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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe in an upcoming post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me give you an example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trash’s Journeys to Return of Kings and Unz

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

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

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

You’re not a cuck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct, but I am seeing little evidence of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make of this what you will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Semantic Entropy Is Here: We Are All Lexicographers Now

Definitions of crimes, thoughtcrimes, or offenses against this, that, or whatever social norm creep steadily upward ever year.

Rape? It’s as big as the Atlantic Ocean now.

Assault? What is that? You looked at someone wrong. That’s assault.

Sexual assault? The definition spreads every year like a kudzu vine. In my opinion, sexual assault is simply another word for dating. It didn’t used to be, but that’s how the ladies have it set up now boys, and the girls make the rules now in this world, and don’t you ever forget it.

Battery? What’s that? I tapped a woman on the shoulder. That’s literally battery nowadays.

Sexual battery? What’s is that? Can someone explain to me what it is so I don’t do it because it sounds kind of fun, and I might try it. They want to get pounded anyway, and that’s kind of right battery now that I think of it.

Sexual abuse? What does it even mean? It means any time an adult human had sex with an adolescent human ages 13-17, the poor teenager got abused. Oh boo hoo. Not only that, but the little lass now needs 20 years of therapy for that time she got sexually abused by seducing that 25 year old man at that party and grabbing his cock. She seduced the guy, so I guess she abused herself. Oh well, self abuse is fun. I prefer to do it with some porn though.

But no matter. Abused she was, and abused she will be! The inevitable damage is already there. We can’t see it or measure it, but women tell us it’s there, so we have to take their word for it. Damaged how long? Forever more. Because of the scars that won’t heal.

All women are not only Permanent Children but they are also Permanent Victims.

The victimization starts on the first day when any men around, if there even are any that is, start misogynisting the newborn girl. Because that’s what males do to little girl babies. They misogynist them in all sorts of microaggressive ways. The microaggressions are hard to see or measure, but if you get an electron microscope, you can make them out all right. Wicked men. Turning their misogynist abuse into nanotech!

Because that’s what we men to do females. We misogynist them. Every day. All day long. Like a rocket barrage that never ends. Poor women! Poor babies! Women are crying! Women are babies!

Quick, someone get that lady a handkerchief to wipe her tears. That man over there walking away just misogynisted her, and now she’s going to cry for half an hour!

The misogynisting goes on all through the wretchedness we call the Life of Woman, even in those retirement villages where those evil old men who can’t even get a hardon anymore still misogynist those little old ladies all the doggone day. What’s a lass to do?

Grooming? What’s that? I guess you can groom anyone now. Men can groom 40 year old women. Who knew? Turns out I’ve been grooming females my whole life. And I had no idea! I heard lower primates like to groom each other as a show of affection, but I had no idea I had so much chimp in me!

Illegal looking! Watch those eyes! It’s illegal to look at women now in California! Stamp out that male gaze! We’ll put out your eyes and send you to Purgatory to stand on a cliff for half of eternity till you work it off!

Pedophilia? That’s probably 90% of all sex now, especially now that all women are shaved as bare as 12 year olds. It’s mass hysteria and a moral panic. So half the population are effectively psychotic at least on the issue being hysterisized.

Hitch a ride on the moral panic train! It’s a fun ride, folks. Full of thrills and spills and an outrage around every bend. You’ll be scared from the moment you hop on til the moment you disembark, if you ever do. But that’s the whole idea.

Pedophiles? Well that’s 100% of us men for sure because if you get turned on by 17 year old girls, nowadays you’re literally a pedophile. Well not all men. Dead men and gay men don’t count, but the rest are disgusting pedos!

Trespassing? What’s that? I don’t even know what that is anymore.

Breaking and entering? That includes reaching inside someone’s door to knock on their door now. You broke into their house with your hand to knock on the door. I got the cops called on me the other day for that. A cop came to my door and threatened to arrest me for putting my hand into someone else’s doorway, and thereby breaking and entering their residence. I tell ya, we got one Hell of a serious crime wave in this country!

Sexism? What’s that? Define it. Another word with either no definition or any definition, whichever you prefer. Take your pick! Or just make up your own definition. DIY!

Misogyny? It’s everywhere. How do we know it’s everywhere? Because it’s misogyny. How do we know it’s misogyny? Because it’s everywhere.It’s a great theory because it’s not even wrong. There! I just saw some misogyny crawl under the bed! Get a broom and stop it before it kills again!

Racism? What’s that? Define it. Ever notice that no one can even define that word? It’s literally a word with no meaning at all or a meaning that encompasses half of life, so it’s everything and nothing both at once.

