Race and Politics in America: What Whites Say on the Internet

In the previous post, we noted that contrary to both the White Nationalists and the Abagond Sphere, Whites do not appear to discuss race very much, at least here in California. They are neither the PC Critical Race Theory bogeyman types of the White Nationalists, nor are they the all-encompassing racists that Black paranoia says they are. Instead, California Whites regard race as a toxic subject to be generally avoided. If poked or provoked, which I love to do, you can sometimes get them to say a thing or two. Usually they do so in carefully chosen language designed to appear as non-inflammatory as possible. However, on the Internet, it is another story altogether. See here for instance. One wonders what exactly is going on. Is it possible that White society is so tightly policed in meatspace that they don’t dare breach the Race Barrier, yet on the Net these same repressed folks feel the freedom to let the racist dam burst so to speak, and say what they really feel? Perhaps this is what is going on. One thing is quite clear in my observations on the Net over several years reading intensively about race, including comments on my site. In US Whites, comments displaying negative feelings towards non-Whites in the US are almost always a marker of conservatism. If you Google “liberal racism,” you will see a great deal of nonsense about how liberals, presumably White liberals, are actually racist people. Coming from rightwingers, this is so ridiculous as to be patently nonsensical. It actually smacks of projection. US White liberals display very low levels of racism towards non-Whites, if they display any at all. In fact, refusal to criticize non-Whites is an excellent marker of liberalism/Leftism in US Whites. I don’t believe that all conservatives are racists, at least on a personal level. I’ve seen too many who seem to lack any interpersonal racism. Yet it seems that almost all, if not all, racists are conservatives. So not all White conservatives are racists, but all White racists are conservatives. This seems to be a good golden rule. Another thing we can note. Almost all White racists hate socialism and Communism. These same folks often say that Blacks and Hispanics are natural socialists or Communists. White racism is also very closely associated with fiscal conservatism. Not many US Blacks or Hispanics are fiscal conservatives and small government enthusiasts. These two things are well-connected. Socialism and Communism in the US means productive, hard-working Whites get taxed to pay welfare money to lazy, leeching, criminal Blacks and Hispanics. It’s not socialism, it’s racial wealth transfer. We can see that the entire White Nationalist Sphere opposed Obama’s health care plan. White racist sites like Niggermania and Chimpout, which I read sometimes, were also dead set opposed to the health care plan. These racists often explicitly stated that it was a transfer of White money to Blacks and Browns. Never mind that a lot of Whites might need health care too. The strong suggestion here is that many white conservatives are voting Republican at least partly on a racial or even racist basis. That’s so clear as to beyond all doubt. This state of affairs is preposterous. Why would any White person vote rightwing just to “stick it to the niggers and the Mexicans.” What for? What possible benefit could construe for the White person. I’m a socialist. When I go into the voting booth, I vote for what’s good for me and mine. Mostly what’s good for me! Why should I care about race in the voting booth. I vote for A, B or C. What do I care how A, B or C feels about Whites, Blacks or Hispanics? What possible relevance could those positions of theirs have to do with my life anyway? The traditional Marxist position is that economics is everything and race is not important. I could not agree more.

"If Not For Israel, We Would Never Have Invaded Iraq"

So says Bay Area Guy in the comments section. I don’t believe it. Angela on the other hand, disputes that the Israelis were involved at all.

Me: They pushed for this war from day one, and then after we blew the whistle on them, they said the war wasn’t good for Israel after all. Typical Jewish double-talk, lying, sophistry, sociopathic realpolitik crap.Angela: Who is the “we” that blew the whistle and when did they do it?

Well, the Jew-wise folks had been saying this all along, but there was a lot of resistance to that kind of talk. I remember my father got furious when my brother and I tried to imply that Thomas Friedman was stirring up a war with Iraq on Israel’s behalf, which he was, and which so many Jews in the US and the media were also doing loudly and persuasively. After the war, there started to be a lot of talk about PNAC, JINSA and the rest of the clowns, including this wonderful document. Of course, Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, the Wurmsers, and many others were involved in this conspiracy. Karen Kwiatkowski was there and laid out all the dirt. The Israeli defense officials coming to the Pentagon to meet with their Jewish buddies at the Pentagon, where they were whisked past all security, told not to sign, and in, and hustled off to secret rooms. Israel was behind the sausage factory cooking up a lot of the fake intel about Saddam’s WMD’s too. It’s just that I think that the Israelis and their frankly Jewish agents in the US were not so slick as to push George Bush into attacking Iraq solely on the behest of the Israelis. Bush and US imperialism had their own reasons for wanting to get Saddam. It’s just that the interests of the Israelis and their US dual loyalists buddies in the US along with US imperialism tended to coincide in this case. The US and Israel both wanted Saddam gone. I suppose the Israeli push was an extra added factor, but Bush was going to war anyway. The notion that if not for Israel, we would not have gone into Iraq, as BAG said, is ridiculous. US imperialism has a very serious project in the Middle East, mostly centered around control of the oil fields. All of those oil fields are supposed to be in the hands of US friendly regimes supplied by US arms  often housing US bases. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US in that region, bad news. We wanted him gone so we could plant bases all over the country like we’ve done in the rest of the region. That’s now a done deal. The US Embassy in Iraq is the largest embassy in the world. We didn’t build that embassy for the Israelis.

Race and Politics in America: What Whites Say in Meatspace

After living in US society for a while, you get kind of an idea about race and politics among US Whites. But it’s only an idea, because contrary to the nuts in the Abagond Sphere, Whites, at least here in California, really don’t talk about race that much. Conservative Whites, liberal Whites, no Whites here have much to say about race. The topic is for all intents and purposes taboo. This suggests right away that two polar opposite views are seriously incorrect: The Abagond Sphere holds that US White society is a horrifically racist place. US Whites have a severe level of racism towards Blacks and possibly other non-Whites. The result of this apparently is serious damage to the psyches of US Blacks, at the very least. Further to the Left, the White Left in the US holds that all of the various discrepancies of US Blacks, overrepresentation of negatives, underrepresentation of positives, can only be due to White racism. White racism must be a pretty vicious tornado of an entity to cause such serious damage to Black society. This view is so strange that it almost seems a caricature, but White Left colleagues have told me this right to my face, so I know that they think like this. Since viciously racist Whites talk about race all the time and US Whites don’t do that, we must reject the Abagond Sphere view of US Whites, at least in California. The other view is that of the White Nationalist or White racist Right. This view holds that US Whites, especially the liberals, are a bunch of Tim Wise PC clones. That’s not really the case. I can almost count on my fingers the number of PC Whites who have lectured me on race. White people, outside of Tim Wise speeches, just don’t talk like this. At least the ones I meet don’t. This is a fantasy. Since one almost never hears a White person sounding like a PC Tim Wise clone, we must reject this view of US Whites. So if California Whites are neither PC nuts nor vicious bigots on the subject of race, what is their opinion on race? Around these parts, from the Left to the Right, race is simply not discussed. Whites either associate with other races or they do not. If they don’t, they don’t make many racist comments. If they do, you don’t hear them complaining a lot about their non-White associates. There are a few overtly racist Whites here and there, mostly in White towns, but they are not common. If you get to know them well, some Whites will let loose some racist talk. One friend told me, “I think Blacks are savages.” I asked how much experience he had had with Blacks. Some, he had lived with a Black man back in the hippie days. “But he was kind of a savage too,” he allowed. Whites, Left to Right, don’t discuss illegal immigration much either. Maybe if you pry, you might get a word or two, but once again, we are into the Taboo Zone. I told Abagond himself this once, but he almost did not believe it. It clashed with his view of White society as a viciously racist place, so he rejected my view out of hand.

Blacks Support the Tea Party?

No way is this true. Forget it. I think it may have had to do with the wording. Sure, 1/3 of likely Black voters would possibly vote for a Tea Party-backed candidate. However, in the reality-based community (real world) Blacks vote about 9 How many Whites would possibly vote for a Tea Party candidate? Probably over 5 But how many agree with the principles of the Tea Party Movement? 2 Yet 1/3 of Blacks are Tea Party supporters. Yeah right. The poll was done by Pajamas Media. Pajamas Media is a hard rightwing aggregation of blogs following basically the line of the US Republican Party. An entire channel of Pajamas Media TV is set aside for the Tea Party Channel. They’re the ones who conducted this poll. LOL.

Conservatives Promote Stupidity, How and Why

In the comments, Matt astutely notes about Republicans’ willful promotion of stupidity:

Rob, You may remember how conservatives at one time were writing all those books about how l “liberal” education policies were making American children stoopid (Closing of the American Mind, Don’t Know Much About…, Cultural Literacy). Whether their idea of the causation was correct or not, they were right; Americans are stoopid. But you’ll notice they’ve mostly shut up about it. They must have figured out that the poorly educated and the willfully ignorant were their base.

Good point Matt. Of course that’s their base. Sure, a lot of people who vote Democrat aren’t very smart, but that’s just the way they are, and nothing can be done about it. Anyway, the Democratic Party in general is not hostile to science and does not promote complete and utter stupidity, except when they parrot GOP ideas and concepts. What’s funny is that I’m sure the guys running the GOP are very smart people. No doubt they are often very intellectual guys. But they willfully peddle Stupid Juice by tankload to the masses, and they know full well what they are doing. It’s disgusting, but there’s a method to their madness. If they could get people to vote rightwing by peddling intelligence, I’m sure they would do that instead. What’s disturbing is that conservatives have always promoted ignorance and stupidity everywhere they’ve been in power and at all times. The priests of the Middle Ages would not let the Bible be translated, because they didn’t want their flocks to learn to read. The Taliban burn down girls’ schools. The Nazis burned books. When Fujimori seized power in Peru, he shut down most of the nation’s universities as hotbeds of subversion. The army raided the universities, ransakcked them, tore them to pieces, raided libraries and destroyed all the books, on and on. The universities were later reopened, and students shuffled back to campus, appalled at their trashed schools. Funding for the universities was gutted, and the books in the libraries were never replaced. Curiously, Peruvian polls consistently show that a majority of Peruvians support Fujimori, so I guess Peruvians are even more retarded than Americans. At least we don’t send in the army to tear down UCLA and burn all the books in the library while the population cheers. Not yet anyway. I guess that’s in the future. A similar thing happened in El Salvador under rightwing rule. The universities were shuttered as hotbeds of subversion. Under Pinochet in Chile, funding for the public schools was gutted, and your average Chilean public school now is literally falling apart. The wealthy send their kids to public schools, so they don’t care. Not quite pro-stupidity, more like “we don’t want the masses educated.” The same happened in Argentina, where funding for the public schools was incredibly transferred to private schools, leaving the public schools tottering and and decrepit. This is essentially what the Right in the US wants to do with their vouchers scheme. The ruling elites have always feared that an educated population would figure out the rich people’s scam and cut off some of the loot or transfer some to themselves, so conservatives everywhere and at all times have attacked the education of the masses. The motto of conservatives is that the dumber the people are, the easier they will be for us to manipulate. I am ashamed to admit that the worst Communists who ever lived, the Khmer Rogue, deliberately targeted any urban person with an education. They often signaled out those who worse glasses for execution. One wonders how much the national IQ went down during Khmer Rogue rule. Mao executed intellectual dissidents during the 100 Flowers Campaign. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao shuttered universities and sent students to the work the fields with the peasants. The argument was that intellectual students were a privileged elite. Stalin’s purges in the 1930’s disproportionately targeted the intellectual leadership of various ethnicities who he distrusted. Otherwise, Communists have been some of the most pro-educational governments in the history of man, but we do have some shameful backsliding. Any time your government is mass imprisoning and/or executing the intellectuals of society, it seems to me that the state is engaging in some pretty retarded behavior. Here’s a plan! Let’s put all the smart people in prison! Better yet, let’s kill all the smart people! Duh. No better way to run your society into the ground.

