Alt Left: Trump Is Actually One of the Worst Neocon Presidents Ever

Trump isn’t dangerous at all. He’s an anti-neocon. And you hate neocons!

He just said this against the military industrial complex.

This is only the start. It shows how Trump is actually an extreme neocon, possibly one of the worst neocon presidents ever. Part of the problem is that Trump is a sworn foot soldier for the Jews. All of the wars we have been involved in in the Middle East are Wars for the Jews in one way or another. I don’t want to say that Trump is controlled by the Jews,  although perhaps that is the case. He is simply, like almost all US politicians, a fanatical supporter of the Jews and their shitty little hate state.

A military industrial complex that he pumped full of lots of money with massive hikes in the defense budget. An MIC that he did the bidding of in Saudi Arabia by selling them billions of dollars of weapons.

He is a neocon. His administration has been horrific.

Palestine/(((That Shitty Little Country)))

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of the Jews and ratified the Jews’ theft of the Golan Heights.

He supported the Jews in every crime they committed against the Palestinian and other Arab people.

He is allowing the Jews to steal the West Bank.

His (((son in law))) offered the Arabs the worst peace deal they have ever been offered. Trump upped that with a “settle or else” threat.

Lebanon

He helped the Jews drop a nuclear bomb on Lebanon, then he overthrew the Lebanese government with a color revolution in an attempt to get rid of Hezbollah, also done for the Jews.

Iran

He lied that Iran fired missiles at Saudi Arabia when it was the Houthis in order to frame Iran.

He did a false flag attack against two merchant ships in the Gulf, shooting them with drone missiles from a US drone, and then lied and said that Iran did it with “limpet mines.”

He tricked Iran into shooting down a Ukrainian jetliner, killing almost 200 people. He did this by turning off the transformer in the jet somehow and at the same time jamming the radar operator’s radio. By turning off the transformer, the jet looked like an enemy aircraft in a passenger lane.

Iraq

He killed Soleimani and Muhandis using the Jews’ intelligence agencies.

He dropped supplies to ISIS every day in Iraq for many months. Regional politicians complained about this every day in the Iraqi Parliament for months. The British helped us drop supplies to ISIS, and they were even caught doing it once. After the dust-up with the Iraqi government, he started dropping supplies to ISIS in Iraq again.

He’s threatened the Iraqi government because we told them to take a hike. He unleashed US Marine snipers to shoot at demonstrators in those anti-government demonstrations and he started those demos in the first place. He threatened to have the President of Iraq killed if he didn’t go along with Trump’s orders. He threatened to attack many of the Iraqi army’s bases.

Syria

He trained ISIS to fight in the Bukmal quarter in Syria, an area of Syria that the US conquered and occupied against all international law. He brought in ISIS fighters, gave them new uniforms and a new name for their army and then sent them out again to fight the Syrian army. ISIS used to the Quarter to stage many attacks against Syria. When Syria tried to fight back, ISIS ran back to the US protected quarter. When Syrian militias tried to pursue ISIS in the Quarter, we bombed them.

He tricked 200 Russian mercenaries into taking over an oil field so he could attack them, killing most of them while Pompeo crowed about it.

He’s in Syria stealing oil, wheat, and cotton.

He killed 20% of the chickens in Syria.

He’s trying to stop the Syrian government from rebuilding itself.

He conquered and occupied a large area in Northeastern Syria using a proxy army of the Kurds.

He participated in two fake chemical weapons attacks in Syria that blamed the Syrian government. There were no chemical weapons released in either attack. In one attack, many Al Qaeda hostages were simply murdered and said to have been killed in a chemical weapons attack. In the other one, people killed in a bombing strike were passed off as chemical weapons victims. The OPCW came in and wrote up report saying there was no chemical weapons attack, and Trump threatened the OPCW and got them to rewrite the report. So Trump actually succeeded in corrupting the UN itself.

He pulled a fake attack against Russia by telling Turkey when a US jet was going to be in the area. The Turks lied and shot it down, saying it was over their territory when it wasn’t. Both pilots were killed by Turkish Al Qaeda. They could not have known where that jet was going to be unless the US told them.

He helped ISIS kill two Russian generals. ISIS could never have targeted those mortars so accurately without our help.

Russia

He pulled off two fake poison plots against Russia.

North Korea

Trump threatened to attack North Korea itself, a nuclear power. He threatened a “punch in the face” attack.

He increased sanctions against North Korea which include food and medicine. We stop ships that are heading to North Korea with food.

Venezuela

He installed a fake president in Venezuela after a free and fair election which he lied and said was crooked.

Then he tried a number of armed coup attempts against the democratically elected government.

He tried to assassinate President Maduro with an armed drone.

Now he’s running actual death squads.

He started riots for years that killed many innocent people. His rioters set a Black man on fire for being a Black supporter of Chavez.

He put a severe embargo on Venezuela that includes food and medicine.

He stole $21 billion from the Venezuelan government.

He helped the British steal $4 billion in gold from Venezuela.

Sanctions

He put massive sanctions in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon for the crime of opposing the Jews that included bans on food and medicine.

He also put sanctions on Venezuela and Nicaragua for the crime of having socialist system.

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

Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kirghiz

A recent What Language Is This post featured Uzbek. A commenter just got the correct answer today. Hence it is time for a post on Uzbek and two neighboring Turkic languages, Kazakh and Kirghiz.

Uzbek

Uzbek. Uzbek is a well-developed language. I see scholarly papers written in Uzbek. In addition, Uzbek is two separate languages. The well known language to the north, Northern Uzbek, that is the official language of a nation and another language to south, Southern Uzbek, spoken by 2.5 million people in Afghanistan, which has no official status. The two  Uzbeks are not mutually intelligible.

Kazakh

Kazakh has a lot of problems. A lot of people don’t speak it, and there are many ethnic Russians who speak Russian there. They live in the north. There was a lot of talk of them leaving with the independence of Kazakhstan, but most of them stayed. Insane Russian ultranationalists claim the northern part of Kazakhstan for the Russians and wish to incorporate it into Russia (just to show you how insane those lunatics are). A lot of people would rather speak Russian than Kazakh, even a lot of ethnic Kazakhs.

They have had a hard time developing Kazakh into a full modern language, and there are a lot of issues with Kazakh in the schools. Furthermore, there has been profound Russian influence on the language in terms of vocabulary, phonology, and possibly morphology.

There are many Kazakh speakers in China, over 2 million of them. They have gotten caught up in the Uyghur political mess.

New information shows that they speak a separate language from Kazakh in Kazakhstan. So many Russian words have gone into Kazakh since World War 2 that Kazakh speakers in China can no longer understand the Kazakh TV and radio broadcasts which can be heard in China. Therefore, Chinese Kazakh is a separate language, and within Macro-Kazakh, there are two languages, Kazakh and Chinese Kazakh. I didn’t get this new information in time to incorporate it into my book chapter published in a recent book (Lindsay 2016) when I redid the Turkic language family, creating a number of new languages.

Kirghiz

First of all, it is not entirely certain that Kazakh and Kirghiz are separate languages.  In my book chapter (Lindsay 2016), I decided that this was one language called Kirghiz-Kazakh, with two separate languages, Kirghiz and Kazakh. This is because they are largely mutually intelligible. However the communication is more one way than two ways. I believe that the Kazakhs can understand the Kirghiz well, but the Kirghiz have some problems understanding Kazakh. However the difficulties were not great enough for me to split it into a separate language.

However via communication with a Kazakh speaker, he insisted that Kazakh and Kirghiz were definitely separate languages. I forget the reasoning but he had an intuitive sense of whether a pair of languages consisted of one being a dialect of the other or whether they were two separate languages.

That is, native speakers have excellent intuition on the language/dialect question, which shows how preposterous the Linguistics profession is that the language/dialect split is not a scientific question. If it’s not a scientific question, how is it that native speakers the world over have an intuition over whether a lect is a separate language or a dialect of another language? Apparently humans have excellent intuitions about things that simply do not exist in a scientific sense. Who knew?

Kirghiz has a lot of problems. I think just about everyone speaks it, but the problem is the language is not well developed into a modern language yet, so all sorts of technical and modern terms have had to be invented. Even whole new dictionaries have been created. Bottom line is Kirghiz is not really ready to serve the functions of a national language even for the state. I believe they might use Russian, instead but I am not certain.

References

Lindsay, Robert. 2016. “Mutual Intelligibility among the Turkic Languages,” in Süer Eker and Ülkü Şavk. Çelik. Endangered Turkic Languages, Volume I: Theoretical and General Approaches: Before the Last Voices Are Gone (Tehlİkedekİ Türk Dİllerİ Cİlt I: Kuramsal Ve Genel Yaklaşimlar Son Sesler Duyulmadan), Ankara, Turkey/Astana, Kazakhstan: International Turkish-Kazakh University and International Turkic Academy.

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

Alt Left: Repost: “Why Growing Up in India Makes You a Nasty, Cruel, Desensitzed Faux-nationalistic Gold-digger,” by Novusipsum

An older article that has aged quite well. It’s as true today and the day it was printed fully eight years ago. Not even one thing has changed even one bit. I hate to talk like this but I really think that India is hopeless. I hope I’m wrong but I gave up on this Dystopia of Damnation some time ago.

This is a great piece by an Indian blogger that he left on my blog as a comment. The original is here. It’s very good, and it’s actually quite well written. He takes on his country in a way that is not often seen in Indian writers.

I particularly enjoyed the bit about Kashmir because it rings so true. Almost every Indian I know goes nuts when I mention Kashmir. They raise their voice and start pounding on the table as their faces gets red. They tell me that the problem is 100% the fault of Pakistan, which imports terrorists into Kashmir to fight India. They also tell me that all of the Kashmiris love India, and none of them are fighting against India.

However, when I tell them that most Kashmiris hate India and that many Kashmiris have taken up arms against India, they insist that I am wrong. Most every Indian I met was exactly like this. They are like drones, utterly indoctrinated by some Borg. They are brainwashed on this subject as bad as a North Korean.

Most of these folks are what you might call middle class or upper middle class educated people. A number of them had university degrees and were quite intelligent. One man used to be a university professor.

Why Growing Up in India Makes You a Nasty, Cruel, Desensitized, Faux-nationalistic Gold-digger

1. School

While people remark on shortage of functional schools in India, I say the kids who don’t go to school have it good. The national curriculum is odious and objectionable, seeing as it is designed for kids who bow down before all authority and the various empty suits regardless of whether they make any sense at all. You cannot contest your teacher. At all. Ever. Such behavior is simply unacceptable. Put another way, the system is a hundred percent authoritarian.

School kills all your creativity. Creativity, especially of the extroverted kind, is not encouraged. There are tried and tested methods to break the will of those who are too free. The system is based on rote-memorization. You must bend your mind a certain way to do that: it means all the rules are already laid out and decided for you. You do not need to think. Your brain must function in a certain way. Any challenge to the established order will make you a pariah.

Kids learn how to secretly and openly hate each other over the grades they are given for breaking their own will and doing pointless mind-numbing work that will be of no use to them at any point in their later life. The focus is on merit – on who is better at following rules. No wonder India has not produced a single India-based world-class scientist, technician, engineer. Science, technology, and engineering after all,re fields where your ability to think is highly valuable.

Barack Obama does not need to worry about Indian kids out-smarting American kids. If they do, it will be by doing hours of grinding and rioting, and when they do, the rest of the world need to start worrying.

This system is evil!

2. Parents, Teachers, Peers

All these people are the product of evil Indian schools and other cramming establishments and will force you to succeed in a way that they deem appropriate. You must resist this but you can’t. They are everywhere.

Your peers will pressure you to bow down, submit, and ‘teach you the value of money’. In other words, how to be a vicious gold-digger. Money is nice but being a nasty, evil, little scummy gold-digger is a degeneration of your soul that even Indian’s ascetic scat-munchers do not attain.

Indian people are therefore nasty and selfish to the extreme. It is of no surprise, seeing their upbringing and their environment.

3. The environment

Your average Indian city, town, village is a primitive clusterfuck without running water or proper sewage disposal. Casteism is rampant; stupid people need little motivation to be proud of what is after all a genetic accident. They think their bloodline is ‘pure’ and grind the ‘lower’ caste people down into the dirt. Respect for human life and dignity in India has to be the lowest in human civilization.

The streets are narrow and dirty, usually overflowing with broken sewage and water lines (which frequently mix), and the garbage the average Indian household does not feel ashamed of throwing on the streets. Any kind of social grace is completely absent, people shove and push each other, vehicles honk incessantly and without reason, and the local temple’s loudspeakers blare out shitty religious hymns.