Nazi? That’s 42% of the population now. Didn’t I know that? Silly me!

Hater? That’s half the population. Well, now you can feel better as you stew. Know you’re not alone.

Homophobia? Nowadays we are at the point where if you won’t suck another guy’s cock, you’re a homophobe. Another word with no meaning. Define it. If you’re going to accuse half of society of it, the least you could do is define it. Nope. No one knows what it means, or worse, it means whatever the person uttering the word thinks it means. Everyone gets to define their own words now. Fun, huh? We are all lexicographers now!

Sexual harassment? If a woman was made to feel uncomfortable, she got harassed. That’s literally the definition. Crazy, huh? How to avoid giving the crazy the lovely lass a wild hair up her ass? Easy, just read her mind. Easy as pie. Anyone can do that, come on!

Sexual harassment means whatever the woman who says it thinks it means. If the little lady thinks she got harassed, she did.

Rape? It’s all rape, baby! What is? Sex! All of it? Well, not all of it, sure.The vanilla stuff isn’t rape at the moment, but don’t worry, the feminists are hard at work on it. Inventing new crimes every year!

But most of the fun kind of sex is rape, or rapey, or grey rape, or acquaintance rape, or spousal rape, or rape by deception rape (otherwise known as “seduction”), or rape by handing her a beer before you  have sex with her rape, or regret rape the next morning or 20 years later rape, or coercive rape by talking or better yet arguing her into it rape (my specialty).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no solution to this problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s fine.

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

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

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

I don’t understand any of this.

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

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

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

Alt Left: A Rundown of the “Conservative Left”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Wallace supporters – left populism marred by racism.

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: How Do Liberal Whites Talk about Blacks Behind Closed Doors?

Tamerlane: Curious about what Whites truly think about Blacks (and other races) behind closed doors…

…besides the usual:

1) Blacks are stupid (have low IQ’s)
2) Blacks have low emotional self-control
3) Blacks have a criminal disposition
4) Blacks are lazy (low conscientiousness)

That’s about it. You won’t hear much beyond that from liberal Whites anyway.

1. The low intelligence is not regarded with contempt but instead as a simple fact. My mother in particular has been fascinated by this subject and has been studying it for many years,  probably 50 years. She thinks there is something  to it and it’s genetic. She’s heard of Arthur Jensen and William Shockley.

Some will argue against the race-IQ facts out of ignorance. I had one guy like that. His response was,
“No way…” but he had a funny little smile on his face when he said it. Then I argued that IQ tests did indeed show that Blacks on average were less intelligent. He argued against it for a while but then he caved. He had the same odd little smile on his face, sort of a curious smile. Then he said, “Well, of course. Of course they’re not as smart.”

On the other hand, I had a very racist friend 35 years ago, and we were discussing this subject. He said, “You mean niggers ain’t got no brains, right?” and he chuckled. I said yeah. And he said, “Well, yeah, obviously, of course.”

2. The low self-control is not discussed. It’s a rather sophisticated subject and most folks are just not intellectual enough to take it on.

However, perhaps along those lines, I did tell my mother about the candy bar experiments in the Caribbean and the US South where the Black children could not seem to delay gratification whereas almost all the White children choose to delay their pleasure.

She nodded her head with a tired expression that was somewhat cynical and said, “Well, of course.” She has also noted that Blacks mature earlier than other races, and she thinks this is  genetic. She noted that Blacks mature earliest and are least intelligent, and Asians mature latest and are most intelligent. She acted like this was genetic. She had that same sort of tired, cynical tone when she said that.

3. They would not say that Blacks have a criminal disposition. Instead they would say that Blacks commit a lot of crime for whatever reason and this is the main rationale behind anti-Black racism. I will talk about anti-Black racism, and they will say in an exasperated tone, “It’s the crime!”

There was a guy where I live, a psychopath and a gang member, part Black and part Hispanic Cuban-American, a criminal who later ripped me off for a $175 knife. I told him about the Black-crime thing, and he acted surprised at first and disbelieving or maybe just shocked. Then he nodded his head gravely and said, “They’re savages.” And this guy was part Black!

I forget what I did, maybe nodded my head or something crappy like that. I don’t like to be disagreeable. I don’t agree that Black people are savages, but I like my conversations to go smoothly. Then he said, “Well no wonder. They come from Africa. They’re savages over there in Africa.” I probably nodded my head to this one too, and sadly it’s a lot more true than the previous statement.