Conservative Math: Liberals = Nigger Lovers = Queers

Repost from the old site. I’m convinced that many young, mostly but not exclusively, working class White males actually vote Republican because to vote Democrat is to be a faggot or a nigger-lover, or both. Decades of living with these clowns has taught me that this is how they think. In the comments section, huy, a Leftish Brit, is stunned by the weirdness and stupidity of American conservatism, and really White American society as a whole:

I’m still amazed by the American right wing.According to them: Liberal = sexually liberal = faggot. Liberal = left wing = socialist = Commie. Thus Commie = faggot. Rich Texan Oil tycoons who wear cowboy hats and drive SUV’s and only date blond women and drink Jack Daniels, or violent redneck skinheads on crystal meth or Harley Davidson gun loving biker gang members are the only real men in America. The more individualist and selfish you are, the more manly you are. In Europe, it’s the homosexual men that are most individualist with their fancy clothes etc.

Interesting stuff. I have noticed that the Democrats = liberals = socialists = Communists = fags thing is worst of all with the White racists, I mean White nationalists, excuse me! This seems to be a standard line of their discourse. Not only are we queer because we are liberal – Democrat – socialist – Communists, but there is something uniquely faggoty, unmanly and queerish about a White man being a nigger-lover. After all, that is the White racists’ one and only beef against the Left. We support their racial enemies (anyone not White) and we supposedly oppose White folks. The image they have constructed is of an ubermasculine White man as super-racist. If you’re White and you’re not a racist, you’re not much of a White man, therefore not much of a man. It’s a most interesting construction, and I wish more people wrote about it. It’s a bit beyond me why the pinnacle of masculinity is to be a racist shit, and why the commanding heights of faggotry are reached by loving humanity before one’s tribe, but I’m trying to get my mind around it.

On Teachers' Tenure

David, a progressive guy, objects to tenure for teachers:

I dunno man, as much as I hate to death scumbag union busters on nearly all fronts, I personally have some pretty deep union-busting tendencies when it comes to teachers’ unions. I tend to be of the higher pay, higher benefits, but less job security (or rather, merit-tied job security) viewpoint as far as teachers are concerned, sort of like the most recent union-negotiated contract in DC, where the teacher’s were given 2

I am neutral on tenure. It is true that theoretically it gives you freedom to screw off as a teacher and get away with it. I hardly saw any cases myself, though I think I did see one case I described earlier. My feeling is that if you got tenure and were not cutting it, the administrators would make your life incredibly miserable. I mean incredibly miserable! Maybe they could not fire you, but they could make you want to quit. Or maybe want to die. But I never had a tenure contract, so I don’t know. Admins and White parents were constantly breathing down my neck, and it was just pressure cooker all the time to keep doing a great job and not screw up. Of course I could have been canned for any reason. But it’s not like they let us get away with murder. Hardly! You must understand that since the Reagan Revolution Against Public Schools, schools are under incredible pressure to perform. There’s no space left for teachers who are screwing off or not cutting it, and AFAICT, they hardly exist anyway. The whole reason tenure was put in was so they could not fire you for political reasons, which they used to do all the time in the past. I never had tenure, and rightwing White kids and some idiot nationalist Blacks were always trying to get me in trouble over something I said. You simply cannot have any progressive opinions as a teacher in White schools. But there are all these older White male teachers who are very rightwing and indoctrinate their kids constantly. Our teachers indoctrinated us with rightwing crap in my all-White high school. You can say anything rightwing you want, and no one will complain, but anything progressive and the little shits will go running home to their rightwing parents and try to get you in trouble. First thing the parents will be on the phone to the principal complaining about the “Commie teacher” or whatever. Stuff I said was not even controversial. I did say that you should be able to burn an American flag, though I said I would never burn one myself. The little rightwing White scums ran to the principal, lied and told him I said, “People should burn the American flag.” The principal came running to my room between classes and nearly tried to fire me on the spot until I told him what I actually said. One time I said that Blacks have it tough in our society, I feel sorry for them and it must be hard to be Black in America. Some Abagond type Black radical scum brat ran to the Black Vice Principal and tried to bust me. The Veep called me in and I said that was a racist comment, that I was pitying Blacks and that was an insult. With a lot of these Blacks, there is simply no way to get along with them!

Reactionary Scum Lie About US Public Schools

Which is why all of the screaming about failing schools is retarded and frankly just reactionary propaganda.

So that school that you taught at in LA was not a failing school…? They exist certainly…but there is a great deal of propaganda being thrown around.

Those schools (there were more than one) were failing because they were full of low-class ghetto Blacks! How are are you “failing schools” guys going to fix that problem? Send em back to Africa?

The schools are failing due to lousy fucking kids! It’s not our fault! It’s not the teachers’ fault. It’s not the administrators’ fault. It’s the kids’ fault. They act horrible and refuse to learn. There’s nothing wrong with the school itself. The problem is the students.

I taught in schools all over LA and I’m not sure if I ever saw one school where the teachers or administrators were screwing up. I saw possibly one teacher who may have been incompetent. He was Black and possibly an alcoholic. I think he mostly showed movies most of the time. I met another one who was an alcoholic too (she drank in class) but somehow she was still able to do her job quite well.

Almost all teachers were very hard-working and competent, although at some schools, you wonder why they even try, since the students mostly just sit there and absolutely refuse to do any work whatsoever. The administrators are riding on your ass constantly and in the White areas the horrible parents are on your ass all the time. In the White areas, it’s actually worse, since the horrible kids are actually trying to get the teachers in trouble or fired much of the time!

The reactionary scum look at this and say the school is failing. It’s the school’s fault, it’s the teachers’ fault, it’s the administrators’ fault. All lies! The kids are scumbags, and they destroy the schools and refuse to learn. In the ghetto, the schools do seem to be underfunded. They are falling apart, books are old and falling apart, etc.

The kids have destroyed the schools. With the assistance of their parents, I might add.

The reactionary scum look at underfunded schools and say they are failing. Of course. They are broke! Their solution? Cut off the money!

The reactionary maggots in the US (almost all White) have always hated public eduction. They hate the schools, and they especially hate the teachers. White America has always hated schoolteachers. One reason they hate them is due to their unions. It’s one of the last effective unions around in this country, which is why the White rightwing dogs are always frothing about them.

Now think of what a US conservative really is, and tell me he’s not a scumbag.

He hates public eduction. The truth even worse: he wants to destroy it. That’s what all this “vouchers” and “charter schools” BS nonsense is all about. It’s a plot to destroy the public schools and especially to destroy the teachers unions. The Right has always hated public education in the US. Study the huge fight we liberals had to wage to get public education in the first place in this country back in the 1830’s. The Right wanted all education in the US to be private forever. They’ve never changed. They hated the schools in 1835, and they hate the schools in 2010.

He hates teachers! Wow. That’s breathtaking. White America has always hated schoolteachers. The White middle class considers teacher to be a loser profession. Teachers don’t get a lot of respect. You get way more respect in the Hispanic community as a teacher. The more money a White makes, the more scorn he has for teachers. Businessmen especially hate teachers because many of the older ones hate education and are just all about money and “I never went to college!” bragging.

A lot of the hatred for the schools has come about since the Civil Rights Era. White Americans see their White taxes going for schools for the “niggers and beaners.” They hate that. So they want to destroy the schools, or at least not have their White money going for non-White schools.

Don’t forget that America is a profoundly anti-intellectual country. Recent Hispanic immigrants have far more respect for education and an educated American than a typical ignorant White American.

Keep in mind that before 1960, the dropout rate was extremely high, especially in rural areas. Black schools had extremely high dropout rates. So did Hispanics. Many more Blacks and Hispanics graduate from high school now than in the past. When my grandfather graduated from high school in 1908, he had to take Greek, Latin and other high-end courses. You shake your head. How things have been dumbed down! Not so. When he graduated, only

Schools were forcibly integrated in 1965, and a major push was made to keep all kids in school through 12th grade. As before, many can’t hack it, but they graduate anyway. The ones who are terming out now in many cases would have long ago dropped out in the past. They are not very smart, barely smart enough to graduate from the 12th grade. All of these kids are taking the tests now and sure scores are dropping and popular articles about how dumb students are proliferate. Many of these students who can barely graduate high school have bought the line that everyone needs to go to college. These kids are taking SAT’s now and the scores are dropping. What do you expect?

In the last 50 years, the

Tests show that the average 18 year old has better verbal and math skills, and has greater knowledge, than an 18 year old 50 years ago. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, rightwingers.

Recessions Are Getting Worse and Worse

As you can see, recessions are getting worse and worse in the US in recent years.

This is why voters are getting angrier and angrier. But they are venting all of their rage in a rightwing direction. That’s not going to help the matter. Republicans never help grow jobs. They could care less about jobs. Who cares about jobs?

Jobs means labor. Labor is the enemy of capital. Capital and labor battle it out to divide up the spoils of profits. The objective of capital is to give as little of the profits to labor as possible. That means hiring the fewest workers that they can possibly get away with, paying them the lowest wages they can get away with, giving them the worst possible benefits that they an get away with.

So the fewer workers the better, all other things being equal. Capital is always trying to eliminate jobs via mechanization, overwork, forced overtime, etc. Any way that capital can figure out to eliminate a job, they will do it. Why then should we expect capital to give two flying fucks about about how many people are working? Who cares!

As long as profits are going great, capital doesn’t care if the unemployment rate is

When the unemployment rate goes up, the stock market tends to rise. When unemployment starts dropping below a certain point, the stock market starts dropping and you see all sorts of weird articles in the business press talking about how unemployment has gotten too low. They start demanding that the Fed raise interest rates to drive up unemployment. A few weeks later, Alan Greenspan does just that. The corporate media, from “left” to “right,” raises a gigantic cheer.

The recessions are getting worse because Project Middle Class Death is working quite well.

This project formerly had Alan Greenspan at its helm. Greenspan was in charge of a ruling class project initiated in the 1970’s that was intended to reduce the wages and wealth of the US middle class by 1/3. This project had the total support of both political parties, “left” Democrats and “right” Republicans, along with the entire “left to right” spectrum of the corporate media. When it comes to class politics in the US, true liberals are rare to nonexistent.

Even the Democratic Party is sworn to neoclassical economics that only benefits the top 2

Wages have been flat since 1980 or possibly as far back as 1973. The gap between the rich and upper middle class has skyrocketed. Bottom line is that business is bad, and we are in a recession due to lack of consumer demand. Neoliberal voodoo doodoo economic hokus pokus won’t get us out of this mess.

Giving businesses and the rich more tax breaks won’t create more customers in the stores. As if businesses are not hiring more workers due to their tax burden! This is why Obama’s latest neoliberal stimulus proposal is so flawed. The centerpiece is yet more supply side tax cuts and tax breaks for US business. I can assure you that that won’t create a single job.

US businesses are sitting on a mountain of cash. They don’t even know what to do with it. Profits are going like gangbusters. If I run a business and have no customers, I have a problem. If at that same business, you give me a tax break, I now have more money. But so what? I still have no customers. Why should I hire even one more worker as long as we don’t have any more business? I run a business, not a government make-work project.

All of the supply-side neoliberal gimmickry on Earth will not stimulate demand and create more customers. As the customer base declines, the risk of deflation unfolds.

Since Republicans have nothing to offer the economy but neoclassical and neoliberal supply side tax cuts and tax breaks for the rich and business along with huge cuts in government spending, this cannot possibly help the economy. Not in any possible world can it help the economy. Not in the best of all possible Milton Friedman Fantasy Worlds can it help any possible economy.