Living and growing up here, you will learn little by little to let go of your humanity. You will get desensitized to the beggars and lepers in the street: emancipated, poor and trodden down. You will see old men and women driven out of their homes by their sons, eyes pleading for mercy and trying to make sense of the plethora of people around them who ignore their plight and pass right by.

Your average Indian will not even notice the squalor on the street or the helpless human beings on the street. He will simply accept these things as a part of life, which is why things never improve. He is the selfish product of a callous, heartless, and evil system. He will never change, and western democracies should not allow such people into their homelands. Not even for a ‘visit’.

4. The Media

Catering to a large middle class that pretends to be educated, some people have taken the initiative to bring them these people latest news of the world. These people are funded by rich business interests with their own agenda as well as Hindu nationalists. They make the usual salutary noises about bad governance and bloated bureaucracy, things that are so odious that it even permeates the thick bourgeois skull. This is why the middle class types buy newspapers and watch news—they can relate to it.

But the most vicious thing the media does is to fill the average Indian with a sense of pride and nationalism, something that certainly goes against all basic logic and sanity. What people would be proud of a country like this? Only brain-washed, selfish jerks that the education system produces and the media maintains.

The average Indian is full to the brim with national pride that he has no logical reason to feel. His ideas on casteism and the workings of the society are reinforced by editors of the national dailies and the news channels.

His stance on Kashmir, a truly beautiful place inhabited by beautiful people, has been drilled into him incessantly. The parable of Pakistan exporting its terrorists (not that it doesn’t – and it turns out the Americans knew about it all along) to India and that the Kashmiris love India (Huh?) has been in print for thirty years now. Of course, India is always the poor, helpless victim.

5. College

Most people in India never even graduate from their high schools, let alone college. And I say good for them. Because the system feels the need to grind out all kind of potential competition it may get from any future thinkers.

If school doesn’t manage to turn you into a humanoid selfish fuck, your college certainly will. India’s unemployment problem is vast. Of the colleges that ‘guarantee’ any jobs such as professional degree mills like IIT, NIT, AIIM, etc., it is interesting to note that only Indians think these places are good. An independent peer review ranked the ‘best’ IIT at around 350th at world level. Yet the middle-class scramble for securing a seat there so intense it simply has to be seen to be believed.

Millions (you heard that right, millions) of middle-class Indians right now are rioting, grinding, and chewing equations, formulas, and facts for entrance exams that maybe a hundred of them really understand. These people aspire to be ‘engineers’ and ‘doctors’.

The workload is so immense that you can’t find time at age 16 and 17 to ogle girls (or boys), party, learn how to drink beer without making a face, or hang out with your friends. But what am I saying? Hell, most Indian people don’t find time to do that ever in their lives anyway.

College itself is a turdfest -professors with massive egos, an anal-retentive and callous administration, and overall awkward social interaction between the sexes. Girls hanging out with boys are labeled ‘hookers’ and ‘sluts’. Massive sexual repression is the hallmark of this point in your life, and given the pressure to rote more equations and secure a job, you’d be lucky escaping the place without a drug habit or a drinking problem.

Is there anything good about India at all? With fertile plains to the north, large iron ore deposits to the south, the biggest aluminum stores in the world and 30% of the world’s thorium, I think the White Man would have made the country really work.

The only thing wrong with India is Indians.

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

Alt Left: Birth of the Cultural Left Analysis: Did the Black Panthers Hate Whites?

I think the Panthers are still around, but they are not very active. I actually don’t mind them. They did a lot of really cool things like free breakfasts and lunches for school children. They have been superseded by the New Black Panther Party, an explicitly racist organization that actively promotes hatred of Whites. The real Panthers recently criticized the NBP for hating Whites, saying that the original Panthers were never about hating Whites; instead they just wanted equal rights for Blacks.

The rightwing recently has published some articles suggesting that the Panthers hated Whites. To my recollection, they did not. They helped the Weathermen break Tim Leary out of prison, and they visited him in Algeria, where some of them (Kwame Ture nee Eldridge Cleaver of Soul on Ice fame) had also taken refuge. A lot of radical Whites worked hand in hand with the Panthers.

The Panthers were Marxists (actually Maoists) of that particular er, which would coincide with the Cultural Revolution period in China. Think of how culturally conservatives the Chinese Communist Party was at this time. That’s what the Panthers were like.

They were strongly against degeneracy of any type as most Communist parties (CP’s) were at that time. Some Panthers were openly homophobic, saying homosexuality was a bourgeois vice, a popular view among CP’s of that time (See the Cuban leadership’s position on this subject in the 1960’s). They certainly didn’t promote Black crime, drug use, or even irresponsible behavior.

I will say that Farrakhan’s (whom I very much dislike) people are huge on social responsibility too, and I appreciate them for that. They are very much into clean living and non-degeneracy, and they despise Black crime.

I came out of the cultural revolutions of the 1960’s, which is why probably why some people are shocked at how leftwing I am. They’re blown away when they figure that out about me. “Wow, I didn’t realize he was so leftwing!” Well, I am. I’m race realist though and hate the Cultural Left. I’m a “conservative socialist.”

Hell, I was on the mailing list for the Weatherman at one point not even long ago! Well, their above ground organization that is (the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee), which frankly has strong links to this BLM movement right now. So, yes, the present Weathermen (now given up arms as a peaceful organization) are very much behind BLM.

My friends were drug dealers who hung out with Tim Leary and the Brotherhood of Eternal Love in Laguna Canyon in Laguna Beach where the BEL made and distributed millions of tabs of Orange Sunshine LSD.I remember my friends telling me about going to parties in the canyon and how they had lookouts high up in the eucalyptus trees to watch out for cops. I did go to a party in the Canyon once, a real hippie party with real hippie chicks and lots of pot smoking. Love was definitely in the air.

I have supported Latin American guerrilla groups. I actually gave to the “weapons fund” for the Salvadoran guerrillas for some time. So I’m actually a real dyed in the wool terrorist supporter or even financier if you will, although I stopped giving them money long ago.

If I did that now, I would be violating the Patriot Act by giving Material Support for Terrorism (Whatever the Hell that means!), and I could be looking at 10 years. But alas, those were different times. Even the 80’s were far more laid back, relaxed, and anti-authoritarian compared to now when we seem to be on some weird authoritarian trip due to fears over “terrorism” which is about nonexistent in the US.

Anyway, this was a time of peace, love, dope and all that. Everyone was very much into nonviolence to the point of near-passivity. Any aggressive behavior was “uncool.” Every hippie man was your brother, and every hippie woman was your sister. There was magic in the air. And Yoko brought her walrus, don’t forget that.

Plus there was lots of “free love.” I still have fond memories of hippie chicks. I will say it was a lot more loving and friendly than things are nowadays with all this weirdness, antisociality, fear of strangers and single men, “pedophile” hysteria, #metoo insanity, and general fear or even terror of men – and this at a time when major crimes like rape have crashed 63% since  1993.

Sometimes I think the lower the crime rate goes, the more paranoid people get about crime. Don’t ask me to figure it out. I have no idea why humans do whatever irrational thing du jour they happen to be doing.

Bottom line is that humans are basically irrational and illogical at their core and we tend to be driven around all through life by our emotional needs and beliefs, which often seem to be pulling us through life blindly on a leash like a dog ownder, not even why we do or feel certain things.

I can’t tell you how many of my female clients have asked me, “Why do I feel this way?”  The answer was not readily apparent. Obviously it’s happening for a reason, probably an  unconscious one. Then they ask me, “How do I stop feeling  this way (getting dragged through life with their emotions like a dog an a leash)?” It’s hard to answer questions like that. The solutions are there no doubt, but they are more tangled up in the forbidding jungle of the psyche than we want  to admit.

The only answer I would have to taht question would be to develop some “emotional literacy,” to try to develop and cultivate at least some  emotional control. My emotions don’t drag me through life blindly, baffled at why I am doing or feeling  this or that. I

t’s more the opposite. Whereas with many people, including  most women for sure, their emotions are dragging through them through their lives blindly, with me it’s the other way around. I have my emotions on a leash and I drag them around. I’d rather drag my emotions through life in my own leash than the other way around. Control gets a bad rap, but a lot of forms of it

Anyway, the Panthers were just Black hippies. They hung out with the White hippies. Black hippies were “brothers,” or “soul brothers,” if you will. There were some problems with them of course (they are Blacks after all), but most of them were quite well-behaved or at least much  better behaved than they are now. I suspect the demand for nonviolence in the hippie movement weeded out the bad ones. There may have been some self-selection going  on.

Bottom line is I really disagree that the Panthers were White-haters. It’s BS.

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

Alt Left: The Roots of the Cultural Left in the Vietnam Antiwar Movement

Let’s talk about Joanne Chesimard, or Assata Shakur of the Black Liberation Army in the late 1970’s.

The Weathermen broke her out of prison in 1979. The plot was ingenious. The group somehow got a hold of a van filled with linens and delivered it to the prison. Somehow they got the prison to let them in to deliver the linens. They then burst out with guns and somehow whisked Chesimard away.

She was hidden well by her comrades for 2 years, while the whole FBI hunted for her and never found her. She popped up suddenly in Cuba two years later, surprising everyone, and has been there ever since. No one has ever explained how she got to Cuba in the first place but as I said this group was very well-trained and were excellent urban guerrillas.

She is actually innocent of this police murder she is being framed with. A vehicle full of BLA members was somehow pulled over by police one night, I think in New Jersey. I’m not sure why they pulled them over. BLA members burst out of the car shooting and a wild gunfight ensued. She was a passenger in this vehicle . The cop was killed by a male BLA member, the driver of the vehicle, who was himself killed in the shootout. Yes, cops were killed but so were people in her group. She herself was badly wounded. I don’t believe she was even armed at the time.

Even badly wounded, she somehow escaped (!) and was on the lam for a bit. She was captured soon after and put on trial for this frame-up for which she was broken out of prison. As you can see, 40 years later and the lying Fed bastards are still trying to frame her for this crime.

I truly hate the FBI. They’re not the cool gumshoes everyone says they are. They’re the worst pigs of them all, and they are sleazy, dirty, and corrupt. They specialize in political prosecutions which are often frame-ups.

And they help the CIA and the US government cover up for its own frame-ups of its enemies, as when the US framed Ghaddafi for the Lockerbie shootdown when actually it was Iran and Syria that did it. The FBI knew full well that the evidence was crap and that Iran and Syria were the  real authors but they were ordered to frame Gaddafi, so that is what they did. They actually tampered with crucial evidence (!) in order to frame Gaddafi. I told you they were scumbags.

I rather like Joanne Chesimard just for being one badass chick and escaping custody over and over. This was back in the days of radical chic when you would go to a hippie chick’s house, and she would have a poster of Leila Khaled (Palestinian plane hijacker and badass chick) with a gun on the wall.

“Assata Shakur,” her crappy new identity, is just another stupid Black nationalist. Oh, and Cuba will never hand her over. Thanks for asking.

On to the famous Brinks robbery in 1981. A mixed group of Weathermen and BLA robbed an armored car and got away with a lot of money. The robbery was somehow botched nevertheless and in this incident and the related freeway stop, two or more policemen and armored car guards were murdered.

I think the Black men from the BLA did most of the shooting. The BLA always were little more than one step above common criminals and sometimes they were indistinguishable from such.

They actually got away with the robbery but were caught on the freeway afterwards where a huge shootout took place. A group of mostly BLA were hidden in the rear of the vehicle and suddenly burst out guns ablaze, catching police unawares. A number of them got away again (!) after this robbery but were only caught a bit later. The BLA were escape artists and masters of the prison break.

Quite of a few of their associates and probable accomplices had their places raided by the FBI soon after this attack. They must have had excellent intelligence or spies in the FBI because when the FBI raided some of these places, the people had left so fast that coffee pots were still on their burners! What the Hell! And the FBI still could not catch them.

There were a vast number of people housing, sheltering, and protecting these radicals, which is how they escaped for so long. Some adopted new identities and were not caught for 30-40 years later. The Red Army Faction (I liked them too) in Germany were protected by ~300,000 people, and police found it extremely hard to infiltrate them because of this.

I would imagine that the Weathermen/BLA were being protected by just as many or maybe more. They may have had ~1 million accomplices and people who fed, housed, sheltered, protected, and spied for them. Almost none of them were ever caught, and many are living with us to this day.