But born criminals? Nope, people don’t really say that. Sometimes it is implied but not stated, though. I remember my mother telling me about friends of hers who adopted a Black boy, and as he grew into an adolescent, he became a complete psychopath.

She said her friends were the nicest people, and he probably had the best upbringing. In other words, environment had nothing to do with it. The implication was that he had a genetic tendency and that this tendency was heightened due to his race.

4.You don’t hear much about Blacks being lazy, and a lot of people will argue against it and say they sure worked hard as slaves, etc. That was my line forever and I would probably still whip it out just to be a liberal ha ha.

However, my 87 year old mother, a liberal Democrat, thinks there is something to it. Not that there aren’t hard-working Blacks.

And by the way, one of her best friends started dating a Black man from Mississippi in her 80’s. I met the guy and he’s the coolest dude you ever met. My Mom was 100% supportive of this relationship. And she probably would not have been earlier in life. So even in that generation, things are changing. Dramatically.

I have these conversations most often with liberal Whites, and they generally police their speech pretty well. All of this talk is a bit taboo, and it’s not talked about much because it seems like it makes them uncomfortable. It’s as if they’d rather not discuss it, like these are uncomfortable or unpleasant truths.

But beyond that, no. No liberal ever discusses Black appearance in a negative way. That’s considered to be very gross racist thinking.

I’m not sure if there are other legitimate criticisms you can make of Black people. I think most liberals would say that the four above are a handful, if not too much to stomach right there. The last thing they want to do is hear any more negative stuff about Black people. They don’t want these things to be true and they think the fewer arguments like this, the better.

Racist jokes about Blacks are also frowned upon.  They’re considered to be somewhat gross and disgusting, rather uncouth. Maybe a bit vicious too. It’s sort of, “Hey, we don’t talk like that around here.”

There is a hint of exasperation about these conversations at times, if not cynicism. At least in my Mom’s case.

With liberals like my sister or my late father, you could not even bring up any of this without them blowing up and starting a huge fight. My sister hates the race-IQ argument  and noticeably squirms in her seat if you bring it up.

My father especially hated the race-IQ question. It was false, he said, because if it were true, “that means there’s no hope (for Blacks)!” Well, perhaps that is so, but it certainly doesn’t make the statement false. As you can see, a truthful statement for my father meant something he wanted to be true. If he didn’t want it to be true, it was simply a falsehood. I honestly believe the  vast majority of people think exactly like this.

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

Alt Left: Liberals, Racism, and the Purpose of This Site

RL: “What sort of racist attitudes? Describe.”

Alpha Unit: Robert, you’ve written more than once about the kinds of things even liberal or Leftist Whites say and do in private around “chosen Whites.” You’ve even stated that most Whites are racist to some degree.

Hmm, that’s just race realism though. Not really racism if you ask me anyway.

Most Whites are racist? In the sense of having some negative attitudes towards Blacks, sure, of course. SJW Whites are not common.

But yes, I know liberals, or more properly Centrist Democrats, who get quite racist behind closed doors, like with me for instance. Calling Blacks niggers and all that.

I don’t say anything. I’m not that guy’s Mom or his preacher, and I hate narcs and cops and anything resembling them, so I’m not about to tell anyone to tone down their speech. On the other hand, I don’t like it. Promiscuously referring to all Blacks as niggers in conversation is just…I dunno…gross?  It’s sort of disgusting, like food that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Also, not chosen Whites, more like certain Whites. The ones who might be receptive to such heresies. Often the speech even behind closed doors is very well-policed, probably as it ought to be because if most White liberals said behind closed doors what they really think about other races, particularly Blacks, it probably wouldn’t be a pretty picture.

A lot of things are better left unsaid and a lot of speech is better off policed than let it all hang loose.

And there’s a lot of thoughts that are better left unspoken. I really don’t care what someone thinks of me. They can like me or hate me or anything in between. As long as they’re nice to my face, that’s all that matters. If they sweet-talk me to my face but then say, “God-damn that sonofabitch!” when I walk out the door, I’m not sure if I care about that too much, unless someone tells me about it, in which case, I won’t like it. For Chrissake, keep it to yourself, dammit!

Sometimes the talk behind closed doors even with those who police their speech can get overtly racist. Usually not me but others can get like that. Most people simply cannot critique another race without getting racist and shitty about it. Of course that is what we are trying to get away from here.

We engage in a lot of racial critique (of any and all races, really), and that critique includes the good as well as the bad, but we are trying to do it in as nonracist a way as possible.