This is where Keynesianism steps in. The only actor that can stimulate demand in such a case is government. The credit markets are dried up, and the banks have not been loaning much to business for 30 years now. There’s no money in it. The money is in doubling down at the Casino in the Sky at the latest Derivatives Magic Show table. If the banks aren’t putting money into the private sector, and business doesn’t want to borrow anyway (no customers, remember?), once again, Keynesianism tells us, it’s time for Government Man to come to the rescue.

Neoliberalism a la Milton Friedman has never been proven to work anywhere. In fact, everywhere it has been tried, it has failed. Its theories about monopolies have been proven to be incorrect.

In Latin America, it failed for last 20-30 years, such that most Latin Americans want to chuck it. Even establishment hacks at Time Magazine admit it failed in Latin America. It was tried in nearly pure form in Chile at the start of the Pinochet regime, and it so badly ruined the economy that Pinochet threw all of his Chicago boys out and went back to socialism of a sort.

In Russia, it allowed a bunch of international Jews to strip the country, its assets and its wealth blind, creating a huge number of millionaires and killing millions of Russians by reducing life expectancy. A good analysis of neoliberalism shows that it reliably ruins a country’s education and results in large declines in many health figures such as infant mortality and life expectancy. In other words, neoliberalism kills.

But neoliberalism isn’t designed to fix economies, save lives or send folks to school. The neoliberal project is one of income transfer. It involves a massive income transfer from the bottom 8

Neoliberalism also regularly blows up economies. That’s a feature, not a bug. It’s supposed to do that. It’s called boom and bust.

A Theory About the Self-Sabotage of Working Whites

From commenter Patrick:

Basically the stupidity of whites all comes down to the way race has historically played out in America. Most nations have always been very class conscious where in America people have been so race conscious that even though they are victims of class warfare they don’t identify with their class.Working class whites identify with their white oppressors more than they do with non-white peoples in their own class.

And also the white working class never aligns itself with working class movements because they don’t want to be associated with being black… they want to retain their whiteness. And in America we have a biracial system where even if you have a drop of black blood you are black…and that principle applies to class.

A working class white can have whiteness as long as he or she never aligns him or herself with working class interests because the second he or she does that they will seem colored and hence black. IN fact the white working class actively sabotages their own class interests.

There is definitely a relation between the one drop rule and the self destructive class oriented behavior of the working class white. In Latin America there is no one drop rule and they accept that there is a racial spectrum.

This is sort of a Critical Race Theory type argument a la Noel Ignatiev and Tim Wise, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact, I think he is onto something.

I am going to consider anyone who works for someone else to be a working person in this analysis. This lets us include all the idiot white collar types who insist that they are not workers or working class people because they wear a suit and a tie and sit at a desk in an office.

Since they are not workers or working class people, white collar workers, whatever their salaries, tend to vote rightwing. They also generally do not have a union in back of them. In fact, they hate unions and unionized workers because these bourgeois office collar types think they are superior to them. Workers are dirty, grubby, dumb, and drink beer and watch football. They wear overalls and work boots and carry lunch pails.

Another problem is that most Whites don’t identify as working class or working people. Instead, they say they are middle class. Middle class means you’re not a worker. It means you’re something better, a bourgeois person who does not have to grovel with his hands. In the parts of California that I have lived in, Whites who call themselves middle class vote overwhelmingly Republican. I would even say that White middle class = Republican. This doesn’t make much sense in a class sense, as in Europe, middle class Whites usually vote for socialist parties.

I think Patrick is onto something. In the towns I have lived in, if you’re White and you aren’t a conservative Republican, there is something terribly wrong with you. First of all, there is a lot of social pressure to be just that. If you’re White, you’re a conservative Republican. Especially if you’re a man.

Why would any White man vote Democrat? Maybe if he’s a fag, a pussy or a loser. Voting Republican is an expression of masculinity in these parts. The Democratic Party is the party of the fags and the women. It’s worse if you’re working class. In the places I lived, all young working class men were conservatives and almost all voted Republican.

If you voted Democrat, there was something wrong with you. If people found out about it, you were somewhat ostracized. Even if they did hang around with you, they would tear into you from time to time. Conservatives here really do think that liberals are evil, and we are the enemy.

They hate us way more than we hate them – we don’t really hate conservatives here – if we did, we wouldn’t be able to hang around with any White people or date any White women. The only way a liberal can survive in White California is by adopting a “so what” attitude towards everyone’s conservative politics.

A friend of mine worked construction. All of the young men working there were conservative Republicans. Upon finding out he was a Democrat, they were outraged. “But you’re White!” they said. He was told this on a number of other occasions by other White Republicans in the area.

If you’re a young White man in these places, you’re a Republican. If you’re not, you’re basically a nigger or a Mexican. If you’re White and you vote Democrat, you’re a white person who is acting like a nigger or a Mexican. You’re almost denied Whiteness, as Patrick suggests. So one way to affirm your Whiteness in these places is by voting Republican and adopting conservatism. Conservatism, in these parts of California, is frankly, up the Whites and fuck the niggers and Mexicans. No one ever says it that way, but a cursory look around makes it quite clear.

Liberal Race Realism: Clearing Up a Few Things

Liberal Race Realism is very much misunderstood. See the first word there? It’s liberal. We have conservatives, reactionaries, fascists, racists and White nationalists constantly trying to get us on board their ships. We’re never getting a boarding pass. Never! Ever! We will never join you!

You know why? Because we are liberals, with a capital L. Liberals don’t do conservatism, reaction, fascism, racist hate, or White Supremacism/White nationalism.

Here is the conundrum for Left-liberalism:

Just supposing that there are differences between the races that are not caused by oppression, racism, etc. This is painfully obvious to anyone who will look. The Left refuses to look, because the reality of the whole mess is bad for the Left. So we say it doesn’t exist, unscientifically. We wish the reality away.

The question of my site is, given that these differences exist, how do we build a Left response, Left theory and Left project that takes this stuff into account? The Left can respond to any reality, any truth, that exists on this Earth. If it’s fact, we can deal with it and work it into our theory somewhat. By running away from these facts, the Left says that these facts are incompatible with Left theory and practice.

Reactionary race realists (most race realists are reactionaries) are already gleefully predicting that the facts of race realism, when they become too obvious to be denied and are widely believed by the population, are going to spell the death of the Left and liberalism for the foreseeable future. Why? Because the facts of race realism tear asunder every presumption of Left theory and practice, I suppose, namely, that we all have equal abilities and temperaments.

Let’s take this one horrible step further. Let us suppose that race realism means that there are genetic differences between the races that societal intervention cannot alleviate.

That means that Blacks will always have lower intelligence than European Whites, no matter what. This means effectively that Blacks will always have, under the present capitalist regime, lower educational outcomes, lower occupational status, lower incomes, poorer housing and neighborhoods, poorer health care outcomes, less wealth accumulation, etc. than Whites, much of this deriving directly from lower intelligence.

As lower intelligence leads to lesser educational attainment, so it leads to less success in the work arena. Lower income and wealth accumulation follows from this, as does poorer housing and neighborhoods and poorer health outcomes, since we must pay for health care in capitalist America.

Ok, so how do we deal with this reality on Left? What do we do, given these facts, if they are facts?

Because the typical response to saying that Black intelligence will be lower than White intelligence for the forseeable future, with all the negativity to follow, is to move to the Right, specifically towards reaction. Most everyone who explicitly adopts this POV is White, and sooner or later they become reactionaries. Usually they start calling for dismantling civil rights protections. Often they go further into advocating a return to segregation or explicit White nationalism/White separatism. They typically become some sort of Libertarians and advocate ending all social spending.

It’s possible that they take this extreme stance because only in the arena of reactionary thought are views about race realism allowed to flourish.

Why can’t Left-liberalism incorporate these facts into its theory and practice?

People are people, no matter what. A human being is a human being, no matter their IQ.

We educate everyone here in America. No one ever said the purpose of education was to raise people’s IQ’s, and anyway, the evidence from the 3rd World is that education does in fact raise IQ via the Flynn Effect. The purpose of education need not be to remove all racial gaps in IQ and achievement, and if they are genetically mediated, which is possible, then the effort will fail anyway.

Surely a Black person with an 85 IQ benefits a lot more from a 12 years of K-12 education than if they received none at all, correct? Are the reactionaries so insane as to believe that all education is wasted on anyone with an 85 IQ? What about White people with 85 IQ’s (1

If someone is born with lower intelligence, why must this person suffer in poverty their whole life because of what God ordained? Why must they live in inferior housing and an inferior neighborhood over something that’s not their fault? Why should they have poorer health outcomes and less ability to go to the doctor simply because of how they were born? Because this is where the reactionary race realist argument leads to.

Let’s try something else.

Suppose Blacks had the same abilities as Whites, genetically. All of the problems, including low IQ, were simply due the fact that they are fucking up, often on purpose. If this were true, and strangely enough, this sort of follows from liberal beliefs about genes and environment, I would argue for a harsh response to Blacks. Not necessarily cutting them off altogether, but I would certainly be a bit less likely to help them.

But there’s no evidence that that is true.

If Blacks do have low IQ due to things they cannot control, then, as a socialist, I would argue that there is no reason that the higher IQ group ought to obtain dramatically higher income, wealth, housing, living spaces and health than the lower one.

As much as possible, socialists should try to attempt to more equalize incomes, housing, living spaces and health care access for both groups, the higher IQ and the lower.

It’s not going to be possible to equalize educational access, since that would require fudging the test scores, dumbing down the curriculum, or marking up Black scores due to their being Black and marking down White scores due to their being White.

Wealth will be hard to equalize due to the variable of spending and saving.

Why should Whites be allowed to become dramatically richer, healthier, better housed, and live in better places than Blacks, simply because of how the genetic dice got rolled?

Answer: They have no such right. If both groups were equal, and Whites got that way by simply trying harder, then we could make the argument that the White position is just.

Why should Blacks be forced to become dramatically poorer, less healthy, worse housed, and live in worse places than Whites, simply because of how they were born, a variable that they had no control over whatsoever?

Answer: This is not right. It is not just. They should not be forced into these outcomes, and that they are is an outrageous injustice.

If you look at the bolded statements above, you can see that far from being a reactionary or racist movement, Liberal Race Realism is actually progressive, even very progressive.

The Jew Beats the White Man with the Nigger Stick

This is the anti-Semitic lie, common among White racists and especially White nationalists, that Bay Area Guy is promoting in the comments section.

I’m quite sure that’s it’s a bunch of lies.

The line goes like this: Jews promoted civil rights for Blacks for the reason of dividing the White race, unseating them from power and taking the White Gentiles’ place as the head of the US elite.

Bullshit.

We must remember that deep into the 1950’s and even the 1960’s there was institutionalized discrimination against Jews in many places in the US. Many hotels did not let Jews stay there. There were signs in parks and on beaches saying No Jews or Dogs Allowed.

The Jews probably promoted civil rights not just for Blacks but for themselves. The Civil Rights Act banned most overt and de jure discrimination, not just against Blacks, but against anyone. Surely Jews benefited from this. Jews had been very active in the US Communist movement for a long time. The Communists had long pushed civil rights before anyone else did as a way to get the Blacks to support Communism. Also the USSR was promoting the notion that the capitalist West, led by the US, was racist and therefore evil. It was a propaganda war.

Jews always oppose any racism in the White Christian Diaspora. Racism there is bad for the Jews, since such racism usually targets Jews at some point or another. Many of the Jews involved in the civil rights movement were young idealistic Jews in college or fresh out of college. Hardly conniving political operatives.

Sure, Jews were the first to move out of the neighborhood when the Blacks moved in, as Malcolm X states. In some cases, it was surely true. Most sane people don’t want to live with a bunch of Blacks. Hell, even sane Blacks don’t want to live with a bunch of Blacks. Sane Africans don’t want to live in Africa. As soon as they get some money, they scoot off the to West.

But Malcolm’s accusation is not true in many cases.

