian Empires.

German and Austrian hostility toward Serbs increased during WW2 and probably influenced German policy toward Serbia during the 1990s.

The situation of Kosovo before NATO intervention was a mess. It has remained a mess, and there is no particular reason to believe that independence will lead to improvement.

Kosovo’s ‘independence’ Washington gets a new colony in the Balkans

By Sara Flounders Published Feb 21, 2008 8:13 PM

In evaluating the recent “declaration of independence” by Kosovo, a province of Serbia, and its immediate recognition as a state by the U.S., Germany, Britain and France, it is important to know three things.

First, Kosovo is not gaining independence or even minimal self-government. It will be run by an appointed High Representative and bodies appointed by the U.S., European Union and NATO. An old-style colonial viceroy and imperialist administrators will have control over foreign and domestic policy. U.S. imperialism has merely consolidated its direct control of a totally dependent colony in the heart of the Balkans.

Second, Washington’s immediate recognition of Kosovo confirms once again that U.S. imperialism will break any and every treaty or international agreement it has ever signed, including agreements it drafted and imposed by force and violence on others.

The recognition of Kosovo is in direct violation of such laws – specifically U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which the leaders of Yugoslavia were forced to sign to end the 78 days of NATO bombing of their country in 1999. Even this imposed agreement affirmed the “commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Serbia, a republic of Yugoslavia.

This week’s illegal recognition of Kosovo was condemned by Serbia, Russia, China and Spain.

Thirdly, U.S. imperialist domination does not benefit the occupied people. Kosovo after nine years of direct NATO military occupation has a staggering 60 percent unemployment rate. It has become a center of the international drug trade and of prostitution rings in Europe.

The once humming mines, mills, smelters, refining centers and railroads of this small resource-rich industrial area all sit silent. The resources of Kosovo under NATO occupation were forcibly privatized and sold to giant Western multinational corporations. Now almost the only employment is working for the U.S./NATO army of occupation or U.N. agencies.

The only major construction in Kosovo is of Camp Bondsteel, the largest U.S. base built in Europe in a generation.Halliburton, of course, got the contract. Camp Bondsteel guards the strategic oil and transportation lines of the entire region.

Over 250,000 Serbian, Romani and other nationalities have been driven out of this Serbian province since it came under U.S./NATO control. Almost a quarter of the Albanian population has been forced to leave in order to find work.

Establishing a colonial administration

Consider the plan under which Kosovo’s “independence” is to happen. Not only does it violate U.N. resolutions but it is also a total colonial structure. It is similar to the absolute power held by L. Paul Bremer in the first two years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

How did this colonial plan come about? It was proposed by the same forces responsible for the breakup of Yugoslavia and the NATO bombing and occupation of Kosovo.

In June of 2005, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed former Finnish President Marti Ahtisaari as his special envoy to lead the negotiations on Kosovo’s final status. Ahtisaari is hardly a neutral arbitrator when it comes to U.S. intervention in Kosovo.

He is chairman emeritus of the International Crisis Group (ICG), an organization funded by multibillionaire George Soros that promotes NATO expansion and intervention along with open markets for U.S. and E.U. investment.

The board of the ICG includes two key U.S. officials responsible for the bombing of Kosovo: Gen. Wesley Clark and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In March 2007, Ahtisaari gave his Comprehensive Proposal for Kosovo Status Settlement to the new U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon.

The documents setting out the new government for Kosovo are available here. A summary is available on the U.S. State Department’s Web site. An International Civilian Representative (ICR) will be appointed by U.S. and E.U. officials to oversee Kosovo.

This appointed official can overrule any measures, annul any laws and remove anyone from office in Kosovo. The ICR will have full and final control over the departments of Customs, Taxation, Treasury and Banking.

The E.U. will establish a European Security and Defense Policy Mission (ESDP) and NATO will establish an International Military Presence. Both these appointed bodies will have control over foreign policy, security, police, judiciary, all courts and prisons. They are guaranteed immediate and complete access to any activity, proceeding or document in Kosovo.

These bodies and the ICR will have final say over what crimes can be prosecuted and against whom; they can reverse or annul any decision made. The largest prison in Kosovo is at the U.S. base, Camp Bondsteel, where prisoners are held without charges, judicial overview or representation.

The recognition of Kosovo’s “independence” is just the latest step in a U.S. war of reconquest that has been relentlessly pursued for decades.