Granted that’s pretty difficult, but that’s been the purpose of the site ever since I started way back with Liberal Race Realism, which was pretty much a flop and had to be abandoned. Beyond Highbrow – tell it like it is! But do so in as non-bigoted a way as possible, please. I mean there are ladies present, boys. Mind your manners please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

White Suicidality and the Odd Specter of the Indian Hindu Nordicist, of All Things

We have yet another Indian Nordicist posting away in the comments section. With all due respect to the commenter, these guys crack me up. Why are all these light-skinned Indian wannabe Whites Nordicists for God’s sake? Remember the commenter Swedish Shit? Note that he chose Sweden. He lived in the UK but for a while there, he was lying and saying he was living in Sweden. Before that he had some name with words like Snow or White in it.

All of these Indian wannabe Whites are Nordicists. Hell, they are worse than Northern and Western Europeans themselves and their descendants here in North America (let’s call them WASPs for short though technically most are not).

Most Northern and Western European Whites in the US (I include myself here) gave up on Nordicism long ago. If you bring up some crap like “Italians aren’t White,” these Americans will dismiss you, saying, “Oh, that’s old-fashioned.”

Among the culturally liberal WASPs I grew up, Nordicism was extremely unpopular. The beach assimilated everyone. Pick up a surfboard, ride the waves, smoke joints, grow your hair long, fuck surfer chicks, and you’re “White” by default. Americans with Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Greek, Hispanic, or even Filipino ancestry were all pretty much assimilated into “Whites with some funny genetics.”

Because everyone simply acted White, no one cared about race and bringing it up was extremely taboo and majorly uncool. When all the groups act the  same, there’s no racism. Racism stems from difference, and different behaviors are prominent in that.

That’s why we Whites would rather hang with a middle class Black than a White wigger with his cap on backwards. The Black guy is basically “White” as far as we are concerned, and the  wigger is Black. Worse, he’s nothing but a nigger,  a White nigger, sure, but a nigger nonetheless!

A lot of the people I hang around would effectively evict him from the White race. We do this with some Whites, especially serious wiggers or scumbags.We simply inform them that they are no longer White and we start calling them niggers or making racist plays on words around  their names. As an example, there was a guy, a real scumbag who fell very low, named Meglar. That wasn’t his name, that was obviously just his nickname. Long story but anyway, moving on…

At one point, we informed him solemnly that he was no longer a member of the White race and he was now officially Black as far as we were concerned. We started making puns on his name, calling Nigler instead of Meglar. As with most White scumbags, criminals, drug addicts, and jailbirds, he was a major anti-Black racist, but not as bad as the WN kind.

So it’s a supreme insult to tell these working class White racists that they are no longer White and they are now Black; worse they are actual niggers. This with the knowledge that tens of millions of Blacks in the US are absolutely not niggers at all, and good for them.

I don’t even want to take a guess on the nigger population because I want to throw most Ghetto or really normative Black culture into that category, and I don’t like to call vast numbers of members of a race by racial slurs. It feels, you know, racist. And we liberals are viscerally uncomfortable with engaging in what we would call racist behavior. It’s a yuck factor.

After his eviction from our people, we’d tell him to move to Detroit to be around his own kind. And there’s some social race right there, exactly like the Brazilian kind.

We at the beach were practicing social race all the way back in the 1960’s. It’s not peculiar to South America, you know. Sure, there are a few Nordicists out there in my crowd, but people regard them as silly, weird, crazy, or awful. For instance, I have seen them tell Sicilians they are not White, and the Sicilian acted like he was going to punch the Nordicist’s face. A typical reaction with the crowd I hang with, and this was in an  all-White town.

Stormfronters and White Nationalist morons completely blew it by not giving up on Nordicism. White politics will never get anywhere unless you include the Meds and the Armenians, Georgians, Finns, Saami, Iranians, White Arabs, White Berbers, Turks, Albanians, certain people of the Stans and some Uighurs, a select few Afghans, Pakistanis and even Northern Indians, and yes, even Jews at the very least.

The notion that Jews are not White has always been a feint. Of course they are White. In fact, Jews are some of the Whitest Whites of all, as they have almost zero Black in them. Most European races absolutely have some Black in them. Germans have 1.5% for instance. With Portuguese, it’s up to 4-5% and with Sicilians, it is all the way to 5-7%.

WN’s never figured out that the more people you invite to the party, the better of a bash it is. They want to create a White state while hating most of the White people on Earth and calling them non-Whites. Good luck with that!

Sure, SJW Whites are suicidal, that’s obvious. But note that the White tendency towards suicidality extends all the way to the Mighty Whiteys themselves who condemn the racial suicidality of the liberal Whites.