In many places, especially large cities back East where there were large numbers of Jews such as Detroit and New York, Jews stayed in their neighborhoods while large numbers of Blacks moved in. The Blacks caused the usual crime and trouble they usually do in large numbers, and many Jews were victimized. In particular, many older Jews kept living in these neighborhoods, and they were hammered hard by Black criminals.

The upshot was an increase in racism among Jews from these cities as into the 1970’s. This is the rift that Cornel West confronts in his lecture series, Jews and Blacks, Let the Healing Begin. John Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine wrote a famous essay along the same lines, My Negro Problem and Ours, which is frankly one of the canonical works of early Liberal Race Realism, though no one called it that yet. This rift is also what helped create the neoconservatives.

The worst racists I knew in the 1970’s were Jews who had come from Detroit and New York. They had a shocking vicious and visceral hatred for Blacks that was the worst I had ever seen in anyone.

BAG’s theory is just wrong. More White nationalist bullshit and lies.

The Enemies of the Jews Lie Too

Sure, Jews lie like rugs, but so do their enemies! In fact, anti-Semites are in many ways like the mirror images of the Jews that they hate so much. Anti-Semites, like Jews, have gotten the lying thing down pat.

Anti-Semitism is a tough one. At base, many of the charges have a ring or bit of truth to them, but then the anti-Semites drag the charges out so ridiculously that most of the charges end up being baldfaced lies.

Jews poisoning wells? Lie. Jewish ritual murder? There were a few cases, but it’s not nearly the problem the anti-Semites say it was. Jewish religion? Mostly hyperbolic lies about the Synagogue of Satan. Protocols? Lies cooked up by the Czar.

Jews making matzo out of Christian children’s blood? Don’t think so. Jews controlling the banks? Not anymore. Nazi accusations against Jews? Mostly lies. The Jews stabbed us in the back? Don’t think so. Communism is a Jewish plot to take over Europe and the world? Nah. Capitalism is Jewish? Come on. Jews are behind feminism, gay rights, porn and promiscuity as plot to destroy White families? Give it up. Jews are behind the drug trade? Please. Jews manufactured the made-up story of the Holohoax, faking 6 million of their deaths in the greatest disappearing act since Houdini. You’re kidding.

Israel wants to conquer the Euphrates to the Nile? Not really. Neoconservatism, PC, and Critical Race Theory are all Jewish? Not anymore. Jews promoted civil rights to divide and conquer the Gentile Whites? Dubious. Jews ran the slave trade? Huh? Jews plot to destroy the White race? Get real. Jews are behind mass non-White immigration and illegal immigration? Get out. The USSR was a Jewish state? Tell us now. The Jews caused the financial collapse and are laughing all the way to the bank? Nope.

4,000 Jews stayed home from the World Trade Center that day? Yeah, that why 1

Jews say the Kol Nidre once a year, which enables them to lie for a whole year and get off scot free? Come off it. Jews are an organized crime gang? Well, not most of them anyway. Zionism was a European plot to divide the Muslim and Arab World and thereby control it? Dubious. Jews ladled the ruinous reparations on Germany at Versailles. Doubtful. Jews are genetically evil? Yeah, that’s why their street crime rate is so low. Jewish women are sluts and whores? Uh huh, that’s why they are the latest to lose their virginity in the US.

Jews are hideously ugly? Nah, a lot of the women are hot. Jews control the media? Not all of it. Jews run Hollywood? Same thing. Jews run Wall Street? Don’t think so, I bet there are more Greeks and Italians than Jews anymore.

What’s hilarious is that one of their biggest accusations against Jews is that they lie like rugs. Maybe so, but you anti-Semites don’t. Look in the mirror, Judeophobes.

Jews Lie Like Rugs

Well, sort of.

I think most of our Jewish commenters on here are pretty honest – David, Mike Levine, Mort Goldman, Olive. Am I leaving anyone out? Hehe.

But yeah, Jews are liars, as a race. Or as a religion. Lie, prevaricate, engage in sophistry, on and on. Especially when it comes to issues of the tribe. They lie to protect the Jews. A lot of Jews are pretty honest. The ones on this blog seem pretty straight up. But they are more the assimilated types. The more Jewish you are, the more you lie. There is a book by Samuel Roth called Jews Must Live! written in 1936. He describes how Orthodox Jews lie so much to each other growing up in their families that it almost drives them all nuts.

That said, the Jews I knew and who were close to my family were pretty honest people.

But you look around at the biggest, most expert liars in our society all over the political spectrum and lo and behold, you see a bunch of snarky lying Jews. Everywhere you look.

I used to spend a lot of time with them on Usenet. Before I went on there, I was an idiot Judeophile who believed that all anti-Semitic stereotypes were “lies.” This is actually one of the biggest Jewish lies of them all. After a few months, every day I would almost fall out of my chair for hours on end. Here were scores of Jews prancing across my screen all day long living out just about every nasty anti-Semitic stereotype known to man! Damn! The anti-Semitic stereotypes were right after all!

One of the things I figured out after a while is that Jews are simply the finest liars on the planet. It’s not necessarily that they lie more than another ethnic groups. Hell, everyone lies, especially nationalists, capitalists and elites. But Jews are the finest liars that ever lived! They take it to a fuckin’ art form! No wonder so many of them are lawyers.

One reason the Israelis do so well in the propaganda war is that the Arabs are such shitty liars. Arabs lie at least as much as Jews, Hell, probably even more. All Arabia is based on ethnocentric dishonesty. But no one believes the Arabs when they lie. They couldn’t fool a horse! But the Israelis have engaged in some superb lying, some of the finest on Earth. They even have a name for it – Hasbara.

One of the things that enraged me so much when I got involved in Middle East stuff in 2001 was that I finally figured out that I had been lied to by my whole society (really the Jews) about the ME for 43 years. I had never even heard the other side of the story. That pissed me off so much I almost saw red.

Though I must admit that these rightwingers lately are really giving the Jews a run for their money. The Rush Limbaugh – Glen Beck – Bill O’Reilly – Fox News – Republican Party – Tea Party Crowd has taken the usual lying of the elites to new heights. My conclusion is that this crowd of rightwingers, basically the neocons, are essentially Jewish people. They are Judaized Gentiles, infected with the Jewish spirit. That’s why they fuckin’ lie so much.

The rich always lie. So do nationalists, so do states, so do elites, so do capitalists.

But Jews have actually staged coups that took over entire academic fields and replaced them with Jew-friendly lies, or just out and out lies. The Frankfurt School’s insurgency against various disciplines, the Boasian takeover of anthropology, the neoconservative insurgency in political science and the Friedmanite guerrilla war against economics all come to mind. It takes a lot of skill to pull that off.

Evil, Satanic Jews Are Sexual Degenerates

So say the White nationalists and anti-Semites at Occidental Observer. Actually, as a libertine, this is a very good reason to like Jews, although the high rate of sex trafficking in Israel is downright sickening. I’ve heard that the authorities don’t do much about it either. This article puts to rest one anti-Semitic lie: the Jews don’t traffic or pimp out their own women. They only traffic and pimp out nice Gentile girls. Not true, they’ve been sex trafficking and pimping their own women since time immemorial.

Of one thing we can be reasonably certain: any society that attracts large numbers of Jews can expect within a few years to enter a spiral of decadence. Moral anarchy sets in. Sexual promiscuity throws open its Pandora’s box of evils. We saw it in Weimar Germany. We see it gathering pace in America today. We see it above all in Israel, a society of fanatical settlers and rabid right-wing rabbis: a country surely doomed to implode from within, sooner or later, under the pressure of its own moral and military excesses.

Interesting comment, if it’s true. I keep telling you all that anti-Semitism is basically rightwing, and there’s not much there for the Left or liberals. Which is why we Lefties are not too anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism is conservative to reactionary crap. There’s nothing here for us. This is one more example: Conservative (Christian/White) hatred of the Jew as destroyer of morals and purveyor of licentiousness and filth. Translated as destroyer of upstanding moral Christian societies. Now used somewhat to say corrupters of Muslim societies.

Hey Idiots

There are lots of idiots who read this site. I understand that millions of idiots who would otherwise vote Democrat are going to vote Republican this year due to the bad economy. This implies that these fuckheads think that the Republicans have a plan to fix the economy when the Democrats don’t.

A few things.

The economy is bad all over the world. Is it the fault of every country on Earth in a Depression that their government caused it or won’t  get them out of it? Elaborate.

For you who are going to vote rightwing, produce some evidence that the neoliberal, rightwing countries in the world have less of a Depression or are climbing out of it sooner. Produce evidence that the leftwing countries in the world had a worse Depression or are mired in it longer.

Please demonstrate how Obama either caused this Depression or how his policies deepened it or are keeping us from climbing out of it.

Since you idiots are going to vote Republican to fix the economy that the Dems can’t fix, demonstrate how Republican proposals, as opposed to Democratic ones, are going to lift us out of this Depression.

Specifically, please show how Republican proposals to roll back health care and financial reform, to gut government spending to cut the deficit, to end or limit unemployment benefits and food stamps, to dramatically increase the foreclosure rate by refusing help under the water homeowners, to cut corporate taxes and taxes on rich people, to institute anti-labor policies, to gut social spending, to promote the offshoring of jobs, to refuse to prosecute businesses for hiring illegals, to allow the banks to run wild again, to promote class war and transfer of wealth from the lower, working and middle classes up to the upper middle and upper classes and corporations, to gut environmental regulations, to loosen regulations on business, etc. are going to fix the economy.

Thanks!

By the way, good luck!

Wink.

Transcript of My Latest Interview on Voice of Reason Radio

This runs pretty long – it runs to 48 pages on the Net – so be forewarned. In case you didn’t listen to it, here it is. The audio is here, with some comments, mostly silly as usual.

Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing something a little bit different. The topic tonight is The War on Men. Robert, I’ve just got to say that you’ve gotten a lot of slack for some of your views on this show.

Robert Lindsay: That’s true. I’m going a little easy on the Jews I guess.

Robert Stark: Kevin MacDonald uses the term, “a hostile elite” to refer to the elite, and he’s talking about the Jews, but you could say that the whole elite in general is dangerous when it has no loyalty to the nation-state whatsoever.

Robert Lindsay: The multinational corporations – and these White people in America, they love these corporations so much – they are a hostile elite. The elite is not just the Jews in America, it’s these hundreds of millions of very wealthy people – of rich people – all over the world. They are hostile not just to Americans but they’re hostile to their own people. They’re only out for themselves, and they’re sending the whole world down the tubes really.

You see, every one of them will sell out their own country. The elite of India will sell out India. The elite of Pakistan will sell out Pakistan. They will all sell their own countries down the tubes.

Robert Stark: I don’t think the elite in Israel has really sold out their country. That would be the one exception.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are patriotic in a sense I suppose. But what these elites will do is they will ruin their countries’ economies in the name of getting richer. They don’t care about their own country’s economy.

Robert Stark: The people who call themselves patriots, they often defend these sorts of people.

Robert Lindsay: The patriots, you mean the Tea Party types?

Robert Stark: Yes.

Robert Lindsay: The Tea Parties are simply an arm of the corporations. The Tea Partiers really are rootless cosmopolitans. They’re effectively all “Jews” if you want to put it that way. They’re a Judaized people; they’re infected with the Jewish spirit.

Robert Stark: Yes, Sarah Palin, she made some comments that she considered herself to be a Jew, and she has an Israeli flag in her office, and she’s the leader of the Tea Party movement.

Robert Lindsay: Sarah Palin is a Jew! All the Tea Partiers are Jews! And they’re also shilling for the multinational corporations too, so if you think about it, the Tea Parties are just the forward movement of these multinationals. They’re like the army of the multinationals, and they’re also shilling for the elite. They’re like this Brownshirt White army for the richest people in America, and I just fail to see how that’s a progressive working class movement in any way, shape or form, forget it.