As you can see, Brinks robbery marked the time when the Weathermen made a huge alliance with the Black radicals in the BLA.

It is at this time that this radical anti-White program of the Cultural Left was birthed.

Oh yeah. The saga of the Soledad Brothers and George Jackson was another famous case around the time of the Days of Rage This incident was another major turning point when the antiwar movement got a lot darker real fast. The Soledad Brothers were another case of armed Black radicalism. These men were just common criminals who got radicalized into revolutionaries in prison. They were very radical, much more than the BP.

As part of their saga, Jonathan Jackson, George’s brother, accompanied by radical attorney Angela Davis, smuggled a gun into a courtroom where some Soledad Brothers were being tried. There was a huge shootout ion court, several comrades were freed, and the judge was taken as a hostage.

As they were getting away in a heavily armed vehicle, they were ambushed by police. Another huge shootout took place, most of the freed comrades were killed as was the judge. The judge had a shotgun taped to his cheek as part of the  hostage taking. The escaped convicts probably murdered the judge as punishment for not letting them get away with the hostage.

They never showed how they got the gun in,  but my mother believed that Davis had smuggled it in hidden in her Afro! I believe the consensus now is that Johnathon and not Davis smuggled the gun in, but you are damn right she was in on this bloody plot. Davis was tried for her role in this incident, but she was acquitted though she was surely guilty. Around this time, juries often acquitted these antiwar radicals when they went on trial for whatever reason.

Davis is still around, now allied to these BLM morons.

I doubt if either Davis or the Soledad Brothers hated Whites. White-hating was not a thing back then.

The very radical SDS, the original antiwar group founded by Tom Hayden, also was never anti-White. Hell, most  of them were White. However, the modern SDS is an insane, Cultural Left, White-hating monstrosity. And yes, they are the children of (((Saul Alinsky))) of Rules for Radicals fame..

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

Alt Left: How We Got Here: The Origins of Identity Politics and the Modern Cultural Left

There is a ready explanation for all this nonsense.

First is the tendency of Identity Politics to become more radicalized with time.

There has long been an argument on the Left against this BS. Sanders actually came out of that tradition.

The US White Left married with the radical Blacks. After they did that they started heading down this nutty race train track along with all the other IdPol madness.

Really the Left moved away from economics and foreign policy to go down this cultural road instead. Perhaps 1989 was a trigger. The Eastern Bloc collapsed and the US Left was in disarray and didn’t know what to think or even believe. The dictatorship of he proletariat, democratic centralism, it was all up in the air now. Further it seemed the Communist economics in the East Bloc had not kept pace with socialist social democracy economics on the rest of Europe. A lot of the US Left packed it in on economics and started to focus on this cultural BS instead.

The Left now is nothing but pure IdPol. Ever see BLM or these Antifa morons say one word about US foreign policy and US imperialism? Course not. Ever hear them say one word about neoliberal economics? Course not. That’s what drives me up the wall. Here is a movement ripe for radicalizing against the US ruling class program of neoliberalism at home and invite the world – invade the word neoconservatism abroad. Let’s call this combined package Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism.

That’s a rightwing project any way you slice it. But at the same time, the ruling class went full left on culture. Hence the Libertarian type fiscal conservative-social liberal of the upper middle class in the last 40 years. Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism plus the Cultural Left. What a project! It’s literally the worst of the Left combined with the worst of the Right! And the upper middle class is proud of this nightmare ideology. Which is one more reason that this class, which always sides with the ruling class against the workers, is no good.

Now that the Left bailed on anti-imperialism and left economics in favor of a pure Cultural Left, what are they doing with this new ideology? Why, they are rioting about nothing at all or at worst for an outright lie. Brilliant!

But if we get police reform out of these riots, it would be good. It’s an ill wind that blows no good.

Thing is the corporations, foundations, media, etc. and both political parties are down with this Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism project because they’re a bunch of businessmen and rich people, and Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism is good for them for reasons I won’t go into here but perhaps you can guess at.

This Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism project is how the rich, the corporations, and the U.S. ruling class make all their damned money. So they oppose Left efforts against Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism such as the 60’s revolutions with all out ferocity. If such a movement arises, they will sic their media attack dogs on it, smash it to bits, and brainwash the sheep with their media monopoly to go along with this destruction.

The thing is that this is a perfectly safe progressive project. It doesn’t cost them one nickel, and they get groovy hip woke points for jumping on the bandwagon.

How much of the US ruling class are going to lose out on an anti-White project? 0%.

How many of them will be replaced by an unqualified Black in affirmative action? 0%.

How many of them will be replaced by an illegal alien on their jobs? 0%. Illegals are great for them – cheap labor, more customers, a guy to mow the lawn, and a nanny to watch the kid. They don’t live with illegals so they don’t have to deal with the civilizational decline that they cause. Pro-immigration is risk-free progressivism for woke points, and what do you know? It stuffs their pocketbook too! Win-win!

Does the US ruling class have to live with the consequences of Black crime and civilizational collapse? Course not. They don’t have to deal with the downside of this crazy movement so they can support it all they want to. See?

Also the US ruling class has been socially liberal and Neoliberal-Neoconservative for a long time now.

The Left won the Culture War.

But so what?

We lost the war about economics and foreign policy (US imperialism). They even defeated the Vietnam War Syndrome, a bad thing because it posed a severe threat to US imperialism.

So shat did we win?

Our women have become insane, manhating harridans. Asking a woman for a date is now a firing offense. We overthrew Patriarchy but replaced it with something worse – Matriarchy or Female Rule (Feminist Rule) – with all the manhating, war on male sexuality, and horrific puritanism that always goes along with it every time it is ever done in time and space.

The latter is most painful to me as a 60’s child. One of the revolutions was the Sexual Revolution. Our attitude was “do it in the streets!” Now look. If I ask a woman for her #, I almost get the cops called on me. All sexuality has been sucked out of public space by #metoo so it feels like a sexual desert, which is apparently the way women want it! They actually like to live like this.

And at the same time as this crazy Victorianism, we also have a society drenched in porn. So my personal world is porn saturated, but if I look at a woman, she acts like she’s going to call the cops. How’s that for crazy cognitive dissonance. No wonder incels exist and go on killing sprees. Societies can’t handle grotesque cognitive dissonance. It literally drives people insane and often results in serious violence.

What else did we win? Modern anti-racism – a movement with great roots that has gone insane and is worse than useless.

What else? Depraved, disgusting, and lewd gay pride parades. Great! My favorite!

Mass movements towards bisexuality in both sexes. Gross!

“Pansexuals,” “queer” as a noun, “genderqueer,” “nonbinary” morons, and the insane and depraved transgender cult. It gets sicker and more perverted, weird, stupid, and insane every year. What’s next? Transsexual bathhouses for all ages? Probably. Back then, we fought for liberation, not weirdness, sickness, perversion, and deviancy.

Further, these Cultural Left boneheads have badly divided the working class. Check out this great plan they had!

Let’s have a revolution!

Cool! Yay!

But first lets get all the non-White workers to hate the White workers!

Cool! Yay! Oppressors and oppressed!

And while we’re at it, let’s get the woman workers to hate the man workers! Oppressors and oppressed!

Cool! Yay!

Now let’s have a revolution, boys and girls!

Whoops. Whoa! What happened?

No one showed up! That’s what happened.

Why? Because we got them all to hate each other!

Brilliant! You got to hand it to these guys with these genius ideas of theirs.

What I mean is this Cultural Left project is easy for the ruling class to swallow. Many are already decadent, depraved rich people, so this sicko stuff works for them. Rich men get all the sex they want. If a rich man asks a woman for her #, does she threaten to call the cops? Course not.

Homosexuality? The ruling class is always full of gay men and all manner of decadent bisexual libertines. Works for them.

Trannies? Cut into the bottom line? Course not. Support.

The ruling class has been left on social BS and right on economics (neoliberalism) and on foreign policy (US imperialism) for a long time now. It works for them and doesn’t cost them a nickel! Hell, it even makes them bank too!

And you see the outgrowth of this lousy ideology in this idiot, destructive BLM movement that makes the Black workers hate the White workers and vice versa.

Brilliant! Way to go, Lefties! Why didn’t I think of that?

The ruling class loves this because they benefit by dividing the workers and getting them all to hate each other so they won’t organize against the Neoliberalism-Neoconservatism bread and butter issues of the ruling class.

It also explains why BLM won’t dare touch economics or US imperialism.

See all those corporate and foundation millions flooding into BLM?

Kiss them all goodbye once BLM goes after neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy, for this is what fills the bank vaults of the corporations and ruling class.

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

Alt Left: Repost: Down with Colin Flaherty

This is a nice old post about Colin Flaherty. I like it and I think it’s worth a repost.

The problem is that Colin Flaherty’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No, really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense.

89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes, Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low-level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh, what nonsense.

But if you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the outgroup or the other guys, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks, and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off by Serbian lies that “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were all predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people. Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust.

Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over, and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter. Remind you of anything? Afghanistan, anyone?

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.”

It was only years or even decades later that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists, which is always the general message of anti-Communist slaughters.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us,” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too, you know. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people, and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular.

And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence, and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and  decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Greg, Tulio, and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong. They live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

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

Alt Left: Racial Pride Yes, Racial Chauvinism and Hatred No

Claudius: Holy crap Robert! I never thought I’d see you cheer a gun-totin’ white boy.

LOL. Well in the previous article you will note that I hate:

  1. SJW’s worst of all
  2. then ghetto Blacks (nor Black people, dammit),
  3. then cops, and
  4. last Republicans like this kid.

It’s all a matter of who I hate less. I hate guys like Kyle way, way less than I hate SJW’s, White or Wigger or not. As a matter of fact, I don’t hate Kyle at all. Normally I would dislike him, but I am choosing to ignore his politics. I don’t hate Claudius for his politics either.

I realized a long time ago that if I take a deep, long look at most of my family members and friends, there was at least one thing about them that was perfectly horrible and was justifiably utterly hate-able. So if you are going to associate with other humans at all, you have to give them some slack. Realize that there are a few things you detest about them, be ok with that, and in general, choose to ignore it and focus on their good sides. Most of us are not our worst day. Far from it.

Anyway, Claudius is awful damned open-minded for a rightwinger!

Isn’t that pathetic?

The Right is now the erudite, open-minded, tolerant, and peaceful people, and the Left is the ignorant, closed-minded, intolerant aggressive fucks. Exactly the opposite of the way it’s been most of my life. And yes, it is like the Cultural Left resembles the old rightwingers back in the day. I have a feeling that they have more in common with those old rightwing dinosaurs than we want to admit.

Just shows you how insane the Cultural Left is getting that I am actually pro-cop for the first time in decades and I am even supporting a Goddamned Trump supporter for blowing away two of my comrades.

Me? I hate cops! And here I am on the cop subs, cop forums and cop videos, cheering them on all the way.

And for the first time in my life, I feel a sense of camaraderie, empathy, and shared humanity with police officers. I still basically don’t like them deep down inside, but I also like them now, as they trump others on the hate scale, so nowadays I’m mostly thinking about how I like them, and I’m not in touch with the part of me that hates them much (it’s buried). You follow? I actually feel good that I have expanded my humanism a bit.

I’ve always said that one of your goals in life is to hate as few people as possible while also realizing that countless people deserve to be hated. I hate way too many people as it is. Any chance I can get to cross some people off my hate list makes me feel a bit better inside.

I’m not a racist all (by any sane standards), and as sane people like Polar Bear note, I actually have a soft spot (bend over backwards to be nice to when I probably shouldn’t) for Blacks. That’s just my old guilty liberal conscience. I don’t think true Lefties or liberals can never go very racist. They can go a bit racist, but then they run into the brick wall of their liberalism, and their liberalism just stops them from going further. Liberalism makes you softhearted and hostility towards real racism is rather baked into our souls.

More importantly, though I reject White Supremacism, White nationalism and the ethnostate and all of that extreme, excessive, obnoxious racism that goes along with it, I still very much love my people. Rather than being pro-White, I suppose I am anti-anti-White. I’m against the anti-Whites.

I like being White. I love my great White people. I love White culture, White music, White architecture, and White chicks. Whiteness is baked into top to bottom, and I’m all right with that. One wants to reject the conformity and sanctimoniousness of white picket fence White culture, but when you see the degenerated (as in a general decline in most important things) other cultures, I’ll take my White culture, warts and all. Life often isn’t so much about what’s good but more about what’s not as bad as the alternative things.