So look. The WN’s are suicidal too. They want to preserve the White race while hating most Whites and casting them out of the race, leaving only a minority group that is actually really and truly pure White. WN’s gatekeep worse than Studio 54 in 1978.

You throw a party, then you throw most of the people out claiming that they weren’t invited and special enough to get in. That’s a good recipe for a crappy party, not to mention a few fistfights or worse around the keg.

Whites: the suicidal race. Prove me wrong!

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

Alt Left: How About Voluntary Gay and Lesbian High Schools for Gay and Lesbian Teens?

Oli S: It’s interesting how often they make claims about pederasty/pedophilia from two angles. First they claim that gay people are more likely to be ‘molested’ into homosexuality and next that homosexuals themselves are more likely to engage in relationships with young people.

The critical flaw is that all the research on this shows higher rates, but it’s quite clearly attributed to the fact that gay teenagers don’t have many options their own age. They don’t want to risk being outed to their peers, so they turn to the Internet to find a sexual experience where they can be targeted by a predator.

Oli is apparently a new commenter here.

I have no idea his orientation and it’s probably not important, but how readers would feel about voluntary separate gay and lesbian high schools? They would not have to worry about peer pressure and being outed. You could even staff Administration ion with mostly gay and lesbian administrators and the teaching staff with gay and lesbian teachers, of which there are no shortages, trust me as I spent years working in the field.

Gay and lesbian teens could no longer complain about lack of sex partners and having to resort to sex with adults, particularly in the case of the boys.

However, I can see the sex scandals starting already.The gay teachers and admins will not keep their hands off the gay boys and girls. So this is the huge roadblock in favor of this plan.

They call me a homophobe. Fine. Now what sort of homophobe would support the idea of separate gay/lesbian schools – voluntary of course – to protect, nurture, and grow healthier gay and lesbian teens who hopefully transit into healthier gay and lesbian adults, which is something I very much support?

Because God knows the GLBT community definitely needs a dose of mental health. Gays and lesbians in general in the US and worldwide are not particularly mentally healthy. This does translate into societal problems, possibly feeding disease epidemics.

The suicide rate for gay and lesbian teens is not elevated, but the rate for adult gays and lesbians is off the charts. Up to 1/3 of suicides in some younger decadal cohorts (such as 30’s and 40’s) occur in gays and lesbians.

Only 2% of gay men are over 65. The % for straight men much be much higher. Where did all the rest of the elderly gays go? They never showed up at the Elderly Gate for check-in because they were already dead.

Gay men and lesbians see their lifespans shortened by an incredible 20 years. I don’t think being homosexual per se is a death cult, but the gay and lesbian lifestyle (especially the former) sure seems that way. Heck, it’s more of a deathstyle than a lifestyle.

The anti-gay Religious Right is actually correct in a lot of the charges they make about homosexuality. The critique is largely fact-based. The problem with these folks is not that they lie about gays and lesbians because for the most part they tell the sorry truth.

The problem instead is that they are haters. I agree with most of the charges the social conservatives level against homosexuality, but I don’t hate gays and lesbians because of it. That’s a choice the Religious Right makes, and yeah, they do hate gays and lesbians for the most part, though if a gay or lesbian gets into one of their fake conversion programs, no doubt Religious Right folks might be very kind to them. Love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repost: Are Iranians White?

Original piece with 800 comments (!) here.

It’s certainly a reasonable question, as White nationalists in general answer a resounding “No!” to that question. But even they are funny. Stormfront threw out 300 Armenians on the grounds that they were non-White. However, this decision was very controversial, and after a while, the Armenians were quietly let back in.

They have a Pan-Europeanist policy, which is one of the few noble things about that site.

Recently there were a lot of Iranians on the site, and though I believe Stormfront does officially state that Iranians are not White, there has been a quiet hands-off “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about them, and the Stormfronters quietly let the Iranians stay in what boils down to an open secret. In other words, Stormfront officially states that Iranians are not White, but unofficially, they turn a blind eye to Iranians joining and even organizing themselves on the site.

Iranians are funny people. In 1978, I drove an ice cream truck for a living. There were a bunch of Iranians were who driving trucks too. We were all sort of budding capitalists. You lease the truck every day, buy your ice cream, mark it up, and hope for the best. A lot of us supplemented our incomes by selling dope, including me.

The Iranians were very good at this, selling joints for $1 each mostly to the many Mexicans in the parks of Santa Ana (Santa Ana was a heavily Mexican city even 30 years ago).