Divide and rule

The Balkans has been a vibrant patchwork of many oppressed nationalities, cultures and religions. The Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia, formed after World War II, contained six republics, none of which had a majority.

Yugoslavia was born with a heritage of antagonisms that had been endlessly exploited by the Ottoman Turks, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and interference by British and French imperialism, followed by Nazi German and Italian Fascist occupation in World War II.

The Jewish and Serbian peoples suffered the greatest losses in that war. A powerful communist-led resistance movement made up of all the nationalities, which had suffered in different ways, was forged against Nazi occupation and all outside intervention. After the liberation, all the nationalities cooperated and compromised in building the new socialist federation.

In 45 years the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia developed from an impoverished, underdeveloped, feuding region into a stable country with an industrial base, full literacy and health care for the whole population.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, the Pentagon immediately laid plans for the aggressive expansion of NATO into the East. Divide and rule became U.S. policy throughout the entire region. Everywhere right-wing, pro-capitalist forces were financed and encouraged.

As the Soviet Union was broken up into separate, weakened, unstable and feuding republics, the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia tried to resist this reactionary wave.

In 1991, while world attention was focused on the devastating U.S. bombing of Iraq, Washington encouraged, financed and armed right-wing separatist movements in the Croatian, Slovenian and Bosnian republics of the Yugoslav Federation. In violation of international agreements Germany and the U.S. gave quick recognition to these secessionist movements and approved the creation of several capitalist mini-states.

At the same time U.S. finance capital imposed severe economic sanctions on Yugoslavia to bankrupt its economy. Washington then promoted NATO as the only force able to bring stability to the region.

The arming and financing of the right-wing UCK movement in the Serbian province of Kosovo began in this same period. Kosovo was not a distinct republic within the Yugoslav Federation but a province in the Serbian Republic. Historically, it had been a center of Serbian national identity, but with a growing Albanian population.

Washington initiated a wild propaganda campaign claiming that Serbia was carrying out a campaign of massive genocide against the Albanian majority in Kosovo. The Western media was full of stories of mass graves and brutal rapes. U.S. officials claimed that from 100,000 up to 500,000 Albanians had been massacred.

U.S./NATO officials under the Clinton administration issued an outrageous ultimatum that Serbia immediately accept military occupation and surrender all sovereignty or face NATO bombardment of its cities, towns and infrastructure. When, at a negotiation session in Rambouillet, France, the Serbian Parliament voted to refuse NATO’s demands, the bombing began.

In 78 days the Pentagon dropped 35,000 cluster bombs, used thousands of rounds of radioactive depleted-uranium rounds, along with bunker busters and cruise missiles.

The bombing destroyed more than 480 schools, 33 hospitals, numerous health clinics, 60 bridges, along with industrial, chemical and heating plants, and the electrical grid. Kosovo, the region that Washington was supposedly determined to liberate, received the greatest destruction.

Finally on June 3, 1999, Yugoslavia was forced to agree to a ceasefire and the occupation of Kosovo.

Expecting to find bodies everywhere, forensic teams from 17 NATO countries organized by the Hague Tribunal on War Crimes searched occupied Kosovo all summer of 1999 but found a total of only 2,108 bodies, of all nationalities.

Some had been killed by NATO bombing and some in the war between the UCK and the Serbian police and military. They found not one mass grave and could produce no evidence of massacres or of “genocide.”

This stunning rebuttal of the imperialist propaganda comes from a report released by the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte. It was covered, but without fanfare, in the New York Times of Nov. 11, 1999.

The wild propaganda of genocide and tales of mass graves were as false as the later claims that Iraq had and was preparing to use “weapons of mass destruction.”

Through war, assassinations, coups and economic strangulation, Washington has succeeded for now in imposing neoliberal economic policies on all of the six former Yugoslav republics and breaking them into unstable and impoverished mini-states.

The very instability and wrenching poverty that imperialism has brought to the region will in the long run be the seeds of its undoing. The history of the achievements made when Yugoslavia enjoyed real independence and sovereignty through unity and socialist development will assert itself in the future.

Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Center, traveled to Yugoslavia during the 1999 U.S. bombing and reported on the extent of the U.S. attacks on civilian targets. She is a co-author and editor of the books: Hidden Agenda:U.S./NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia and NATO in the Balkans.

Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

References

Durant, Will. 1972. Story of Civilization, Vol.1, Our Oriental Heritage, p.459. New York.
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)