I was born a White boy and will die a White man, and I am perfectly ok with and even proud of those facts.

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

Alt Left: The Lindsay Hatred Scale, Most to Least – SJWs > Ghetto Blacks > Cops

I live with a partisan Centrist Democrat who hates cops with a passion.

He’s also not fond of Blacks period and ghetto Blacks in particular, whom he refers to as niggers. I’m not kidding. That word is not as rare among Whites as you are thinking.

Hell, I might even use it myself in the privacy of my own home, right? But then if I did it (apologies to OJ), I’d be careful to only use to describe ghetto Blacks who in my opinion act horrible. I wouldn’t use it for any other Blacks, and I might get mad if someone did. I wouldn’t even call Jacob Blake’s father, a Black activist, that word. Nor Al Sharpton. Nor Shaun King. Hell, not even Minister Farrakhan. A race hustler is one thing, but even they have some dignity about them despite their unfortunate politics.

Anyway, I’ve been teasing him lately. “You hate cops worse than you hate ghetto Blacks! Ha ha!” He doesn’t say much to that except he keeps supporting the Blacks against the cops. But then he just did seven weeks in a particular circle of Hell called The Local Jail, where he was beaten badly for no good reason several times. I told you there’s a need for police reform, not to mention criminal justice reform period.

As for me, I’ve always thought I was the worst cop-hater around. Imagine how appalled I am to find myself supporting the police in every one of these recent incidents. And imagine how I fell out of my chair when I realized that 54% of the country now hates cops even more than I do! I’m now a goddamned cop sympathizer. I hang out on their subreddits. I read their forums. I watch their videos. Pathetic!

That’s because if there’s one thing I hate worse than cops, it’s SJW’s! I hate them a lot more than cops. It’s personal with me and them. Look how many sites they got me thrown off of. I lost 5,000 articles due to them. There are SJW’s out there who have stated that they are dedicated to destroying my reputation. Conservatives, on the other hand, while I don’t agree with them at all, are quite nice to me. That’s appalling too. The conservatives are now the nice polite guys with mostly lousy politics and the Left are the deranged, aggro, violent nutcases with the mostly good politics.

Now it’s between cops and ghetto Blacks. Well, I must say that I hate ghetto Blacks worse than I hate cops. And I hate cops pretty bad, so that’s saying something. Thing is, I’ve had a lot of dealings with these folks. I taught them in school for years. I’ve dated their women, much to my dismay. If you are taking notes, I’ll point out that every ghetto Black woman I have significantly dealt with has stolen money from me. Sometimes a bit, like $5-25. Other times more, like $70. As far as I am concerned, ghetto Black females are nothing but a race of thieves. Thieving whores, actually, except most of the time they just steal and don’t even fuck. Because the way they steal is time-tested.

Dangle the sex -> Get the money -> Disappear.

Alpha has told me that the women who do this have an extreme hatred of men and are frankly the worst specimens of the female gender. This is as low as a woman gets. I’ll also point out that every one of these Black women had elevated levels of psychopathy, in my opinion. Only one was a true psychopath, and boy was she a handful! The rest were not psychopaths but they had elevated psychopathy levels above White women.

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

Alt Left: The Message of Kyle Rittenhouse (the Kenosha Kid), American Hero: One Man Is Fighting Back

Kyle Rittenhouse, or the Kenosha Kid for short (tip of the hat to  Thomas P. for that one) shot three antifa/BLM rioters the other day, killing two and wounding one.

An overview.

Rittenhouse, 17 years old, of Antioch, Illinois is a member of a group called The Libertarians. There are reports that he is also associated with the Three Percenters, but these are not verified. There are also reports that his social media sites (now wiped) are full of White Supremacist and misogynist content, however, none of those posts was produced. There’s no evidence at all that he is a White Supremacist or a misogynist. Kyle is a cop-fan and served as a police explorer. He is a member of many Blue Lives Matter groups. He’s also apparently quite good with an automatic weapon. He’s obviously had some sort of training.

Kyle answers a call on Facebook for people to go to Kenosha on the third day of the stupid riots over nothing there in order to defend the innocent businesses that are getting destroyed, looted, and torched. Kyle and a group of 300 other men answer the call to go protect the businesses. Kyle is armed with an AR-15 automatic weapon, which shouldn’t even be legal in the first place and is in fact not legal for him to possess due to his age. He also brings along a first aid kit to help any injured protestors.

There is a photo of him erasing graffiti on a public building the previous day. The cities in his area have been hit by Black Lives Matter protests/riots for some time now. A  woman who lives across the street from Kyle said everyone there is sick of these riots, which she attributed to outsiders coming into their city. She also stated that there were cases of Whites being pulled out of their cars and beaten for the crime of Being White, soon to be a misdemeanor in the US. It’s not illegal to be White yet, but don’t worry, the SJW’s are working on it.

Kyle drives himself to the riots. A rumor that his Mom drives him is not true. He joins the rest of the militia. At one point, a police vehicle stops and asks the group if they want anything, such as water. Kyle says he wants water, and a bottle is thrown to him. There is also a report that police congratulated the militia for what they were doing. Personally, I think it’s great that these brave men answered the call of their land and their people to go to Kenosha to protect perfectly innocent businesses from getting destroyed. Kyle is also interviewed by a citizen journalist that evening.

At some point later on that night, a disturbance ensues. From what we can tell, an antifa mob is chasing Kyle and threatening him. Kyle is terrified and is running away from them. (((Joseph Rosenbaum))) throws an object at him that appears to be a Molotov cocktail but is not. He then pursues Kyle through the gas station where Kyle has taken refuge from the violent mob pursuing him. A shot is fired by a man who is also pursuing Kyle behind (((Rosenbaum))). Kyle turns around at the sound of the shot.

Soon (((Rosenbaum))) closes in on him and is on top of him or almost on top of him. He tried to take Kyle’s gun away. Kyle wrestles the gun away and fires four shots at (((Rosenbaum))), hitting him in various places on his body, most importantly one shot to the head. I feel that this is straight up self-defense of a man assaulting him and trying to take his gun away from him. If you try to take a gun away from a lawfully armed person, they can shoot you to keep you from taking your gun away, as you may well use it on them after you take it. This is no murder. It’s Justifiable Homicide.

A crowd forms around (((Rosenbaum))), trying to help him. (((Rosenbaum))) will later die of his wounds. Kyle hovers on the edge of the crowd for a bit. He pulls out his phone and calls a friend, reporting that he just shot a man. He is soon running away from the people around the dying man. He starts running faster. Antifa start yelling that Kyle has just shot a man.

Kyle runs into the street, pursued by an angry mob of antifa yelling to get him. A shot is heard. Kyle turns around in responses. He then turns around again and keeps running down the middle of the street. He trips and falls. The mob sets on him. The first antifa runs up to him and kicks him in the head! Kyle turns and fires at him, but misses.

Soon a second antifa, (((Anthony Huber))) – hey wait, what’s with all these parentheses? You’d almost be inclined to think that antifa are a bunch of Jews!

(((Huber))) sets on Kyle and smashes him in the head with a skateboard. Also tries to grab Kyle’s gun. Kyle turns around and shoots at (((Huber))), hitting in the chest. Huber staggers backwards. He later dies also. This shot was also absolutely in self-defense.

Next Kyle is approached by antifa Gaige Grosskreutz.

I know what you are thinking, but he’s actually a German. Wisconsin is full of Germans, you know. And there are not many Jews. Probably all the Jews in Wisconsin showed up for those riots.

Grosskreutz is armed with a Glock pistol and charges rapidly at Kyle, closing in on him. Kyle shoots him once, incredibly blowing part of the man’s arm away. Hey, assault weapons are weapons of war, you know? Gaige later said that the only thing he regretted was that he didn’t kill Kyle.

This was absolutely a self-defense shot.

The rest of the crowd runs away and some put up their hands. Kyle then starts walking. Some shots are fired off, apparently warning shots fired by Kyle. After a while, Kyle is walking. He approaches a fire truck and two police vehicles. He attempts to flag them down to let them know he just shot three men, but the police can’t be bothered. They soon descend on the scene, rope it off, and try to figure out what happened.

A warrant is later issued for Kyle’s arrest and he is found in Lake County, Illinois. He is charged with a couple of counts of First Degree Murder for the first two (((kills))) and a count of attempted murder for the shot that hit Grosskreutz.

As far as I am concerned, this kid is innocent. All shots were absolutely fired in self-defense. You know, it’s not a good idea to attack an armed man. He has the right to use that gun to defend himself, you know?

I obviously don’t care if he’s a misogynist, and I doubt if he is  anyway. He’s a bit young for woman-hating. I used to argue against the notion that gay men hated women. I used to tell women I dated that in order to truly hate women, a man would have to be a heterosexual! This always brought down the house believe it or not, and for some reason I often had sex with them soon after I said that. Almost like apologizing for straight men’s misogyny turns women on.

I also don’t care about the White Supremacy, which hasn’t been proven anyway. If he is, that is lamentable, but it doesn’t detract from his heroic deeds. And yes, to me, Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. He blew away two SJW’s and badly wounded a third, something I’ve been itching to do forever now (but never will of course, as I am generally homicidal only in fantasy).

I don’t care about his politics either. Of course he’s hard rightwing. Everyone against antifa/BLM (AB for short) and SJWism in general is rightwing, often hard rightwing. And everyone on the left and center is either supporting AB and SJWism or, in the case of some Centrists, have gone neutral. Everyone that is except for me and hopefully some other folks on the Alternative Left. We’re probably the only people on the left cheering Kyle on, but then, we’ve always been weird.

To me, Kyle is a man with a message. He looked around and saw that his nation were under threat from violent, destructive SJW’s, anarchists, Western Commies, radicalized ghetto Blacks, and other assorted dipshits. Our buildings are in rubble, looted, and aflame for no damned good reason at all. His nation was  under attack by violent mobs of brainwashed shitheads.

For BLM. For a lie. Because BLM has always been nothing but a gigantic lie.

Amidst all of this, Kyle Rittenhouse sent a message:

One man is fighting back.

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

Alt Left: One Can Believe in Social Justice While Still Believing in the Role of Human Nature, Biology, and Genetics in Social Issues

Jason: As the Alt-Left states is possible to support social justice somewhat and still understand true male/female nature.

That is so perfect. I love that so much. That’s exactly what it is. I also like Tulio’s “The Alt Left are just red-pilled socialists.” That’s so perfect. That’s exactly what it is. The Alt Left are red-pilled liberals and Leftists. Some type of social conservative on social issues, and liberal to left on economics and most everything else. And the social conservatism is between SJW nuttiness and old-fashioned priggish, prudish Republican Party social conservatism. We rather like the idea of social justice but we think things have gone too far.

One of our mottoes refers to the cultural revolutions of the 1960’s in which the Alt Left is frankly rooted: “I signed up for liberation, not insanity.” And we do support social justice, the social justice of 1970, 1980, 1990, and, Hell, even 1995. I suppose you can go beyond that. That’s where I got off the social justice train because it became obvious that this normal train was turning into a crazy train that was going off the rails and it was getting not only dangerous but increasingly stupid to keep riding on a train to either nowhere or more importantly madness.

And more importantly, that is your Alt Left. That is your personal interpretation or definition of Alt Left. It’s your particular Alt Left philosophy. I said when I created this thing, “Everyone form your own wing.”

That means that within some fairly large boundaries, everyone gets to mix and match and bake their own cake out the ingredients of the Alt Left. You’re free to reject some and support others. On a number of issues, various positions are acceptable and you are urged to choose one. Then others will similar views might get together with you and you all form your own wing or tendency. All of the wings or tendencies will compete with each other and may the best wing win!

What is the Alt Left? Inside of some pretty big hard lines, it is whatever the Alt Left masses decide it is. It’s not my view. I’m some guy who created an idea and I laid out some basic views and drew some boundaries around them. On a few things were dealbreakers. A lot of the rest was up for grabs.

And now that there are Alt Left masses, nobody has to listen to me outside of a free hard lines that I have drawn. Beyond that, you can agree or disagree with me or get into all sorts of grey gradations of that. The Alt Left movement is owned by the Alt Left masses. I just built an engine. The masses are the gasoline and then will put the fuel in, drive the movement vehicle and even decide in which of all sorts of directions the movement car goes.