Once at the end of the day (we lined up at the end of the day to have our coins rolled and get our payout in easy cash) I asked them if they were Arabs. They were adamant. “We are not Arabs!” Later I learned that they don’t like Arabs much. It’s a superior versus inferior thing. The Iranians think they are better and that the Arabs are inferior, a bunch of animals.

At worst, Iranian nationalists call them “lizard-eating Mohammadens.” Image is heathen Arab Muslims charging out of the deserts of Arabia to destroy the great and proud Iranian culture. And it’s true that the Muslims did devastate Iranian culture, but they did this to all non-Muslim cultures they encountered. After all they were Jahiliyyah or grounded in ignorance.

The modern Islamic state has reinstated this view, downplaying traditional Iranian culture, making Arabic practically a 2nd official language, etc., all of this infuriating Iranian nationalists.

The real hardcore Iranian nationalists often abandon Islam altogether and claim to be Zoroastrians, the true ancient religion of Iran.

Iranian nationalists are interesting people.

Iranian nationalists hate Arabs, so you might think they like Jews, but they hate Jews about as much as they hate Arabs. They especially hate Israel. “Marg bar Israel!” is a common cry on Iranian forms (“Death to Israel!”) And the guys yelling this stuff were older professional guys in their 40’s with young kids, secular, and while respectful of Islam, not very religious.

Why the hatred of Israel? Probably, if you are an Iranian nationalist, even a secular one, Israel is seen as your mortal enemy. That’s a logical assumption.

The harder-core Iranian nationalists also dislike Pan-Turkic types, since the Turanian lunatics usually claim some or all of Iran.

The saner Iranian nationalists hate not Arabs but Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism is funny. It’s Leftist, secular, supposedly anti-racist, but they are bristling with hatred for Iranians. Saddam Hussein’s Arab nationalist uncle, who profoundly effected his views, wrote a famous tract, somewhat humorously titled, Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Jews, Persians and Flies.

The hatred of Arabs towards Persians is similar to that of Gentiles towards Jews or Blacks towards Whites: resentment against a group that thinks they are superior. A common claim, similar to anti-Semitism, among Whites is, “The Iranians are trying to dominate the Arab World!” It’s true that the Iranians opposed Arab nationalism, but who could blame them? The Pan-Arabists were a bunch of anti-Iranian racist shits.

What’s funny about this is that there are Iranian genes running all through the Arabs of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Arabia. It is particularly the case with the Mesopotamian Arabs. The Arab Shia in Southern Iraq have a lot of Iranian blood. One of the reasons Saddam persecuted them so harshly is he thought that they were Iranian fifth columnists. In general, it wasn’t really true, but there was reason to be concerned.

In recent years, as Iran and its Shia allies have turned into the greatest defenders of the Palestinians, the Arab nationalists are in a tough spot. They hate Iran, but how can they deny that Iran is the best defender of the Palestinians in the pitiful and sold-out Arab and Muslim world? There are particular conflicts with Hamas, a Sunni fundamentalist group which is strangely also pro-Iran, and Hezbollah, whose defense of the Palestinians puts the Sunni Arabs to shame.

These realities have forced the Sunnis into all sorts of cognitive dissonance that as usual does not make much sense.

I’ve known a few Iranians. They definitely look like White people. Their skin is often very pale White, especially the females (Why is that?). Some charts strangely enough put them right next to British, Danes and Norwegians genetically. No one knows what to make of it, but we were all together in Southern Russia 4,500 years ago. Some of us took off south to Iran, and others went into Europeans to constitute the modern Europeans. We are born of the same modern roots.

I’ve asked a few Iranians, “You’re White like us, right?” You might think they would get pissed, but they usually give an instant yes or break into a huge smile. They clearly consider themselves “Europeans outside or Europe.” One even told me explicitly that.

Scientifically, it’s an reasonable assumption.

Genetically, Iranians probably have little if any Black in them. Your average German has more Black in them than an Iranian. They do have some Asiatic genes, but probably not many.

The Iranians are actually an interesting link to populations further east. There is a close link between Italians and Iranians (Italians are probably the closest Europeans to Iranians) and then there is another close link between Iranians and Indians, especially North Indians.

So the linkage goes like this (all groups separated by only one arrow are closely linked, but groups separated by more than one arrow are not so close):

Core Europeans -> Italians -> Iranians -> North Indians

So, neither core Europeans nor Italians are all that close to North Indians per se, they can become closer to them through this linkage process.

Iranian genes are common in the region, even outside of Arabia. Many Afghans have Iranian blood and it’s quite common in Pakistanis too. There is a lot of Iranian blood in the Caucasus. Most of your Chechen, Dagestani, Ingush, etc. types seem to derive from some sort of Iranian-Turkish mix. The Ossetians are actually a transplanted Iranian group living in Russia and speaking a language related to Iranian.