Robert Stark: Yes, it’s definitely been co-opted. But let’s move on to our issue for tonight, the War on Men. So can you introduce us to our topic and talk about how feminism has really changed our society? You support equity feminism, but you are critical of the movement in a lot of other ways. You are saying that it has really destroyed marriage.

Robert Lindsay: It has in a way because we used to have mandatory marriage in America, and in most societies have mandatory marriage or especially mandatory early marriage. And what happens with mandatory early marriage is that just about everyone gets married in their early 20’s or so, and that takes care of the sexual problem. Here in the US, everyone got married, everyone. And then, in marriage, apparently, there was sex, I guess, or there was or there wasn’t – many women didn’t like it that much, but back then, I think they just put up with it.

And back then, most men got plenty of sex in marriage, or at any rate, there wasn’t a big issue about guys being sexually frustrated. You’ve got the Alphas, that’s like 1

Robert Stark: Yes, it was sort of like sexual socialism. You can talk about wealth, but when it comes to the mating market, it’s a zero-sum game, because there is one person of the opposite sex for every person of the other sex, and with marriage, you can distribute that evenly.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly. It is sexual socialism. There’s also a group called the Omegas. There are the Betas, who are like 7

Robert Stark: So they would marry a woman in their own league.

Robert Lindsay: Right.

Robert Stark: What’s happening now is that with the destruction of marriage, we are reverting back to caveman times when we had more of a polygamous society. The idea is that women are hypergamous, and they go for men who are above their status. Whereas biologically, women can only have a limited number of children, men can impregnate large numbers of women, so men want to impregnate as many women as possible.

I think in the past before feminism, women were not allowed to work. Women do have an advantage over men in the mating market. So in a society where men controlled the wealth, that sort of evened things out because women were dependent on men for money. Now, middle and upper class women have good jobs, and lower class women are taken care of by the welfare state, so they don’t really need men anymore. So we are reverting back to this really primitive system.

Robert Lindsay: If you study primitive agricultural societies in Africa and New Guinea, what you find is polygamous societies. You find the head man thing. African Blacks evolved in this polygamous society. There’s a Head Man and maybe his buddies – they get all the women. And then, a whole lot of the rest of the guys, apparently, they don’t get any. So with the African Blacks, they’ve evolved for 9,000 years with these Head Man type guys impregnating all the women, and so Blacks have gotten bigger and stronger, with high testosterone, etc.

Robert Stark: That’s probably a factor in why there is so much crime and violence in their societies because if they can’t have a woman and reproduce, they have no incentive to contribute anything to society, so they all just become criminals, and that’s probably why there is such a high rate of sex crime in Africa.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not sure if the setup is like that anymore, with the Head Man thing, but the thing is they’ve evolved this big huge super-athletic bodies over time because it’s only been the most macho, masculine, roughest, toughest and most high testosterone man has been impregnating most of the women for like 9,000 years and so what we’ve ended up with is that Blacks have high testosterone, they’re really big, strong and aggressive because they’re all descended for 9,000 years from the biggest, baddest, roughest, toughest guy around.

Robert Stark: One of the main problems in the Black community, what happened was, in the past, even though they were poor, there was some level of decency because there was an incentive for Black men to go out and get a job in order to get a woman, recently what happened was the Great Society came in with the welfare state, and Black women were dependent on the government, so there was no incentive for the men to be decent.

And then their culture glorifies being a thug and a criminal. It’s seen a lot with rap culture, but it goes back a lot further than that. Well, the women favor the men who are criminals. So the whole system is subsidizing criminal behavior, and there’s no incentive to be decent anymore if you want to get a mate.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m a liberal, so I don’t agree with that analysis of the Great Society. I think the Great Society was a great thing. Furthermore, welfare was put in by FDR in the mid-30’s – AFDC. So we had welfare all through the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and early 1960’s, and hardly anyone was on it because everybody had a job.

But it looks like what happened was the jobs all took off in the industrial areas of the North. All those Blacks had moved up to there to those cities, and then the factories started shutting down, and then the Blacks were out of work, and apparently the women started going on welfare. Welfare has always been there.

Robert Stark: You’re right that the best manufacturing jobs have all gone overseas. Then you have the sexual revolution, and men were lied to, like Playboy Magazine sold that idea to men that the sexual revolution would benefit them, but that turned out to be a total lie. You were at your prime during that era back in the 1970’s. Can you go over some of the trends that you saw and what it was like back then?

Robert Lindsay: Back then, that was the sexual revolution that we were growing up with, and there weren’t many sexual diseases. I think Herpes wasn’t really around that much. The worst STD seemed to be crabs. I never knew anyone who was catching anything other than that one. A lot of people were having a lot of sex. I went to a White high school, and all the girls were on the pill, every single one of them. Not one White girl at my school had a baby.

There were pregnancies – one of my girlfriends got pregnant, but it wasn’t me. It was some other guy. They would automatically have an abortion. Back then there was not much controversy about abortion, and the anti-abortion people were not around so much like they are now. If girls were pregnant, they automatically got an abortion, no ifs ands or buts about it.

We had a White society there and a White point of view, and where I was growing up, for a White high school girl to have a kid out of wedlock, that was like the lowest, worst, most disgusting thing you could possibly do. You were thought to be acting like a Black or a Mexican, and you just weren’t supposed to do that. So we had no girls with babies at my high school. There was a lot of screwing around back then, it’s true. This was the hippie era, and it was free love. I suppose there were guys that didn’t have a lot of fun, but I did.

Robert Stark: But you see the destruction of marriage as a negative trend?

Robert Lindsay: It has been, because that whole hippie free love thing seems to have gone out, and now, it’s been replaced by a sort of a consumerist sexual culture, and women have reverted back to Cavewoman tendencies. Now that we’ve gotten rid of marriage, and women can survive on their own, women don’t need men anymore. See, back in the old days, women needed men to survive.

So a woman would hook up with a guy, and the guy would support her, and she’d have kids by the guy. The truth is, she stuck around with him for the support. And in return for the support, she gave him sex. It was a trade-off. The guy was satisfied. He was getting the sex, love and companionship of marriage, and the woman was also satisfied, she was getting support and then the love and companionship of marriage.

And now, women can have sex, have babies and raise children. That’s what the single Mom’s are all about. They don’t need men to support them anymore, so they’re simply not marrying.

And so what you have is we are reverting back to Cavewoman times. In Cavewoman times, the Alphas get all the women. It was Head Man times, just like in Africa and New Guinea. The Alphas are 1

He’s The Man With the Golden Sperm. He’s the guy with the best genes. See, women think biologically. At a very subconscious level, they all want the guy who has the best genes. They all want to have his baby, to have his kid and pass on his superior genes. Even if they are on the birth control pill, and they are not going to be having any babies, they are still thinking that way.

I mean, I knew guys in junior college…my idol in junior college, he would have say 3 or 4 dates in a day. He would have a morning date, then an afternoon date, then an evening date, then at midnight, he would climb into some girl’s window at her parent’s house. And he would have sex with all of them. And this was how he lived. And every girl and woman wanted this guy. They were basically lining up outside of his door, and it was like take a number. They would have sex with him, and they would walk out of the door with a big smile on their face, and they were quite satisfied.

He used to live on the beach in the summer, and those guys would go through like 3 different girls or women every single day. They would have a keg of beer, an ounce of Thai weed, and they would surf all day. That’s the environment that I grew up in on the beach in Southern California with a bunch of hippie stoner surfers.

Robert Stark: What effect do you see this having on society if as you say, a large portion of men are being kept out of the mating market? Society could collapse. For instance, that guy Sodini, I think he had psychological problems, but his situation is symbolic of this phenomenon. If you look at what’s happening in China, how there is this huge shortage of women in China, and you see rising crime there and other problems that this is leading to, due to the shortage of women. This could be problematic in the future if this trend continues.

Robert Lindsay: They are having a lot of Sodini-type mass killings over there too. A lot of these guys apparently are not married and not getting any women, and they’re going crazy with bulldozers, tractors, guns and knives and whatnot and mass murdering people. Just like Sodini. Probably because they aren’t getting any. Back in my parents’ generation, Sodini would have gotten married. There were no Sodinis, not really anyway.

So what’s going on nowadays is that these 1

Robert Stark: Some of them will settle for a regular guy when they are past their prime. In a sense, who wants someone else’s leftovers?

Robert Lindsay: So now they all want Alphas. At least the White women that I see around here, they are all looking for the Alphas. And the Alphas, they are all pretty much taken. And by age 30 or so, the Alphas are all just gone. And these women, they don’t want Betas. So you have all of the best women going for say 1

Robert Stark: What’s ironic about this is that the feminists got rid of sexual socialism, and in other ways, the feminists aligned themselves with socialism economically, but at the same time, they don’t want the real free market to work in terms of sex. I know a lot of people have moral issues with prostitution, I can understand that. I’ve had concerns too, but with the current situation, I think it would be the fair thing to legalize prostitution but only based on the current situation.

Another thing, the feminist Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, she co-introduced this bill with this neocon Senator Sam Brownback which would make it difficult for men to find wives from overseas. So they use socialism and get rid of the free market in certain cases where it suits their agenda. So you don’t have a problem with feminism if it’s about gender equity. But they use the government to rig the system when it suits their own interests.

Robert Lindsay: Well, the problem is that radical feminism has become Female Rule. You can probably never have true equality in a society sexually. It’s probably the case that you either have Male Rule or you have Female Rule. And there are a lot of problems with Male Rule, which is Patriarchy, but at least it seems to work. It’s not very fair to women in a lot of ways. But it’s a zero-sum game.

Robert Stark: It’s the same with race relations. I think that very rarely will you ever have true racial equality. One group will always end up dominating the other. That’s just human nature.

Robert Lindsay: It seems that way. If the men don’t rule, then the women are going to rule. And that’s the way it is in relationships. I’ve concluded that in relationships, the man has to dominate the woman. I came out of the 1970’s, and we were into this hazy gender role thing, and we were all supposed to be androgynous, and we were the New Men and the Feminist Men. And we were into not being macho and all that.

Thing is, that stuff doesn’t really work, because women do seem to want a macho guy who takes charge and who frankly dominates them. Women get off on being dominated. They enjoy it. That’s an essential part of their sexual nature. The man must be the dominant partner, and the woman must be the submissive partner in marriage or in any kind of a sexual relationship or love relationship.

If you don’t wear the pants in the relationship, she’s going to take those pants right off of you and put them on herself. Either the man dominates the woman, or the woman dominates the man. And if you look around at marriages and relationships, you notice that that’s how it works. If the guy doesn’t dominate the woman – if he’s a really wimpy guy – have you ever noticed that the woman ends up playing the male role and dominating him. Then you have these situations where the woman is playing the role of the man and being really nasty to the guy and lording it over him and the guy being all cringing and wimpy.

Robert Stark: The social conservatives haven’t really tackled any of these issues. The problem with them is that they the two issues that they are obsessed with are abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a symbolic issue – it doesn’t have any really strong negative effect on society. As far as abortion goes, I know that you are pro-choice…

Robert Lindsay: Definitely!

Robert Stark: The thing is that women no longer have responsibility, and they can be promiscuous and not depend on a man. Social conservatives focus on these two issues, but they are not really offering any alternatives. Then we have the conservative feminists. For instance, I believe that Sarah Palin calls herself a conservative feminist. They want the men to go back to being chivalrous and be the traditional men, but then the women will enjoy the perks that liberal feminism has brought them.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they want it both ways, don’t they? Equity feminism is a good thing. I want equality for women in all of the important ways. I’m on the mailing list for many of the big feminist organizations in the US. I used to be a member of NOW.