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

Alt Left: Left Libertarianism and a Rejection of Carceral Liberalism and Leftism

I’d say I definitely have some serious Left Libertarian tendencies. Are you familiar with the term “carceral?” I am seeing that used a lot now. Carceral feminists (100%, obviously), the Carceral Left (way too many of them), carceral liberals (all of them). A lot of conservatives are carceral too. That’s their whole raison d’etre after all. Centrists? What’s that? That’s just a carceral liberal with some economic conservatism.

I hang out on Reddit a lot, though I am banned repeatedly. That place is sickening. They’re all liberals or Left, but they’re the Carceral Left or Carceral Liberals. They’re constantly screaming to throw more and more people in jail in prison, mostly men for either having sex with women or trying to do so. Apparently there’s no worse crime for a carceral libbie than trying to get laid. I think they’ve never met a law they don’t like. They’ve never met a jail or prison they are not ecstatic about.

Which is why I don’t understand why they hate cops so much. Wait. You never met a law you didn’t like (and in fact libbies are constantly screeching for more laws, greater penalties and toughening up laws). You can’t get enough of prisons and jails, especially since they’re full of men and there’s nothing libbie faggots hate more than men. So they love laws, love prisons, love jails…but they hate cops?! They yell about defunding the police but they want to throw all of us men in jail for even looking at a woman. Forget flirting and dating. That’s all harassment now. Forget sex. It’s all rape and abuse now.

I’d say that the  Alt Left, if anything, should be a civil libertarian movement. We should be an anti-carceral movement. The problem isn’t so much cops. Sure, they enforce the laws,  but they don’t write them. The problem is the whole shitstem. The cops, the DA’s, the judges, the bailiffs, the jail and prison guards, the parole and probation officers, the jails, the prisons, and more than anything else, the goddamned legal code.

These maniacs have already made half of ordinary life illegal, but that’s never enough. Every year on January 1, I wake up and there’s 50-100 stupid new laws in my state, supposedly one of the most liberal states in the country but actually the home of Carceral Liberalism.

I advocate, for starters, wiping lots of laws right off the books. Anything that doesn’t obviously and directly harm an innocent person is an objective way needs to go. I want to make it do prisons and jails cannot be filled past capacity. Our California penal institutions are still 121% full, and we just let a lot of them out due to  overcrowding. The courts allow our prisons to be 133% of capacity. Many of our county jails are under court mandated overcrowding mandates. I want the prisons to be capped at 100%. Fuck 133%. What is this 133% crap? You don’t like it?  Fine. Build more prisons. Good luck with that.

This is my dream. We’ve reduced all the jails and prisons to 100% capacity max. They’re usually close to being full. The police go out on their rinky dink calls for the petty chicken shit crap they waste most of their time on and a lot of the time, they decide not to make an arrest. “Hey, the jails are full. We don’t usually make arrests on this petty crap. We have better things to do.”

I was alive back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.  Cops had a reasonable attitude back then. They would often arrive at places where people were breaking the  law but they would simply choose to not do anything about it. I was there on several occasions when police came out and said,  “We don’t usually waste our time on  this crap,” or “We don’t usually like to get involved in this stuff,” or “Look, we have better things to do than waste our time with this BS.”

That seems to be gone now.  Cops nowadays seem to be itching to arrest anyone they can for spitting on the sidewalk. I don’t get it. Someone clue me here. They bored? Change of culture? Not enough action?

There was a sense of finesse, of nuance, of reason, logic, rationality, and sense. That’s how the law is supposed to be, from the cop on the beat all the way to robes in the courts. The law is a grey area. It’s supposed to be enforced and and prosecuted that way. It’s supposed to be an area free of heated emotion that distorts cold logic and reason.

I actually read legal journals. You might want to try it some time. It’s not as hard as you think. One thing they keep talking about is keeping emotions out of the laws and courts. The ways they do this is to write hard legal codes into court decisions that tie the hands of judges and force them to rule as logically as possible, the reason being that of course judges to say nothing of juries are subject to the worst whims of emotions that distort, warp, twist, and wreck both law and justice.

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

Alt Left: I Am a Civil Libertarian

It seems like 99% of the population, including my own siblings and mother, don’t have the slightest understanding of me at all, and in fact, their views of what I am are frankly libelous. Almost everyone thinks I am a much worse person than I actually am. Just about every nasty thing you hear about me is probably a straight up lie.

First of all, idiots assume that if you are passionate about or arguing for a certain position, you obviously have a personal interest in it. Wrong! You learn that in Idiocy 101! Come on! Actually many of the things that I am most passionate and outraged about have no effect on me whatsoever. I have no skin in the game. I’m not the one who’s going to get in trouble. People don’t understand that people like me have “radical empathy.” I will passionately advocate for a position that has nothing to do with myself at all. I’m not going to get in trouble. Further, I often advocate for things that I don’t even have any interest in.

I believe in radical justice. If someone is being harmed by some soycietal idiocy, I feel compassion for this person. I don’t like to see innocent people get beat up by shitheads, especially dangerous shitheads, in other words, the majority. I care about innocent people. I don’t have to have skin in a game to feel passionate about it. Why can’t I feel deeply injured when any innocent person is set upon by the latest deranged mob of dangerous retards (the majority)?

But no, this is what everyone believes:

    1. If you talk about something, that means you do it.

If you write about something, that means you do it.

If you argue for something, that means you do it.

If you argue against the prohibition of something, that means you do it.

I admit that 3 and 4 have somewhat of a greater basis in fact, but still, there are many people like me who will argue in favor of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with our lives. We will argue against the prohibition of things that we have nothing to do with. In particular, we will argue for purely philosophical opinions that have nothing to do with our lives. People just can’t figure this out because they’re too fucking retarded. Too fucking dangerously retarded, excuse me.

If you see me arguing for something weird, think of it this way: in a lot of ways, I am a rather extreme civil libertarian. That’s the position that I am arguing for – a civil libertarian position. It often has nothing whatsoever to do with my life at all. It’s often something I have no interest in. If the Alt Left is anything, it’s civil libertarian. In some ways, we are radical civil libertarians. That’s usually why we are coming from some position or other – not because we have any personal stake or even interest in it but instead because we are fighting for abstract positions of justice.

Next time you stop and think, “Wow! Why is Lindsay arguing for something so weird/sick/evil/whatever, consider first of all that I am probably just arguing for it from the principles of purely abstract civil libertarianism.

Here is an overview of the issues that civil libertarians care about.

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

Alt Left: Just Banned from Reddit Again

I got banned from Reddit, so I went and got a new name and signed up under that one. I got banned almost immediately. So now I’ve been banned twice. But now I have a new name, ha ha. A Satanic feminist sub reported me to Mommy Reddit because I wrote a comment asking why it was wrong for adult men to fantasize about teenage girls. After all, 100% of all straight men are attracted, typically maximally, to teenage girls. There is some other data suggesting that attraction declines with each declining year, but all men are maximally aroused by 16 and 17 year old girls.

One study found that for 15 year old girls, it was 90%, for 14 year old girls, it was 80%, and for 13 year old girls, it was 70%. Fairly high levels of attraction from 10-60% remained even in the pedophilic range – for 12 year old girls, it was 60%, for 11 year old girls, it was 50%, for 10 year old girls, it was 40%, for 9 year old girls, it was 30%, for 8 year old girls, it was 20%, and for 7 year old girls, it was 10%. Below that there was no attraction, thank God.

When females are lumped into a group called 13+, 100% of
normal straight men react maximally to this group.

Since men generally react maximally to teenage girls, what would be wrong with men fantasizing about the things that maximally arouse them? Isn’t that normal human behavior to fantasize about things that maximally arouse you?

For this the feminists banned me, wrote me a scathing email with orders not to contact them, and reported me to Mommy Reddit. The cucks and faggots at Reddit then banned me for something gay called “child sexualization” for stating some basic scientific facts along with a scientifically uncontroversial opinion.

Today I just banned again from another gay subreddit. I attacked feminists in the thread, and I accused people in the thread of being carceral liberals and police state liberals, which is exactly what almost every liberal in the US is. I’d argue that that’s what almost all US Communists are too. US Communists are so cucked and gay it’s pathetic. I doubt if there’s no real man among them.

Anyway, I got banned for “hate speech” for attacking feminists. According to Reddit homos, hate speech is:

No racist or sexist speech in comments or submissions. Also no abusive speech based on religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. These are not rules against swearing; they’re not rules against expressing political opinions.

I went back and looked at my comment. Nothing in there was racist or sexist at all or attacked any of their pet protected groups. In fact, I didn’t even mention anything having to do with race or sex and their protected groups anywhere in the post. The only thing I could figure out is that I attacked feminists.

Somehow feminists, a political formation in the form of a hate movement against men, is somehow in the category of race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Obviously feminism is none of these things. The only thing I could figure out is that the mods on his sub are such faggots that they think attacking feminists is the same as attacking women.

Which brings me to another question. All liberal and left women  are feminists. 100%. No exceptions ever for any reason. And worse, close to 100% of liberal and Left men are utterly cucked male feminists. Face it boys, there’s nothing more pathetic than a male feminist. The only real men and real women are found on the Right, which is disgusting. If you’re on the left and you’re a real man, you will get tossed off just like that, with extreme prejudice too. They will order to go over to the conservatives.

Which makes me think: How many rightwing men are conservatives mostly because they are sick and tired of faggotized and pussified left and liberal politics? How many of them are Republicans because the Republican Party is the party of the real men? That’s a dumb reason to vote Republican (What have Republicans ever done for us men?) but most people vote based on the most retarded reasons imaginable that have little or nothing to do with their lives.

How many women have gone rightwing because they like to act feminine? They’re girly girls who love being girly, feminine, and womanish? I’ve talked to many women who told me that the main thing they hate about feminism is how much feminists hate femininity.

It’s true. Feminists do hate femininity.  Of course they do.
They’re dykes and manhaters or both, and they love nothing more than women with short hair wearing pants who are nearly indistinguishable from men. This is how women are supposed to look according to feminists. Like a goddamned butch bull dyke. I’m thinking maybe quite a few real women are voting right simply because they’re disgusted that leftwing women have turned into a bunch of man-hating dykes. They won’t throw you out of the left for being a feminine woman. But you better believe they will throw you out for not being a feminist.

By the way, what in the Hell’s the matter with straight men nowadays? I can’t believe how gay they are. If you’re going to be that gay, why don’t you just quit lying, move to Frisco, and stick a cock in your mouth? Are there any real men at all amongst these Millennials and Gen Z’ers? Almost all of them seem like complete faggots.

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

Alt Left: Sargon of Akkad Is a Reactionary

My comrades on the Alt Left told me that this guy was Alt Left. For years, my ideology had been compared by posters to Sargon of Akkad. I wasn’t sure if it were true enough. Supposedly a while back, he was more to the left on economics with the same conservative, anti-SJW cultural views, but by the time I checked him out, that was over. I had heard he was already making this change before then as people said he was turning Libertarian.

I went over to check him out and I was appalled at his commenters. I wasn’t sure about Sargon but all of his commenters were the usual “Don’t Tread on Me” reactionaries we are so familiar with here in the Benighted States. Ugh. Enough already. I deal with this ideology all day long every day. Can we get a rest from this crap, please?

My Alt Left comrade, Ryan England, told me that Sargon was actually somewhat left and was open to a safety net and national health care. Ok fine, why is he calling himself a Libertarian then? And as I studied him some more, it turned out that he was now openly calling himself a reactionary, natch. As is par for the boring old course, you know. So he came out of the closet. He’s probably been a hidden rightwinger all this time.

Sargon was conservative on culture and anti-SJW, so his economics, hazy at first, obviously went rightwing. As usual, the Law of Culture and Economics, that right and left on culture and economics must always align for no good reason at all, remains intact. Sargon thought he was a trailblazer. He’s just one more sucker, a clown, a sheep, following the crowd and doing what he’s told. Way to go, guy. Some iconoclast you are!

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

Alt Left: The Insipid Bond between Culture and Economics Is As Tight As Ever

As usual, the bond between culture and economics that we were so desperate to break here with the Alt Left remains confirmed.

Once you develop rightwing cultural views, soon you develop rightwing economic views. I have seen so many formerly liberals talk about how they went conservative. It usually starts with understandable disgust with the Cultural Left Freakshow. So they move right on culture. You would think they would stop there, but of course being sheep, they don’t.

They buy the whole rightwing package, economics especially but then usually everything else. It’s so tiresome. You spent all that time on the Left working for progressive, pro-worker economics and then just because you got disgusted with Destin is Amazing the 11 year old drag queen, you went full Ayn Rand. Way to go. You’re really using your brain. You shithead.