There is Iranian blood running through the Stans – Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. It’s probably most prominent in Tajikistan.

Persians are only 51% or Iran. Most would be surprised to learn that. The rest are Kurds, Azeris (27%), Arabs, Lurs, Mazandaris, Qashqai, Balochis, Gilakis, Turkmen and Talysh. There are also smaller groups such as Assyrians, Armenians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Chechens and Jews.

The Kurds and Balochis have serious separatist tendencies. The Arabs (Ahvaz) just fight for more rights as an oppressed minority. Azeri separatism has not really gone anywhere, since the Azeris are actually a dominant minority in Iran! The Talysh have separatist tendencies, but in Azerbaijan, not in Iran.

I don’t support the separatism of the Balochis and Kurds in Iran as long as Iran is under imperialist assault, but if this were not the case, I would think they deserve the right to self-determination. Iran is correct to suppress Arab separatism and the desire to take Iran’s oil and gas wealth with them to a separate state.

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

Alt Left: No, We Are Not Good People, and No, We Are Not a Good Country

This latest rolling catastrophe with Trump and the Republicans will not be righted soon. This political behavior is a feature, not a bug of American politics. I’ve lived here for six decades, and Trumpism/Republicanism is America. It’s always been like this. Now half the population are out and out open fascists, and people still keep trying to say the American people are good.

Democrats are just as patriotarded in this sense as Republicans. That’s most of the problem right there – the patriotarded exceptionalism.

We’re not. We’re not good people. We’re not a good country. And I doubt if we ever have been.  Good people don’t act like this. Good countries don’t act like this.

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

Alt Left: This Really Is Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Wikipedia, Ziopedia, Saffronpedia, or CIApedia?

Wikipedia Is Run by the CIA (among Other Groups)

Wikipedia (which I refer to as CIApedia), is now  partly run by the CIA (among other groups and states such as Israel and Hindu nationalists which also run their respective areas of interest to them) such as, still accuses Libya of the crime and says that the Iran theory is a crazy conspiracy theory. CIApedia has covered up all of the assassinations above, helped frame the patsies, and trashes the truth as “conspiracy theory.”

I know that the top levels of CIApedia administrators are completely infiltrated by pro-Israel Zionists and Indian Hindu nationalists. That’s been proven to me for nearly 15 years now.  I now believe that the US Deep State and the CIA have also seriously infiltrated these same upper levels of admins, although I admit that I can’t prove it. You know, Bellingcat types (Bellingcat is Deep State and CIA)

I swear every time I go to CIApedia to read about US foreign policy, it seems like that website is simply “the history of the world according to the CIA.” I think the CIA has infiltrated the leadership of CIApedia as noted above and has agents and assets who alter articles to promote whatever fake version of reality that the CIA is promoting in whichever US foreign policy event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Martin Luther King Was Killed by the US Government

The Assasination of Martin Luther King (1968)

In 1968, Martin Luther King was absolutely murdered by the Memphis police, the FBI and most importantly the Deep State. The reason the latter had for killing MLK was his opposition to the Vietnam War. Once again the foreign policy establishment of the US had a man murdered.

The man the Deep State framed for Martin’s assassination was a two-bit racist loser named James Earl Ray. Ray always insisted on his innocence up until his deathbed.  Ray’s motive was supposedly racism. Another crazed lone gunmen patsy murdered a prominent US liberal Democrat for a barely credible motive. One crazy lone gunman nutcase here guys, nothing more, nothing to see here, move along.

I never thought MLK was murdered until I did some research on the case and discovered that he was absolutely murdered  by the US Deep State. The King family have always said that Ray was a patsy and accused the US government of having the pastor killed. They even sued the US government for killing the patriarch and a federal judge ruled that the Kings had one their case that the government killed King and that Ray was nothing but a patsy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Social Democracy Only Works in Homogeneous Societies Is Often but Not Completely True

RL:

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it.

A commenter responds:

Mithridates: Yeah, I suspect much of this attitude stems from the ethnic divisions within the US that no one is ever allowed to talk about in any sort of frank or intellectually honest manner. Of course the Pluto/Mammon-worship inherent in the American mythos is a influential factor as well.

But let’s explore the first:

Basically, Ethnos A, the group responsible for most of the country’s productivity, is forced at gunpoint to redistribute a portion of their wealth to Ethnos B (and C in some regions), and a good portion of Ethnos B takes that money, pisses it away on all sorts of stupid instant gratification fuckery and doesn’t add much of anything to the country’s overall productivity; in fact, a sizable minority of Ethnos B behaves in public like zoo animals.