The only thing that I don’t like about these organizations is that they’ve been taken over by radical feminists. And a lot of them are lesbians; a lot of them hate men. And there’s a real animus in this movement against male sexuality, towards what it means to be male. What they prefer is female sexuality. There are two types of sexuality. There’s female sexuality, and there’s male sexuality. I don’t really have to define them. Every guy around knows what male sexuality is.

Robert Stark: You’ve defined the War on Men as a War on Male Sexuality.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly, because females want female sexuality to be the dominant paradigm in society. Female society is ruled by female sexuality. That’s what females want; that’s what their lives are ruled by. Male society is ruled by male sexuality.

And typically, male sexuality has been privileged at least somewhat in society as far as our rules go. And most societies tend to be more or less dominated by male sexuality. On the other hand, most societies tend to temper male sexuality by instituting early marriage because if you totally allowed male sexuality to take over, most guys probably wouldn’t even get married.

But the feminist movement attempts to make female sexuality the dominant paradigm for all of society, for all of public space. So all males must live under the rules of female sexuality.

That’s why they hate what they call the exploitation of women in porn, in advertising. Any advertisement that shows a sexy girl in any way whatsoever is evil according to them because that represents male sexuality. To them, male sexuality is all about the objectification and the use and abuse of women. For instance, porn is all about the objectification of women and the use and abuse of women, and to guys, it’s just sex, that’s all it is. Porn is all about getting off.

Female sexuality hates pornography, they hate erotica, they hate any sexuality at all being displayed in the media, in advertising, or in movies or TV. They want a completely desexualized public space. They want to desexualize the media, advertisements, consumer culture, movies and TV. Female sexuality is basically puritanical!

Robert Stark: That’s true, but if you look at our popular culture, it has gotten a lot more sexualized over the years, so we have these contradictory factors in our society. But one thing that you have been talking about is this mass hysteria where all men are being viewed as potential sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, that’s right. The radical feminists – that’s their thing. Male sexuality is all about rape! And males are all about rape, and we are all rapists. And they can’t stop talking about rape. You talk to these radical feminists, and they’re just rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape. And these are White women! And their claim is that the men who are the rapists are White guys like you and me. Well, if you know much about rape in this country, White guys like you and me, we don’t run around raping women.

Robert Stark: I don’t know what the statistics are, but Blacks are about 1

Robert Lindsay: All I know is that they commit rape at about 6 times the White rate.

Robert Stark: So you are trying to say that a lot of the propaganda that they put out is to try to show White men as being sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: The feminist movement never talks about the fact that Blacks and Latinos are six times more likely to rape a woman than a White man is. Their whole thing is that White men like you and me are these evil sexual predator rapists. And their definition of rape keeps on expanding and expanding. Now, if you have sex with a woman who is intoxicated in any way whatsoever, I suppose if she even has one glass of wine, if she’s high, if she smoked a joint, if she did a line of coke or speed or if she’s on acid, then that’s rape.

Well, then there must be hundreds of millions of instances of rape occurring every week in this country. Because lots of women are having sex when they are intoxicated. And I simply do not believe that that’s rape.

Robert Stark: So you think that they are promoting a lot of these false accusations.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, and to them, any kind of coercion that leads to sex, especially verbal coercion, really, seduction itself…The feminists are now claiming that seduction itself is rape because the seducers are supposedly brainwashing women and tricking and fooling them into bed. Well, that’s what seduction is all about. Seduction is all about brainwashing women and tricking and fooling women, casting a spell on them, and more or less lying to them, in order to get them into bed. And men have been doing this for 100’s, or probably 1000’s of years.

And the whole idea of being a woman…mothers and fathers are supposed to raise their daughters with the idea that guys are just dogs, they’re no good. Guys will say and do anything to get you into bed. And an aware and savvy woman knows that guys are like this, she’s aware of it, and she’s got all of her defenses up to keep this guy from putting one over on her and seducing her and getting her into bed when she doesn’t want to.

So, seduction is not rape. Seduction is just the normal human way of going about sex, and it’s normal male sexuality to seduce women. So when they say seduction is rape, they’re saying that all us guys are rapists. And most radical feminists theorists, not just Andrea Dworkin or Katharine McKinney, but really all of them, they all say that we live under a system of patriarchy, and under patriarchy, all male-female sex is rape.

Robert Stark: Another thing is that they vilify large age ranges in relationships such as an older man dating a younger woman. One thing that I noticed is that Alphas can get good-looking younger women early on, but other men who are not Alphas can build up their wealth and get them later on. Historically, women would often marry a much older man because they were dependent on them economically.

Robert Lindsay: Another thing about female sexuality is that women age quicker than men. They live longer than we do. I don’t know why it is, but if you have a woman and a man, and they’re both married, and they’re both around 50-60 or so, the woman is going to look 10-15 years older than the man.

Robert Stark: Women have a huge advantage in their 20’s, but once they get past 30, men have the advantage. That’s why the feminists are trying to pathologize men who are dating women who are much younger than they are.

Robert Lindsay: This has been going on forever and ever and ever. If you read literature all down through the centuries or even millennia, the theme over and over is that a man, as he’s aging, continues to want younger women. And an older woman has a hard time keeping her husband around because as she starts getting into her 40’s and 50’s, he starts wanting to chase younger women.

So one of the prime aspects of female sexuality is this hatred for this aspect of male sexuality in that aging males want to chase young women. And it’s hard for an older woman to keep her man around. How do you keep him around? And in many cases, middle-aged men leave their older wives and go for young women. And women hate that; female sexuality hates that, so feminism hates that. And that’s the reason for this law that Maria Cantwell and Brownback passed…is it Brownback?

Robert Stark: Sam Brownback is this social conservative…

Robert Lindsay: Right, so what’s going on is that American guys who’ve just had it up to here with nasty Western women are heading off to the 3rd World, and they are picking up younger 3rd World women, and they are marrying them.

Robert Stark: What’s really strange about this is that Cantwell and Brownback and both very much pro-immigration Open Borders types.

Robert Lindsay: Cantwell represents female sexuality, she represents feminism, actually radical feminism and the rage of feminists and aging women over the fact that a lot of White guys are shining on these nasty feminist witches here in America, and they’re going to get women overseas. And also middle aged guys are blowing off their older White spouses and going to get some young hottie overseas. This is all just about – “cut off the competition.”

And it’s the institutionalization of female sexuality in law. This is one of the things that the feminists are tying to do – they are trying to make law and the legal code that we all live under in our public space to be an institutionalization of female sexuality.

Robert Stark: Yet at the same time, they got rid of marriage, which was a fair form of socialism. I’ve analyzed these various movements, not just the feminist movement but also various economic movements, and it’s way too complex to say that this person is a capitalist and this person is a socialist if people pick and choose either free markets or government intervention when it suits their own interests. That’s why I object to these people who break everyone up into, “You’re either for free markets or you’re not.”

Robert Lindsay: And the sexual harassment thing, this is another one. The feminist movement, as I noted, wants to remove all sexuality from the pubic space because female sexuality hates sexual expression in the public space. If you’re a good-looking woman, apparently as soon as you walk outside the door, you have guys after you all day long. And women don’t like this. Female sexuality doesn’t like this hyper-aggressive nature of male sexuality in which we are always raping them with our eyes and chasing after them and all.

What they would really like, in their female sexual utopia, is to ban us from looking at them, they would like to have us arrested and sent to jail for “illegal looking.”

Robert Stark: This was targeted against pedophiles, but there was a law in Maine making it a felony for adults to stare at minors in public. I think what the radical feminists – I think the woman who introduced that law was a radical feminist – what they would like is to make it a crime to men to stare at adult women in public as well. So this looks like a slippery slope.

Robert Lindsay: This is one of the aspects of sexual harassment. Now, if you’re in a workplace, or even outside of a workplace, you can be accused of sexual harassment just for looking at women. A friend of mine, he’s an older guy, and he was in a coffee shop, and the young women didn’t like the fact that he was an older guy and he was looking at them so they complained, and the management told him to quit looking at the girls or they were going to throw him out.

So it’s not just happening in the workplace, although in the workplace, if you look at the women too much, if you check out the women, they call that sexual harassment and a “sexually hostile workplace.” I think they also want to remove all sexual commentary, sexual banter, sexual wording and flirtation from the public space.

But after all, people have a very strong sex drive, at least males, and the entirety of public space is where we spend most of our time. We go out in public all the time doing this or that, and the workplace is a large part our lives now, a lot of us are spending almost all of our time at work. And female sexuality and radical feminism wants to completely remove all sexual expression from the public space, where we are spending so much of our time.

I don’t think they even want us talking to women, honestly. They certainly don’t want us talking to them about anything sexual in any way whatsoever. For women, to remove all sexuality from the pubic space makes that a friendly space.

But I came out of 1970’s, remember, I came out of the hippie movement, I’m a liberal, I came out of the New Left, I’m a sexual revolutionary and a libertine. And I don’t believe in any kind of Puritanism at all. My attitude is, “Do it in the streets.” Not literally of course, but I’m very pro-sex. And it really bothers me how anti-sex the feminists are. And that they are trying to reproduce their view of female sexuality, which is very anti-sex, it’s very puritanical, onto the whole of society.

Robert Stark: What is strange is that if you look at some aspects of our society, they have become much more sexualized. If you look at commercials…I really don’t know what to make of the whole thing.

Robert Lindsay: This is strange, the extreme sexualization of our society – although the feminists would love to get rid of all that too, but they haven’t been able to yet…on the one hand, we have this hypersexualized society…

Robert Stark: One thing I’ve also noticed if that teen sexuality has been really glorified, like teenage girls, one the one hand, they are encouraged to act slutty, but on the other hand, if a man so much as looks at a teenage girl nowadays, they are being called pedos. So what do you think of these two polar extremes?

Robert Lindsay: Well, on the one hand, you have this hypersexualized media space in terms of advertising and consumer culture and the corporations and then in our popular entertainment…

Robert Stark: Yes, because sex sells, they want to make money.

Robert Lindsay: Music, TV, movies and all that, the sexual mores have been loosened down. So if you’re a person who is immersed in our consumer and entertainment culture, you are being bombarded with sexual messages all day long. And after a while, it’s probably going to make you pretty horny. If you’re a young man, you’re probably pretty horny as it is, but all this media sex stuff really gets you thinking about sex all the time.

And then as soon as you step out your front door and go out into the public space, now you’re out in this feminist world where the feminists are trying to put their Female Rule (matriarchy) over everything, and you can’t look at women, you can’t talk to women, you can’t say anything sexual, you can’t do anything sexual…

Robert Stark: What are some of your thoughts on the racial component of the dating market?

Robert Lindsay: Well, like I said, the White women, they all want an Alpha guy. And then by the time they’re 30, almost all of them, they didn’t get him, and so they’re angry. And then they either hook up with a Beta, and they’re not really all that happy about it, and they try to dominate him, and they’re aggressive and mean towards him. Or they get married, and then they get divorced at some point.

For instance, I have a Yahoo group for people who are fighting the Internet love scammers. The group is about ½ women. Most of the women are middle aged White women, and a very large

We’re macho pigs, we’re jerks…and they are filled with hatred towards male sexuality. We don’t treat them right, we’re mean, macho jerks. And all of them are radical feminists. And then at the same time…they’re all going for Black guys! And I didn’t understand that at all!

Robert Stark: The Black men would probably treat them a lot worse than a White man would.

Robert Lindsay: They will treat them a lot worse! But I finally figured it out, and I finally understand it. These White women who are going for Black guys, it’s a way of giving the finger to the White man. It’s a way of saying “F- you” to the White man, screw you to the White man. That’s the ultimate way of insulting a White man. Saying, “The heck with you, White men, here I am, I’m going to go for a Black guy!” And I think that Black males and White females share a common enemy. Remember that guy in Connecticut who shot up the beer factory when they accused him of stealing beer? And he said he “shot the racists?”