The problem here is that people think there are two ideologies, and you are either with one or the other:

The Right.

The Left.

And that’s it.

Disgusted with transsexual bathhouses for all ages, the latest outrage in the Cultural Left Freakshow, so you head on over to the Right to see what they have for sale.

If you align with them, they hand you a list of 500 positions and order you to check all of them or they throw you over to the Left. You check only 499 out of 500, and they call you a Communist and throw you over to the Left. Confused, you head over the Left.

“What are you doing here?” the liberals ask

You say: “Well. I thought I was a conservative, but the conservatives said I’m a Communist, so maybe I am. In any case, here I am, good sirs, and how may I be of service to you?”

“Well, let’s see if you fit the qualifications,” the libs say. “We have some pretty strict qualifications, you know. We cancel people all the time for forgetting to cross one liberal t or dot one liberal i. Then their lives are ruined forever LOL.”

The liberals laugh sadistically but self-righteously, seeing themselves pure as Jesus in an all-White robe.

You hand them the list. “They said I’m conservative on 499 things but liberal on one thing, so that makes me a Communist,” you say, confused.

The liberals look at the list and start screaming that you need to be canceled for being a Nazi. They call all their liberal goon private investigators around and order them to the dox you. You can’t run away fast enough.

You’re halfway through life right now, and it’s never been worse.

Politically, you were lost. Stumbling along a road in a darkened wood, you were tired that night and had lost your way, politically and geographically. In the morning, up ahead, where the valley sloped into another hill of life to climb, rays of the sun’s hope appeared. Perhaps there was a way free of this politics of confusion and folly after all. Your fear seemed to settle a bit.

You looked back at the pass of politics and all the people foolishly stranded there who would never make it through the pass to the least bit of enlightenment. They were as lost as you were, but yours was temporary, and theirs was for life.

Then one of the vicious creatures of our partisan politics appeared, frightening you. A wolf? A puma? It moved towards you, demanding that you take a side, any side. Terror filled your futile heart and you were driven back into the silent sun to the east, returning to the depths of politics of confusion from which you came.

What lies ahead?

Is it infernal Hades? Is it Paradise? A Seer to vigilantly show you the way to a politics of reason and logic?

Ahead, two roads of American politics diverged in the yellow forest. One went to the Right and one went the Left. You peered down each one, wanting to take the one less trodden by some  superstitious impulse. But the roads were blocked, the well-worn one and the little-used one both. Up ahead you saw people partying down each road, Right and Left, singing, dancing, fucking like no tomorrow, secure in their political homes. You stood there, abandoned, with not a friend in the world, lonely, homeless again, until…until forever. This was your destiny.

Such is the plight of the politically homeless. This is the fate of the Alt Left. Everywhere I go, I never see one Alt Left person. Everyone is either Left or Right. If they’re Left, they’re all the way to the Left, every punctuation mark perfectly placed. If they’re on the Right, they bought the whole package, checked every box on the form.

Every time I try to talk to them, I tell them about my politics, and the response is always, “Ok, so you’re a Martian” or “Sorry, you do not compute.” That’s when it’s not a blast from the liberals: “You are not on the Left! You are a moderate conservative!” or “Guess what? We don’t want you on the Left.  Go over there to the Nazis where you belong!” Then they ban me from whatever leftwing sub, bulletin board, or website I was destined to get banned from that day. I get banned from around one leftwing site a day. And I’m a Leftist! What the Hell.

What’s odd is the conservatives always take me in. They’re quite pleasant people, despite their awful politics and on Culture, sadly, nowadays they are more right than wrong. Many conservatives are also very smart. I’m not sure why that is but I like it. They are shockingly open-minded. And they’re tolerant! They listen to my story and accept me. “Well, you are sort of one of us, so have a seat. Can I get you a drink of anything?”  They say,  “You know, we could make alliance with a Leftie like you. In fact, we should.”

This is so horrible. All my life we on the Left have been the nice and kind ones, the educated and erudite, the open-minded and open to new ideas, and  of course the tolerant. We were proud of these things because conservatives were the opposite: Hostile, mean, stupid and ignorant, closed-minded and subject to prejudicial thinking, closed to anything but their own narrow, backwards ideology, and of course utterly intolerant, their worst tendency of all.

Good God can you see what has happened. We liberals have turned into the conservatives of old, the ones we hated so much. We now embody many of the psychological attributes we hated about them, that made them such monsters that we considered the essence of conservatism.  And those backwards hillbilly redneck conservatives with a blade of grass between their teeth have in turn embraced all of the psychological attributes that we prided ourselves and that we thought of as the essence of liberalism.

We turned into our worst enemies. And our enemies turned into our glorious beknighted selves of yesteryear, stealing our pride and putting its crown on their head. I don’t think anything  makes me more angry than that we turned into the  hated conservatives of old and  they turned into the beloved liberals of old. It makes me sad, angry, frustrated, hopeless, and mostly just utterly baffled. It’s horrible. We turned into the monsters that  we hated so much. Congratulations my fellow libs.

The best things in life are mixtures. You hardly see a recipe with a single ingredient. Too much of a single ingredient ruins the stew.

Pure lines tend to die out. Hybrid vigor, mixing a bit of the opposite in, increases health and vigor.

The sages all say that variety is the spice of life. It’s even coded into Nature, where opposites attract to balance each other out as Nature demands. Imbalance wrecks ecosystems, but only for awhile, until Nature balances the scale once again.

The way of the Dao says only, “Moderation in all things.” In your views, your tea, your work, your play, your everything, and your nothing. Excess kills. Judiciousness keeps us on two legs.

Some day, perhaps, the cancer of American ultra-partisan politics, one of the most insipid trends in recent US history, will slither away, having done its damage. It will leave us with the wreckage of the destruction and idiocy that it brought. But I am not optimistic. Partisan thinking after all is just more Black and Whiting, and Black and Whiting is just what folks do.

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

Alt Left: Communism/Socialism Isn’t the Cause of Latin America’s Problems; It’s the Solution

Transformer: Robert, I was arguing with this libertarian about the vicious cycle of inequality in Latin America and this was his response:

“Land monopoly is the core problem in Central America. Communism is the main reason the problem was not solved.”

I would like your response to his statement please. I personally disagree with his statement.

I think the reason the problem is not solved is because of a deeply poisonous rightwing reactionary elite as well as backward cultural traditions and attitudes that are obstacles to genuine land reform. Moreover, I think American foreign policy support for the rightwing oligarchy as well as the CIA aligning with these interest to overthrow democratic governments that try to correct the problem is a huge obstacle also.

Here.

I am not a supporter of Communism, and I think it is a far leftwing version of far rightwing libertarianism that you write about. Like you, I believe a free market economy with sensible regulations and a social safety net is the best solution. Pure capitalism and pure socialism are both two sides of the same coin.

My response: Sure, he’s wrong. That’s another one of their fake arguments. What the Hell is “land monopoly?” Your arguments of the cause of the problem are absolutely spot on perfect. That’s exactly the cause of all the mess right there in a small paragraph.

First of all, Communism barely exists in Latin America (only Cuba is Communist) so how in the Hell could it be the cause of all of the problems down there? This Libertarian is incoherent and dishonest, like all of them. He’s not only got the wrong cure, but like most rightwingers, he’s not even diagnosing the illness properly. All physicians know that without diagnosis there can be no treatment. As in medicine, so in political economy.

Communism especially of the Chinese variety would work very well down there. The Sandinistas, Evo Morales Movement Towards Socialism, Correa in Ecuador, the Worker’s Party (PT) government in Brazil, Father Aristide in Haiti, AMLO in Mexico, the FMLN government in El Salvador, the Kirchners in Argentina, and the priest who was running the Left government in Paraguay were all on the right track.

I also like very much what the Chavistas are doing in Venezuela. It’s not Communism at all. It’s something completely different, Socialism of the 21st Century. It also works very well when it’s not being sabotaged. Even with continuous coup-mongering and sabotage by the fascist opposition, the Chavistas had great success for many years.

Yes, it’s crashed now because the fascists and the US have really upped the ante. This time they think they can finally pull off the coup they have been trying to have for 18 years now. Yes, things are very bad in Venezuela now, and there are various reasons for that, but it’s not the model that is the problem. The model is the same as Chavez’ very successful one.

Not only that, but Maduro has gone much to the right of Chavez. He keeps caving in to the  fascists and putting in their proposals, but they keep trying  to overthrow him with a coup anyway. He’s being played. He needs to stop talking to the coupmongers. According to the insane law of cause and effect the right claims here, it must be the rightwing economic reforms Maduro has done that has crashed the economy. See how dumb it is to mess around with cause and effect. Just because to events parallel each other doesn’t mean they are causing each other.

The economy is crashing due to manipulation of the monetary system, some dumb mistakes by Maduro (not floating the currency), low oil prices, and lately US sanctions which are now nearly a blockade.

I also think the Cuban model has worked very well down there. The Sandinista model, to the right of both the Cuban and Venezuelan models, works extremely well. The instability recently was due to a violent coup attempt by the fascist opposition. Now they are under sanctions, so that might be hurting them too.

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

Your Personal Views on Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Etc. Do Not Necessarily Have Anything to Do with Your Politics

People compared me to this guy for years. He may have started out on the Left but like all such types, he drifted Right after a while. He’s now come out as a full-blown Libertarian. So he’s gone completely rightwing and his cultural views match up with his economic and cultural views, as they do in almost everyone in this retard country.

Sometimes I think I’m the only person in this damned country who is conservative on culture but liberal on economics and everything else. I’m on Reddit all the time, and I see people making political opinions all the time, and I’ve never seen one person like me. Ever. Sure Alt Left/Realist Left types line up with me, but where are they? They must be quite rare.

This is so sad.

If you are leftwing on culture, you generally but not always are leftwing on economics. There are a few odd Libertarians who are very leftwing on culture but rightwing on economics, but they are not common. Anyway they are basically conservatives. They despise the Left and liberals and always vote rightwing or Republican, no exceptions. So their left cultural views do not put them on the Left.

If you are rightwing on culture, you are always and automatically rightwing on economics and everything else in all cases.  The few that are not are Nazbols, Strasserites, and Third Positionists, and I am seriously turned off by all of those Right/Left mixed movements. Even if they are left on economics and everything else, if they have rightwing cultural views, they vote rightwing. Always. No exceptions. They all vote Republican.

I guess economics is just not all that important. It seems utterly asinine but apparently when the vast majority of Moronicans go into the voting booth, they vote on culture, not economics.

If they’re right on culture, they vote Republican.

If they’re Left on culture, they vote Democrat.

I can’t believe how dumb this is. Really? Really? Culture is really the most important thing in your silly little life? Oh you silly person. Mr. Marx would like a talk with you.

Culture is nothing, it’s crap, it’s bullshit. Ultimately it’s not even a politics. It’s more a matter of personal preference or even personality.

A White liberal Democratic man who votes straight Dem (preferably liberal), never votes Republican, supports (preferably liberal) Democratic candidates, and even contributes to (preferably liberal) Democratic campaigns and candidates is simply a liberal Democrat.

Period. That’s his politics. Your politics is who you vote for at the end of the day.  It’s how you devote your time politically by writing, contributing or working for candidates and causes.

Your goddamned personal views about culture don’t mean a hill of beans to anyone but you, your conscience, your pastor, and your God. They don’t necessarily have anything to do with your politics at all.

These are your personal views about social matters.

Now suppose the White liberal Democrat quoted above has some racist views, which, trust me, many liberal Democrats do. In particular they are racist in the SJW sense where every other particle on the universe is apparently racist or evidence of racism.

Hell, he could even be worse than that! I know a Centrist Democrat who is pretty damned racist. He routinely refers to most all Blacks as niggers and has a very low opinion of them,  He also dislikes Hispanics or Mexicans as he calls them. I’m not sure how he feels about Asians. He’s very pro-White, supports White Supremacist views and defends them.

Although if you Black folks met him, I’m sure he would be perfectly nice to you. Furthermore he is a brutally partisan Democrat who despises Republicans and votes straight Democrat. He often supports pro-Black political projects so as you can see, his personal racism doesn’t even extend to his political racism. This is the case with a lot of these people. The personal is not necessarily the political at all. That’s one fat lie.It’s an intellectual racism, not a personal one.

Our commenter from New York recently noted that most of the liberal Democrats in his building harbored out and out racist views, certainly in the SJW sense, mostly aversive racism, but still. This stuff is probably a lot more common than we think.