And then A’s gets called horrible bigots if they object to this, and especially if they object to being forced to live within shouting distance of B’s.

Most of the countries with working social democratic economic arrangements tend to have been ethnically homogeneous for most of the period when these systems were in place. And now these countries have tried the mass immigration experiment, and the same sort of shitty results is happening in those places that we here in the US have been experiencing for many decades now.

Natural Law says that humans are extra-clever social primates who are predisposed to be open to sharing among others they consider to be kin. There’s a certain other Ethnos I won’t mention by name or even a single-letter set of punctuation marks that exemplifies this principle very clearly.

Anyway, expecting all members of an Ethnos to consider the entire planet’s population of clever hominids to be a part of their kin group is quite an aberrant expectation; only weird ideologies can invert what to everyone else is a common sense understanding of Natural Law principles. And finally, loving one’s own kin does not necessarily mean hating other kin-groups.

Of course everyone has always known that this is the dirty little secret for Americans’ hostility to socialism. This is why all of the American White Nationalists are also hardline economic Rightists, Republicans and Libertarians despite this being bad for most Whites. Race trumps economics for a lot of folks. Whereas in Europe, most of the nationalist groups, even the White nationalists, are explicitly socialist.

You’d be pissed to, eh?

Actually I am fully aware of this argument, but I’m not pissed at all. For one thing, I have never been part of the wealthy White group, so Whites with money can go pound sand. They are my class enemies. I think in terms of economics. Screw race. Do the rich Whites want to help the poorer Whites? Of course not. So why should I support them. Also I know quite a few low-income Whites who use those redistributive programs that Whites hate so much.

On the other hand, I am not a typical White person. I am very hard to the Left; in fact, I am an out and out socialist.

Many countries have health care for all despite being ethnically diverse. However, in a lot of these countries, public health care and education is simply underfunded, so the dominant group, whoever they may be, simply goes to private hospitals and schools. India is an excellent example of this as is much of Latin America.

All of the Arab World has social democracy under the rubric of Islam, or in the case of Lebanon, ethnic peace, and Lebanon is unstable for ethnic/religious reasons. And some Arab countries with prominent religious of ethnic minorities are very unstable or at war.

All of North Africa has social democracy except Morocco, although minority Berbers are dealt with by denial of their existence and roping them into the main group, Arabs. Ethiopia has tremendous ethnic diversity and some religious diversity, but they have a good working socialist system. Eritrea is the same but the main divide there is religious rather than ethnic.

Zimbabwe has a good working system although it has many tribes. Argentina and formerly Bolivia and Ecuador has or had working social democracies, although all three countries had serious instabilities; in all cases the rich objecting to sharing with the poor and with a racial element in Bolivia. A number of countries in Latin America do have social democracies, but they don’t work very well because the rich don’t want to share with the poor.

In a number of those countries such as Peru, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Haiti,and Mexico also have an ethnic element in that the dominant rich group tends to be Whiter or lighter-skinned though not usually White per who don’t want to share with the poorer, darker, folks who are more mixed with Indian and in some cases Blacks.

A number of countries in Latin America have homogeneous populations, but the rich still don’t want to share with the poor, so that doesn’t solve everything. And historically speaking, most nations were quite homogeneous, nevertheless the rich still shared just about fuck all with everyone else and needed an actual revolution to be convinced to do so.

Russia and China has very good working social democracies although they have many minorities, although China and to some extent Russia has some ethnic warfare. Ukraine has a good system despite minorities and ethnic warfare. Vietnam, Cambodia, Bhutan, and Laos have good systems despite having anywhere to a couple to many ethnic minorities. Malaysia has a working social democracy and it has a large ethnic divide. Japan has minorities with an excellent social democracy.

Most of the former Soviet republics probably still have working systems although most have large minority populations.Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran have social democracies and minority groups. However, in Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran are currently embroiled in ethnic separatist wars.

Most of the countries with non-working systems are not only rightwing but also quite poor. Hong Kong is an exception. The government is very rightwing, but there are not ethnic problems. It’s all one ethnic group, but the rich ones hate the poor ones, just as it was traditionally.

Some are just poor. Most of Africa has social democracy, but it often doesn’t work well due to poverty. To some extent this is true in Pakistan, Mongolia, Yemen, Moldova, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, and Thailand. It is also true in Ecuador, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean, Chile, and Paraguay. In these places, social democracy doesn’t work more due to poverty than to diversity.

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