Robert Stark: I think you told me about it…

Robert Lindsay: He said he shot the racists, and he killed like 7 White people. He hated White people. We see over and over these Black guys who hate White people, and they’re attacking Whites, but then over and over, you see that this same guy has a White girlfriend!

Robert Stark: Yes! You’re familiar with the Knoxville Murders? They raped, tortured and killed two Whites, and their defense attorney tried to say that this guy’s not a racist because he had a White girlfriend.

Robert Lindsay: Right! Exactly! What’s going on there…I finally figured it out, is that the Black male and the White female share a common enemy. Their common enemy is the White man. So that’s how a Black man can hook up with a White woman and be happy, and they can have a common enemy, the White man, and how a Black man can have a White girlfriend and then go and shoot up 15 White guys at a beer distributing plant because they share a common enemy. These Black guys – they don’t hate White women. They hate White men.

Robert Stark: If you look through history at basic human tribalism, one tribe would try to steal the females from another tribe and yet be protective of their own women. And that’s why, to this day, a lot of men have double standards. They’ll date women of other groups, but they will get very defensive if someone tries to date their own women.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly! And in White society, the worst thing that a White woman can do is go out with Black guys. I know really liberal White guys, and they told me that if any White woman they know, if they find out that she dates Blacks, she’s through. She’s gone. They won’t even consider her. And a lot of White guys think this way. She’s history. She is basically evicted from the White race.

So this is a way that White males have of controlling and policing our women. This is how, just as you were saying, how we protect our women. We essentially banish them from the tribe, from the White tribe, for messing around with Black guys. Just like in the old days when tribal groups would evict you from the tribe for a transgression.

And at the same time, males of any race will have sex with females of the opposite race. Because then they are basically stealing the other tribe’s women, and if you impregnate them, you are forcing their women to bear your children. At the same time, you protect your own women, because your own women are your seed stock, and they are the continuity of your tribe. And you can’t allow them to be contaminated by the genes of these competing tribes because then your women are going to be raising the children of the competing tribes. And I still think that these ancient tribal ways are still ongoing in modern society.

Robert Stark: This is basic human instinct, but it’s not politically correct due to this Cultural Marxism has made these notions into something pathological to even discuss, but it’s still an essential human instinct nevertheless. So you see all of this as a part of the War on Men.

Robert Lindsay: It is, it is. It’s mostly a war on male sexuality. Even this sex offender thing and the pedophile thing, the Pedophile Mass Hysteria…have you noticed something? The pedophiles? They’re all men! And the victims are all women and girls.

Robert Stark: And the media portrays pedophiles as mostly White, which is also a myth. You were comparing it to Salem Witch Trials. There are dangerous people out there who we have to keep an eye on, but this whole pedophile hysteria, it’s gone way too far, and a lot of innocent people are being caught up in this and having their lives ruined. All men are being suspected that they are up to something no good sexually. This has just gone insane…

Sick, Evil Republicans Are Child Molesters!

Repost from the old site. Another famous old post too. This one also got reposted around a lot.

Yeah, I know, check out the inflammatory headline. Keep in mind, though, that this post is just kind of tongue in cheek. I’m not really trying to make any points except a lousy, dirty, lowball, scuzzy, slimy cheap shot at Republicans. Just the sort of cheap shots they do at us. Fire with fire.

I don’t care. I really dislike what the US Republican Party has become. The philosophy of the Republican Party has become abhorrent, malignant, cancerous, poisonous and vile. It is now virtually an Organized Crime Racket like the Mafia or the Crips and Bloods.

More and more, it just looks like the ultraright authoritarianism so common in banana republics in Latin America, Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal and India. It’s not even the party of democracy anymore; it’s the party of the reactionary semi-feudalism and quasi-fascist authoritarianism of your average Third World rathole.

It’s the party of corporate fascism, virulent White racism, a feudalist and Medieval warlord mindset, witch-burning Christian fundamentalist pseudo-fascist lunacy and ultraright philosophical poison.

It belongs in a trashcan, along with all the rest of the banana Republicans. Since the US Republican Party is made up of such a bunch of reactionary throwbacks, I feel that cheap shots are absolutely called for. For all I know, we could assemble a similar list of Democrat perverts, but I don’t care. If Republicans can fight dirty, than so can we.

It is rather interesting, though, that so many family-values, anti-gay, Christian fundamentalist and anti-abortion reactionaries are committing sexual crimes.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year-old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year-old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year-old girls.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with having sex with a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church President Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year-old girl he murdered.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year-old girl.

Republican racist United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year-old black girl, which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year-old stepdaughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his stepdaughter.

Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year-old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11-year-old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year-old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year-old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year-old boy.

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of having sex with a 15-year-old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year-old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15-year-old girl and served 6 months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year-old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.

Characteristics of Fascism

The Tea Partiers, rightwing extremists, Third Positionists, Yockeyites, etc. say that Fascism is a Left movement. No it’s not. It’s a rightwing movement, far right. Let’s look at the evidence:

Fascism is an extreme rightwing system characterized by:

  1. Varying degrees of contempt for democracy
  2. Intimidation of political opponents
  3. Utter contempt and hatred for liberalism, socialism and Communism
  4. Hatred for homosexuals and minorities
  5. Utter contempt for social programs as palliatives for the weak
  6. The notion that the strong survive, and the weak die
  7. Often use of extreme religiosity, usually Christianity
  8. Exaltation of masculine values and contempt for feminine values
  9. Emphasis on traditional values and traditional morality with hatred for “immoral” behavior
  10. Hyperemphasis on the family unit
  11. Utter hatred and contempt for feminism – the notion that women belong at home
  12. Ever-present propaganda
  13. Total dishonesty in government and society – the Big Lie
  14. A total marriage of government and business to where we can’t tell where one ends and the other begins
  15. Extreme emphasis on law and order
  16. Use of street thugs to enforce order
  17. Massive corruption in government and business
  18. Utter hatred for workers’ organizations and workers’ rights
  19. Exaltation of class society as divine and denial of class conflict
  20. Extreme, often belligerent, nationalism tending towards jingoism and militarism
  21. Hatred of most other societies as inferior or weaker
  22. Insulation and xenophobia – refusal to read anything from outside the motherland
  23. Hatred and contempt for all international institutions
  24. Hatred for all sentimentality, kindness, sympathy and other “soft, weak, feminine emotions”

Sound very Left to you? Not really. Not in general anyway. Sure, there have been crossovers. North Korea has fascist elements. The Khmer Rogue did too. So did Romania’s Ceaucescu.

Anything on the Right Worth Supporting? Well, Yeah

A commenter notes that the Far Right and Far Left advocate similar things, at least in the US. But that’s not the case at all.

Rob, what’s wrong with taking the good out of the left and the right and mixing it up? Perhaps the far left and far right are realizing that their real enemies are not each other, but the corrupt, plutocratic ruling class?

Far Right is Tea Parties, Libertardian Party and the Republitard Party as a whole. They most certainly do not support an attack on the plutocrats!

I support the Right on some things.

  • I’m for a hard crackdown on illegals.
  • I’m also for amending the 14th amendment to get rid of the anchor baby phenomenon.
  • I want to get rid of treacherous ethnic studies programs in high schools like the ones in Arizona.
  • I’m for a judicial decision amending the Civil Rights Act on “disparate impact.” This has gone too far, and it’s just nuts.
  • I want to end the Hindu 1-B program.
  • I advocate marriage licenses for parents, though it’s not happening.
  • I agree that there are intelligence difference between the races, at the moment anyway. Maybe not forever.
  • I want IQ tests for prospective immigrants from lands that are producing large numbers of problem immigrants to the US.
  • I think that PC anti-racism has gone seriously too far to the point of insanity, and that’s it’s now little more than anti-White racism.
  • I think there are hate crimes against Whites, job discrimination against Whites and hate propaganda racism against Whites, hence Whites are at some times and places anyway a persecuted race on account of their ethnicity.
  • I think the racial makeup of a city, more than income level, explains more in terms of its crime rate and desirability as a living space.
  • I believe the high Black crime rate may be in part genetically based, but is by no means inevitable at any rate, as culture modifies genes.
  • I believe that Gypsies are a criminal race.

I’ve been told that these are all a rightwing positions. So be it.

You know what the weird thing is though? Among White liberals here in California (and I spent my whole life with these people) if you get them behind closed doors when no one is listening, they will agree with me on a large number of these “rightwing” ideas. But it’s not something they will talk about in public. And they all voted for Obama anyway.

Is The Political Spectrum Linear or Circular?

Repost from the old site.

If you want to take the time, can someone please tell me where this guy is coming from? A lot of it looks like good Left progressive stuff, but then there seems to be this kind of Far Right Ron Paul populism too. I don’t get it. What is it? Some kind of marriage between Far Right and Far Left? I’m seeing more and more of this crap nowadays on progressive and Left sites and I must say, I don’t really like it.

While we are at it, where the Hell is Jeff Rense coming from anyway? Same place as this guy? He can write about Bigfoot and UFO’s all he wants, and there are usually lots of good articles on the site, but his politics seriously creeps me out. For one thing, he’s leaking anti-Semitism out of his pores.

My Mom has been telling my whole life, “Well, you know. It’s like a circle. When you go so far to the Left and so far to the Right, you don’t have two polar opposite ends of a huge ruler. The ruler starts bending and becomes circular. It’s a circle. Far Right and Far Left meet, and you just have a nut, a fanatic.” I always figured that was just Left-trashing, but now I’m starting to wonder.

There were some people marching against the war in Oakhurst the other day and my brother went to talk to them. Some of them handed some really weird brochures full of all this conspiratorial shit. I went to the site and it was the same thing. Anti-CIA, anti-militarism, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, ok, that’s good.

Then it starts taking off into all this weird conspiracy theory about the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, the New World Order, Ron Paul, black helicopters, chemtrails, bla bla bla. Kind of like this guy.

Hard economic times really brings this stuff out bigtime.

Is this what the new radical US populism is going to look like? Some Far Right – Far Left mix? I don’t mind the Far Left part, but whenever anyone starts talking about “marrying Left and Right”, I get the creeps. I hate to say it, but that tends to end up in some weird kind of fascism of one species or other. One of the favorite fascist lines was about “getting rid of Left and Right”.

Yuck.

Color me perturbed.

On the Naderists

Nader says there is a not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties, that they are both wholly owned corporate parties.

Well he’s right in a sense, but we liberals never I mean never vote Republican. I’d almost rather die than vote Republican, and I’ve been that way for most of my life. I’m a liberal! Hell, why would I vote Republican? Give it up.

There’s a reason for that. Dems are way more pro worker and pro working family than the Republicans. It’s not true at all that they both the same. That’s a bunch of crap, and it makes me mad to hear it.

Truth is, if the Dems were more pro worker = Left/liberal than they already are, they would simply lose, because the electorate is that reactionary. The Dems are just as conservative as they need to be to win. Still, I think they suck up to corporations too much, but apparently this is due to campaign contributions.

The Reps’ whole line is that the Dems are not pro-corporate enough, that they are anti-corporate. They have been beating Obama with that since he came in. The Teabaggers are simply a Brownshirt type army for the corporations, the rich and the upper middle class.

For being as anti-corporate as they have been under Obama, the Dems are going to lose 6-7 Senate seats and maybe 20 House seats. So it doesn’t pay to be pro-worker. The Electorate is wildly pro-corporate, pro-rich and pro-upper middle class, and they punish you if you try to help working families even just a bit.

Republicans and Democrats: Pepsi and Coke?

In the comments section, Bay Area Guy tosses out the typical American argument that Republicans and Democrats are just Pepsi and Coke. If the Pepsi tastes bad, go buy a Coke instead. If the Dems can’t fix the economy, then vote Republicans. Surely they will fix it! Morons.