However it’s perfectly acceptable in the Democratic Party to be racist against Whites.

This White male Democrat may have some sexist views against women. He may even be a misogynist, especially in the insane feminist sense where any sane person can hardly help but not be a misogynist, especially if you believe in facts and truth. I know Centrist Democrats who are out and out misogynists and openly admit to being so. They also say that most men are misogynists. I’m not sure if he’s right or not. He has a girlfriend and he acts like a teddy bear around her, so this is an intellectual sexism or misogyny, not a personal one.

This same White liberal Democratic man have homophobic views. I know people who wouldn’t vote Republican if you paid them who definitely have what are considered to be homophobic views nowadays, which frankly is about half of life according to SJW’s. I know a liberal Democrat who quite regularly refers to gay men as fags and lesbians as dykes. I don’t think he hates them. He’s just a normal heterosexual man.

Most if not all straight men have a dim view of male homosexuality and most are literally homophobic in the sense of being completely phobic about the whole subject. What the Hell do you think keeps straight men from putting a cock in their mouth? It’s their homophobia, dammit. If not for that they’d probably do it. After all most men will fuck anything if you let them.

The degree of revulsion that straight men feel towards male homosexuality is off the charts. A recent study found that straight men showed more disgust towards photos of gay sex than towards actual maggots. Maggots. Gay sex is more disgusting than maggots. Think about that.

What I am saying is that the White liberal Democrat man italicized above is absolutely a liberal Democrat. After all, that’s his politics. Contrary to SJW clowns, your politics does not encompass every second of your life, especially your personal life. A lot of people live lives that are completely outside of politics. They may not even vote. If they don’t vote their politics are irrelevant. Who cares what they think about anything! It’s literally not important!

If this White liberal Democratic man has racist, sexist, misogynist, or homophobic views, that certainly doesn’t make him a conservative for God’s sake. He goes into the voting booth and votes straight Dem for Chrissake! Those are his personal, completely nonpolitical views. Now you may say that him having those views makes him a bad person. Perhaps it does. Maybe it doesn’t. It’s a matter of opinion. But even if he’s a bad person, he’s still a liberal Democrat, dammit. A lot of liberal Democrats are awful people. They’re human after all.

One might also see this as being instead of personal views as personality flaws. You might argue that a racist, sexist, misogynist, or homophobic person has a personality problem. They’ve got a lousy personality, a personality defect. Like being a bad person but not the same thing. They’re not healthy. They’re too full of hate to be healthy. Perhaps they don’t have a personality defect. Perhaps they’re not unhealthy. It’s a matter of opinion.

Your personality type or health or your personal views, moral or immoral, are not necessarily evidence that you are a liberal or conservative. The only way we can figure that out is by how you vote, etc. or which political candidates you support.

You support Democrats, you’re a liberal whether you pull the lever or not.

You support Republicans, you’re a conservative whether you vote or not.

Generally speaking your views on culture are your own views whether they are bigoted or not. They are only political if you politicize them by say voting for, contributing to and working for bigoted candidates. These would probably all be Republicans. If you vote like that, you’re a conservative.

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

Alt Left: The Relationship Between Alpha Males, Rightwing Politics, and Racism in the West

In the 1st World Western countries, Alpha Whites, Hispanics and East Asians are all right-wingers of some sort: Republic, Libertarian and weight-lifting racists.

Of course this is the case in the US. But is it the case anywhere else?

No, Alpha Whites in Europe are still very leftwing. Well, at least they are socialists. Hispanics in the West are liberal Democrats by 65%. Most are Alpha anyway as there are few Beta Hispanic males. The Alpha Hispanics tend to be the lighter skinned ones of the ones that fled leftwing countries in Latin America, which ends up being selection bias. And the Whiter an Hispanic man is, the less macho he is. Masculinity in Hispanic culture is associated with voting liberal Democrat, as with the Blacks. Even more importantly, many Hispanic small businessmen vote Republican, but they’re as Alpha as anyone else and they are not particularly White as one might assume.

Alpha male Asians in the West tend to be the older generation, and they tend increasingly to be more or less liberal Democrats of some sort or another. Like the Jews, their wealth does not seem to turn them rightwing for whatever reason, probably their innate collectivism which automatically works against an individualist economics. I don’t know much about young Asian Alpha males. Do they even exist lol? Chinese, Filipino, and SE Asian street toughs will vote liberal Democrat if they vote at all. I’m not aware of any segment of the Asian community that goes rightwing.

As far as racism goes, yes, Alpha Whites in the US tend to be racist but I’m not sure that’s true anywhere else so much. It might be true in the UK but those are working class British. There’s a racist hypermasculine reaction in Spain right now, but all the men are macho anyway. That movement is just the male reaction to feminism. There are few out racists in the rest of Western Europe. It’s a death sentence. In Italy the racists are in the north and the antiracists are in the South. But Nothern and Southern Italians are masculine but the Southern Italians tend to be moreso. In Eastern Europe and Russia, all the man are Alpha and they’re all racists too so there’s no distinction.

All Hispanics are more or less racist anyway, at least against Blacks, but the lower classes are more hypermasculine and are actually less racist against Blacks than the less masculine upper classes. And they’re all Alpha so there’s no Alpha/Beta distinction.

All Asians are racist, especially among Blacks. The older Asian men are more Alpha than the younger men, and yes they are more racist against Blacks.

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

Alt Left: The Fatal Flaws of Libertarianism

Rightwing Economics Can Only Go So Far before There’s a Left Reaction of Some Sort

We have Left revolutions constantly all over the world. Look at all the Left revolutions in Latin America recently. There were also quite a few in the Caribbean. There was recently one in Mexico.

All of these revolutions were precipitated by the Right being in power and pushing rightwing economics too far (the breaking point) which is what rightwingers always do. Sane people can only take so much rightwing economics, and as it gets more and more extreme, a typical Left reaction arises, getting more aggressive and even violent as the rightwing economics deepens. Marx laid this out exactly. It really is a law.

Libertarianism or Neoliberalism Always Only Benefits a Small Wealthy Minority, While the Poorer Majority Always Loses Money

People will just not tolerate rightwing economics very much. At some point it becomes so unfair and unequal that almost no one will put up with it. So Libertarians are pining for something that will never happen because frankly nobody wants it. Or better yet, no majority of any country will ever support. Libertarianism and any rightwing economics pushed too far automatically ends up benefiting only 20-33% of the population, while everyone else loses money.

The 1% Are Even Prepared to Screw the Upper Middle Class, Their Pets

In a lot of places, like in the US, everyone but the top 1% is losing money. I think all of the gains since 2008 have all gone to 1% of the population, and everyone else lost money. I remember Libertarian Dick Armey had a flat tax proposal. I assumed that the top 20% would benefit as is typical for Libertarianism, but I was stunned that only the top 1% would benefit according to his tax plan. So the rich will even sacrifice the upper middle class when it comes down to it. And why wouldn’t they? You think they have any more love for the upper middle class than for the rest of the lower classes?

Libertarianism Can Only Be Imposed and Sustained By Force, Hence a “Democratic Libertarianism” Cannot Exist and the Non-Aggression Principle is a Pipe-dream and a Lie

I can’t believe Libertarians even think this is sustainable. Obviously they see themselves as the 20-33% winners, but are they so dumb that they think they can pull the wool over the majority’s eyes and screw them economically and get away with it? Are they high? Can’t they see that this will never work? Can’t they figure out that, as Friedman said, neoliberalism (Libertarianism) can only be imposed by force and kept in power by a dictatorship, and therefore democratic Libertarianism based on the non-aggression principle is dead out the starting gate?

Libertarianism Is a Luxury That Can Only Be Afforded by the Rich

I guess greed blinds people. Libertarianism and neoliberalism are luxuries of the rich. Of course the rich, the upper middle classes, and the business classes support it.

The Business Class Is Always the Same, 550 Years Ago as Today

You can read texts from the Italian Renaissance by early capitalists in Italy in the 1500’s arguing the government is basically useless from the point of view of a businessman, and frankly the less government, the better. Here we are, 500-600 years later, and the business classes are saying the same thing. Plus ca change…

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

Alt Left: Where Rightwing Economics Pushes Too Far (Always), There Inevitably Arises A Left Revolutionary Backlash

Of course in a number of places like Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Honduras, Ecuador the revolution was overthrown by mostly illegal means, but the Left is still very powerful in all of these places and no one likes the new rulers. Everywhere in Latin America where the Right is in power, the people are wretched if not up in literal arms. Nobody wants rightwing governments down there anymore. As we have seen in recent years pace Milton Friedman, rightwing regimes in Latin America can only be imposed by force anymore. The people have been lied to too many times and no one believes the rightwingers anymore.

The places that didn’t have one like Colombia, Peru, and Chile either have an armed Left or mass riots.

They almost had one in the UK. They had one in Greece, but the Left sold out.

They had one recently in Indonesia, and there may be one in the process in the Philippines.

Thailand had an aborted revolution via the Red Shirts, but it was thwarted.

They had a revolution in Nepal, but it was thwarted by the state putting in fake Communists.

The rest of the world is already more or less socialist so there’s no need for a revolution!

The Arab World, Central Asia, Africa, and most of Europe are already socialist, so there’s nothing to change.

The “rightwing populist” leaders coming to power in Russia, Poland, and Hungary are all socialists! Over there even the Right are socialist.

Neoliberal rightwing economics is dead all over the world, though its corpse is stirring violently.

Rightwing economics is only in power in the Baltics, parts of Latin America (Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru), the Caribbean (Haiti and the Dominican Republic), and the Philippines. It is unpopular in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, and Honduras. Peru is more stable, but there are constant labor riots led by unions, and there remains an armed Left in the mountains. It is unpopular in Haiti and I don’t understand DR politics. Where the Left remains in power as in Venezuela and Nicaragua, it has 70-80% support.

Hong Kong and Singapore are the Libertarian showcases, but neither is sustainable because they cannot be replicated worldwide, as all of their wealth is dependent on massive exploitation of the poorer countries and even surrounding areas. Housing is completely unaffordable for workers in both places as in all Libertarian countries. And Hong Kong is undergoing a revolution from the Left, as it is going Communist.

India is going neoliberal but they are doing via religion, so the foolish Hindus have had the blinders put over their eyes and are supporting it like the superstitious pinheads they are. Meanwhile India remains a socialist country as stated in its own Constitution, and where that lie has become too obvious, there is a Maoist revolution in the hinterlands to set things right.

Singapore is not as Libertarian as it seems. The state owns all land and almost all of the housing is public housing. National health care exists but it is a very poor model. A pro-Chinese Communist Party leftwing opposition party with Marxist roots is very popular. So as we can see, even the showcases are undergoing revolutionary reactions. There’s really no way around this. As rightwing reaction grows extreme, and equal and  opposite leftwing reaction forms in opposition to it. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s social science, but it may as well be physics, n’est pas?

Can the whole world become Singapore and Hong Kong? Well, of course not. Singapore and Hong Kong are only rich because so much of the rest of the world is poor. The Third World makes $1/hour so the Singaporeans and Hong Kongers can drive BMW’s. Is this really so hard to figure out.

We can’t all be rich, you know? It would be like Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average. It’s like saying the whole world could become the British Empire. It’s not even possible. Or it would be like having footraces where everyone comes in tied and there are no winners or losers. How likely is that to happen? 0% likely. It’s not even statistically possible, so it fails even as a mathematical proof. Physics envy? Not so fast, now. The social sciences are not as soft as people think. Laws and theorems can exist outside of a math classroom.

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

Alt Left: Socialism, Communism and Neoliberalism in High and Low-IQ Societies

Clavdius Americanvs: I don’t believe socialism is necessarily better for low-IQ societies, but it definitely helps redistribute the misery so things are more bearable for the general populace.

Socialism and even Communism is always better for low-IQ countries. There’s not even any debate about it. I suppose you can say that neoliberalism functions somewhat in the West, but it doesn’t work at all in low-IQ countries. It’s just fails spectacularly, however, the top 20% of the population does make out well.

Clavdius Americanvs: I really don’t think socialism at the moment is a great idea for low-IQ countries. But it can arise if the ruling capitalist class is entrenched old money and not very permeable. Latin America used to have a race-based CASTE system for Christ’s sake! Entrenched old money isn’t really capitalist at all – it’s feudalism masquerading as a free market. I don’t believe Latin America is capable of anything else.

Well this is all neoliberal capitalism ever turns into – something that looks a lot like feudalism. Libertarians can’t figure out this law of capitalism and keep pining for this just and proper pure capitalism that never exists. Take the non-aggression principle. They can’t figure out that aggression is at the very heart of capitalism. No aggression, no capitalism.

Will capitalist countries ever allow socialist or communist countries to exist? Of course not. They try to overthrow them, often with violence, as soon as they show up. In the US, overthrowing socialist and even social democratic countries is a bipartisan affair, with even left Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders joining in with glee. Ocasio-Cortez is right. The Democratic Party is a center-right party and we don’t have a left party in the US. When was the last time? Henry Wallace? How did that work out? A party coup that put Truman in instead.

Clavdius Americanvs: I foresee any regime, even a socialist one, to eventually become feudal simply with a new ruling class not descended from the old one.

Probably not and it never happened in any Communist countries that I can think of. Many social democratic countries simply went corrupt and put the old ruling class in and continued calling themselves socialists. This happened in Venezuela, Peru, and Mexico.

Down in Latin America even the rightwing parties often call themselves socialists or have leftwing words like Labor, Liberal, Progressive, People’s, Popular, Workers, Revolutionary, etc. in their names because that’s often the only way to get elected. Rightwing parties down there even campaign on leftwing themes. All rightwing parties down there, even the death squad parties, campaign on helping the poor and alleviating poverty. Of course they never do it, but they have to say it or they won’t have a chance.

Clavdius Americanvs: The only hope is a secular rise in IQ for the countries so they can all produce more under capitalism.

I don’t think that will work either. The highest IQ countries are either Communist or “National Socialist” as in South Korea and Japan. I’m not sure what Taiwan is. Hong Kong is about ready to go Communist. Vietnam is Communist. All of Europe is nominally socialist or social democratic. It doesn’t look like even high-IQ countries want neoliberalism. Now if you talk about a market instead of “capitalism,” we can talk. After all, I am a socialist and I support a market myself.

Clavdius Americanvs: Afterwards, they can go the European route and turn into social democracies when they can afford it.

No one goes this route anymore – capitalism -> social democracy. Obviously the US is headed that way and Europe formerly did, as did Indonesia, with the Philippines heading that way slowly. And almost all poor countries nowadays are socialist or social democracies in name if not in form. No poor country wants to start out capitalist anymore. Neoliberalism is a luxury good, only affordable by the rich.

Clavdius Americanvs: Only with higher average IQ’s can entrenched ruling classes be otherthrown.

What happened in Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos, Cambodia, Eritrea, South Yemen, and Cuba?

Clavdius Americanvs: A population needs to be smart enough to produce and become aware of its social contract with the government. I doubt most leftwing participants in Latin America or any low IQ country really understand what they are signing up for in terms of a social contract.

Of course they do. Why do you think they all vote for the Left. Even at this late date, 70% of Venezuelans say they are Chavistas. They can see with their very own eyes what they got with Chavismo. They’re not dumb. Same thing in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas have 70-80% support. Lavalas in Haiti won with 92% of the vote.

Clavdius Americanvs: Low-IQ peasants just don’t want to starve or be beaten by armed thugs of their aristocratic overlords. They are somewhat aware of what they can get, but have no clue as to what they are giving up.

What they are giving up never worked for them anyway and probably never will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Behaviorally Alpha Societies Tend to Be Socialist and Good for Workers, the Poor and Men in General

Transformer: Do you think Southern Euro behavior Alphas are not such great societies for working poor people like in Latin America, do you agree? I think that Paternalism and Authoritarianism is a big reason why there is such political instability and economic inequality in Latin America.

https://www.aei.org/articles/from-popular-sovereignty-to-the-reality-of-state-paternalism/

https://www.amazon.com/Authoritarian-Regimes-Latin-America-Dictators/dp/0742537390

https://items.ssrc.org/from-our-archives/industrialization-and-authoritarianism-in-latin-america/

In Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa, and even traditional Southeast Asian and Asian cultures, there are not a lot of problems for working poor people. Al of these societies are very much pro-worker, pro-poor,

Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and North Africa: All of these societies are collectivist, not individualist, and they are very pro-worker, pro-poor, pro-common man populist. In addition, almost all societies over there are socialist in name or in deed.

Feudalism was always an uncomfortable fit in the Arab World and it took a lot of mangling of Islam to try to justify it. As soon as the Arab World went free, it all went socialist right away. Despite tremendous efforts by Western neoliberal dipshits to try to shove neoliberalism down Arab throats, it refuses to take hold. Almost no one wants it. The fact that neoliberalism is grotesquely anti-Islamic is probably the main reason. Furthermore, neoliberalism is very hard to impose on a collectivist culture, though it is possible as in Latin America and the Philippines.

Men in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand are traditionally very Alpha. Most of Southeast Asia has been socialist for 50 years now. Radical capitalism was an aberration for SE Asia because all of SE Asia has always been a very collectivist culture. Check out Fire in the Lake by Frances Fitzgerald about how the collectivist nature of Vietnamese society made the Viet Cong almost impossible to defeat.

Very unequal Thailand is a recent aberration but it’s been run by military rule and juntas for most of recent history. Communist guerrillas were extremely succesful in Thailand during the Vietnam War. The Pentagon said there were just a few guerrillas but people who went over there to study them found that they were everywhere, especially in the North.

For some reason they faded away but recently class war has returned to Thailand with a vengeance with the wars between Yellow Shirts (rightwing middle class) and red shirts (workers). Of course the Yellow Shirts are winning because the army supports them, but still, rightwing individualist economics is an aberration in collectivist Thailand.

In China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia the men seem to be quite Alpha. The Philippines and Indonesia have retained Latin America-style systems with extreme inequality and authoritarianism

Japan and Korea were probably barely feudal. Obviously they were never individualist and even their capitalism is very collectivist and uses a lot of state involvement in the economy all the way down to actual planning of the economy.

China was under rightwing economics (feudalism) for much of its history. Communism was an easy sell in China because it was always an extremely collectivist culture.

In addition, capitalism never took hold, as feudalism was the only form of rightwing economics the Chinese knew. The feudalism was so bad that many to most Chinese peasants were effectively slaves and quite a few actually were slaves. 88% of Chinese young people say they are Marxists. 87% of Chinese support the Communist Party. That’s because the CPP is a natural fit for Chinese collectivism.

The Philippines was a colony forever, and after independence, somehow feudalism developed. The Philippines is a collectivist culture that has developed a very Latin American-style economic system probably due to being colonized by Spaniards. Everywhere the Spanish colonized, they wrecked. However, they have also had armed Communist rebellions almost non-stop from 1945-on. The most recent president, Duterte, says he is a socialist.

Indonesia was another country that went hard rightwing, in this case classical fascist, after independence, however not before murdering 1 million Communists as the Communists were the most popular movement in the country. Obviously Communism hasn’t been popular since and in fact it is illegal to have that political opinion. However, the last couple of presidents did refer to themselves as social democrats.

Both the Philippines and Indonesia are horribly class-cucked. In addition, both are subject to a reactionary merchant ruling class in the form of overseas Chinese, a feudal-type people who retained the pre-Communist feudal culture of China when they left long ago. Not having been subject to a revolution, they are a feudal type ruling class that mirrors the Latin American ruling class in many ways.

Feudalism can absolutely arise in a collectivist culture whereas US style rightwing individualist neoliberal economics has a difficult time getting a foothold.

So societies where all the man are Alphas are often very good for poor and working class men and I would argue that they are good for men period for obvious reasons.

I think that Paternalism and Authoritarianism is a big reason why there is such political instability and economic inequality in Latin America.

Why would societies where all men are Alphas end up paternalistic? Why would authoritarian societies be bad for poor and working class people and for men? Southern and Eastern Europe have traditions of authoritarianism and very pro-worker populist governments.

North Africa and the Middle East is still very authoritarian, and it is very good for poor and working class people and for men. Russia is somewhat authoritarian and has been authoritarian for much of its history. For the last hundred years, Russian society has been very good for poor and working class people and for men. All of these places have traditions of relatively equal societies and strong redistributionist economics.

Paternalistic governments help their people. Rightwing governments in Latin America tend to be anything but paternalistic.

It is true that some societies where most men are Alphas have evolved a rightwing authoritarian, often semi-feudal system, however, many other such societies have not done so. Societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha oddly enough seem to be collectivist societies (someone explain this to me). But the rightwing authoritarian societies where most men are behaviorally Alpha actually look more feudal than US-style neoliberal, although they sometimes preach the latter.

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

Alt Left: US-Style Individualistic (Laissez Faire Neoliberal or Neoclassical) Economics Tends to Fail Most Everywhere Outside the US Because Everyone Hates It

The only country in Latin America where an actual US-style neoliberal system took hold along with the typical class-cucked citizenry that goes along with it is Chile, and the neoliberalism had to be put in at gunpoint by a vicious dictatorship that murdered 15,000 Chileans after a CIA coup overthrew the Democratically elected Marxist government of Salvador Allende.

Neoliberal scholars such as Milton Friedman said that neoliberalism in these places would always have to be enforced at gunpoint by a rightwing dictatorship because otherwise a majority would never vote for it. The admission that a majority would never vote for such a system ought to be a profound tell – how good could this system be if no majority in these parts of the world would ever vote for it?

After Pinochet left, the neoliberal culture continued, but really it only infected the upper 1/3 of the population who benefited from Pinochetism, while the lower 2/3 hated it.

Chile to this day remains one of the most unequal countries on Earth with class conflict and hatred so thick that it breaks out into street violence all the time. In recent months the country has been shaken by leftwing insurrectionist riots against the rightwing government, a logical outcome, but it was already like this somewhat for 30 years after Pinochet left. Chile is a place like the Philippines where the classes hate each other so much that they pretty much want each other dead, literally. The class hate is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Neoliberalism also caught on somewhat in the UK under Thatcher and later Conservative governments, probably the closest to a US rightwing style government on Earth. Even long after Thatcher left, she caused such cultural change that the top 1/3 of the population went over to neoliberalism.

The bottom 2/3 of course did not (see Chile above – a 1/3 benefit, 2/3 are harmed equation is typical of neoliberalism), and Thatcher was burned in effigy amidst violent riots in the poorer urban areas when she died.

Thatcher was also an extreme anti-environmentalist, and it is not yet known if the Earth accepted or rejected her body when it was placed inside of its body. One wondered the same thing about Reagan, the vicious anti-environmentalist. When he died, I wondered, “Will the Earth even accept his body when it is interred?”

Neoliberalism caught on in Ireland, where it did the usual damage. It’s not known why the population opted for this.

It caught on in the Baltics because they hate Russia and Communism so much that they are almost psychotic. Of course, like all such people, the Baltics tend to be quite fascist. In an extreme reaction against anything slightly smelling of Communism, including the mildest forms of socialism, the Baltics went to extreme neoliberalism in a knee-jerk, unthinking way.

The more neoliberal a country was the more it got ruined by the 2008 economic crash (and the more socialist it was – like China – the more it was protected), and the Baltics were devastated by the crash. Latvia was hit worst of all. 1/3 of the population fled its ruined economy, including almost all of the educated and skilled classes. Latvia remains in neoliberal ruins to this day.

Russia went neoliberal under Yeltsin, who opened fire on the nation’s Parliament when it defied him, murdering 600 people, including many legislators. In 1996, the Communist Party actually won the election, but Yeltsin stole it with the help of the US and suitcases literally packed with cash.

Russia was stripped bare and sold for 10 cents on the dollar to the worst capitalists, mostly of a (((certain type))) with the help of bankers in Germany and in the the US, where a (((certain type of people))) also delighted in the looting of their ancient enemy (see (((Jeffrey Sachs))) and (((the Chicago Boys))), back for another round after the Chile debacle), 15 million people died premature deaths. and the nation’s paternity stolen by a (((venal capitalist ruling class))) that was indistinguishable from (((Organized Crime))).

The huge reaction against the neoliberal rape of the land was the main thing that brought the nationalist Putin into power to try to repair the damage and heal the rape victim.

Neoliberalism has been imposed in Europe and many other parts of the world via austerity via bankers and the IMF and the World Bank, but austerity was hated everywhere it was put in – in Europe, Latin America, the Arab World, and even in Africa – and it caused mass riots and even the overthrow of quite a few governments everywhere it was imposed. It was the violent reaction to this austerity that directly led to the Pink Tide in Latin America that US bipartisan foreign policy has now rolled back.

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

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