Besides, Democrats are hardly better when it comes to elites. Although at least from an economic standpoint, they’re not as bad as Republicans.

That’s a pretty horrible argument. Most Democrats I know certainly don’t vote for them because they are voting for the party of elites. Are you kidding?

The Dems suck up to elite politics because if they don’t, they will lose.

Newsflash: A majority of Americans arguably support pro-elite politics. If you go against the elite and upper middle class (the ruling capitalist classes) you get creamed in the bourgeois media, and you lose elections, then Republicans come in, and they are even worse. I haven’t met a Dem yet who said that the Repugs and Dems are the same, both parties of the elites, so this time I’m voting Repug.

Unless you are in the top 2

It’s a plutocratic political party.

I have a lot of respect for folks who make over $80,000/yr and vote Republican out of their economic interests. Or really anyone who votes Republican out of economic interests for whatever logical reason. If you acknowledge that voting Right is bad for your bottom line, but vote Right anyway due to cultural stuff or some other crap, then I respect you.

When voting Republican or supporting them hurts you in the pocketbook, but you think it doesn’t, is where I lose all respect for you. So I have no respect at all for a good 70 million American adult-tards.

Of course it’s the scum Lamestream Media that promotes all of this ignorance by telling people that the two parties are just two different flavors of Baskin Robbins.

Clinton got creamed when he pursued anti-ruling class politics on health care reform. Same with Obama. The Lamestream media keeps Americans ignorant and moronic.

The Communists actually make sense when they advocate nationalizing all the media, since all the rightwing media ever does is lie and confuse people anyway.

Keep in mind that all conservative parties on Earth are liars, and all conservative politics on Earth all history has been based on a Grand Canyon filled in with lies. Conservative politics is plutocratic politics. It only benefits the ruling class of society and their hanger on’s, at most the top 2

Why Anti-Semitism Is Almost Always Rightwing

That’s true that US conservatives associated with the Republican Party are profoundly philosemitic. However, this is a fairly new thing. There is also the anti-Semitic Pat Buchanan wing of the party too, you know?

And if you took 100 anti-Semites in the US, 95 of them would be conservatives, either Republicans or Libertarians.

Leftwing anti-Semites are not that common. Nowadays a lot of Zionist shits are trying to say that there is all this liberal or Left anti-Semitism (the “new anti-Semitism”), but it’s mostly garbage. These folks are simply anti-Israel to out and out anti-Zionists. Most Left and liberal Israel-critics or even anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites.

A few liberal to Left anti-Zionist types do get into anti-Semitism, but when they do, they seem to gradually drift towards the rightwing! In particular, they start being sympathetic to either fascism or Islamism or both. Especially they tend to be pro-Nazi.

It’s really strange the way that works.

This makes me think that there is something intrinsically rightwing about anti-Semitism and something organically anti-anti-Semitic about liberalism or Leftism.*

With some exceptions.

Why Do Wealthy Jews Pursue Liberal/Radical Politics?

A commenter asks why anti-Semitism is never pro-worker.

How about take stuff from rich Jews and keep it for ourselves, rather than giving it to corrupt Gentiles?

Interesting theory, but it never works that way. Not once in history, I believe. The elites always grabbed the Jews’ stuff and money after theykilled them or expelled them. That’s anti-Semitism in a nutshell.

Kill/throw out the Jews and steal their stuff.

He also can’t believe that Jewish politics doesn’t exactly follow their class interests:

And what is Jewish politics based on then if not class interests

People’s politics don’t necessarily follow their class interests. Engels was a rich man. Carlos the Terrorist’s father was a millionaire Communist. People are funny that way.

When Jews who came here they were poor. And they were poor in the Pale too. So they supported the class politics of the poor. The Jews in the US never let go of their earlier liberalism/radicalism.

Then in the last century, a lot of them got behind Communism for some reason, contrary to their class interests.

One theory is the reality of Jewish life in the Diaspora.

Jews living in the Diaspora grow up being told that they are better than the Gentiles around them. And in some ways, they are better, especially those who live Jewish. Living according to Judaism is associated with lower outcomes on a lot of social pathologies.

They also grow up being told that the Gentiles around them hate them. This leads to a confrontational and often rebellious attitude of many Diaspora Jews towards a society they view as hostile and fucked up. Hence you get your Jewish radicals and revolutionaries of various types, out to make society a better place. You also get all the Jewish cultural radicals, from crazy artists to porn merchants. These secular Jews are basically rebels, and they’re giving the finger to hostile Gentile society in a sense.

For the last 150 years, conservatives in the West have tended to be anti-Semites. Even prior, Napoleon himself was a liberal, and he’s the father of all modern emancipated Jews. Jews see liberals as protecting minority rights.

And all the people who seriously attacked the Jews in the West for the past 150 years, including assholes who tried to exterminate them, were hard rightwingers.

The Czar was a rightwinger. So were the fascists. So are the radical right Islamists persecuting the Jews in the Muslim World.

Also in the West, conservatives tend to push Christian politics. That’s bad for the Jews. Liberals are more secular in the West and the Muslim World, so Jews trust them better.

In the past 150 years, Orthodox Judaism broke up into Conservative and Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism in particular has junked a lot of the horrible rightwing crap in the Talmud and Torah in favor of a liberal view of mankind. In particular, the proscription for the Jews to be “the light unto nations” has led many Reform and secular Jews to be revolutionaries and liberals of various types.

They’re called upon by their religion to make the world a better place.

Jewish Politics and Jewish Class Interests

Do you know of any blue-collar Jews? I don’t think they even exist. Since that’s the case, can you at least grant me that most of them will tend to fall behind neoliberalism, if indeed everything is all about class?

But they don’t. Jews are the most liberal group in the US. They are probably the most anti-neoliberal ethnic group in the US. In Israel, they voted for socialism for many years. Jews are funny people. They’re rich, but they’ve been supporting Left movements for about a century now.

It was not always thus. Prior to 100 hundred years ago, Jews were always conservative and always supported rightwingers due to their economic interests. Jewish politics doesn’t exactly line up with their class interests.

The commenter is getting trapped in the Socialism of Fools. Economic anti-Semitism is so retarded. Take stuff from rich Jews and give it to our own rich. Then our own rich will be nicer to us and share more money with us than those dirty Jews. Yeah right! Think again, man.

Is White Nationalism Pro-Working Class?

A commenter disagrees with me when I said White nationalism is not exactly pro-working class.

And since Stormfront is representative of white nationalism, I don’t see these neoliberal white nationalists you keep bringing up. All major WN leaders are opposed to free trade and financial usury.

If they are against financial usury, it’s news to me. I’m not even aware they are anti-free trade. They never seem to talk about it.

White nationalism is a hard rightwing movement in every sense of the word. They never talk about the C word – class. All they ever talk about is race. There’s a reason for that!

Hence it serves the purposes of the rich and upper middle class to divide the workers on the basis of race. WN is just a continuation of the Southern Strategy. WN’s have been voting for Republicans forever in this country. As a rule, they almost never vote Democrat. What kind of pro-worker voting is that?

Go to Occidental Dissent, Guy White , Silver’s site, Jewamongyou, American Renaissance, Majority Rights, VNN, they’re mostly libertarians, and they support rightwing economics. They all want small government, as small as possible, and they all hate socialism and especially Communism. Though there are a few pro-worker commenters on Occidental Dissent and Amren these days.

The whole WN community declared war on Obamacare.

The whole WN community got behind Libertardian Ron Paul last time around.

The Stormfront and Tom Metzger types are not exactly the norm.

Jared Taylor is a very rightwing Republican corporate type. Frankly, he’s typical.

Most WN’s seem to have money, often a lot of it. That’s what White racism is all about in the US.

The Whites work and make the money, often good money, and the nigger and beaner layabout criminal leeches want to steal all of our money.

That’s why they hate the Democrats so much and why they always vote Republican.

WN is not exactly worker-friendly. Quite the opposite!

Anyway, Stormfront is not pro-worker. They take no stand at all, but they did support Libertarian Ron Paul last time. But a lot of the commenters are working class Whites, and a lot of those are openly socialist.

A Primer on Mark to Market

Repost from the old site.

Some conservatives, of course, are blaming the current economic chaos on too much regulation instead of the obvious cause of it that any moron can figure out, lack of regulation. This is especially popular on White Nationalist websites, where the line is that all regulation of business is evil for White people.

I would like to point that although the conservatives are reeling from this latest economic meltdown and their philosophy is in tatters (rejected by the media elite who used to support them to the hilt more than anyone else), some conservatives are starting to fight back.

The market meltdown was not caused by the lack of regulation that everyone knows caused it; instead, it was caused by the conservative bogeyman of too much regulation. But this is not going over very well. Outside of the Fanatics’ Bullpen and the Republican Party, no one is buying. Even the US rightwing media is not so stupid as to buy into this one.

The “mark to market rule”* controversy is an interesting one.

But nevertheless, mark to market is being put forward as one of the stupider regulations that supposedly either helped bring this mess on or is making it worse. So says Paul Craig Roberts (unapologetic Reaganite incredibly featured on Counterpunch) here, here and here, and Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek columnist and apologist for neoliberal globalism and US imperialism disguised as reasonable and thoughtful analyst.

Mark to market was put in to keep these corporate rats from lying about their assets and their bottom lines. Amid the catastrophes caused by the rampant accounting fraud and crime accompanying Enron and the other messes, the mark to market rule was instituted. What it means is simple: corporations have to list assets and debts as they really are, not as they think they are in their fairy tale fantasies.

What corporations were doing was this: Suppose I have assets that are worth $10X. That looks pretty bad for my bottom line, so I “re-evaluate them” with the help of some friendly local accountant firm criminals, and now automagically they are actually worth $100X. Why?

Because my accountant criminal buddies and I decided that my assets are actually undervalued, and are worth much more than the market says they are worth. So I get to fool investors, inflate my bottom line and pretend that my insolvent company is actually rolling in it.

Seems like an obvious abuse, no? Seems like a reasonable regulation, no?

Turns out after all that mark to market is sheer government evil. Evil big government is forcing angelic corporations to tell the truth about their net worth instead of lying as they always do, even in their sleep, and thus harming the glorified US economy.

Nowadays, banksters and other financial criminals are holding all sorts of assets that are said to be worth, say, $100X. In truth, no one even knows what they are worth, and there is no way to figure it out. Their true value is so low that the banksters act like these assets are toxic waste.

Mark to market means they have to mark them at $30X or $2X or whatever the market says this crap is worth. But what they really want to do is lie and pretend that it’s worth $100X.

Why? Because if the corporations tell the truth about how much their assets are really worth, instead of how much they lie and inflate their worth at, investors will pound their two-bit penny stocks into the ground where they deserve to be pounded.

But that’s bad for the economy. We can’t afford to have the stocks of insolvent companies pounded into the dirt on the basis of honest accounting of assets and debits. Instead, it is necessary to lie, paint a turd to look like a Michelangelo, and keep the sucker/investors marching in the door and laying out the cash. To tell the truth will wreck the economy. To save the economy, we must legalize lying once again.

Does any of this make sense in any rational world? Of course not.

These are the rarefied debates that occupy our ruling elites in these trying times.

*I am not an economist, and I may not have correctly characterized the mark to market rule or the arguments for or against it. If you think I have this wrong, head to the comments or email and let me know.

How the Rightwing Revolution (1975-Ongoing) Was Won

A commenter asked how it came to be that US workers are so rightwing, and why they support rightwing anti-worker economics at home and imperialist foreign policy abroad:

How do you think it became this way?

Over a century of hard rightwing propaganda from the ruling classes, intensifying in the past decades. They have the control over the media, and I would say that that’s all you need. What more do you need than to control the media? Control the media, control the cultural discourse. That’s one reason why Judeopedia, I mean Wikipedia, is so scary, and why the Jews have flocked it it in swarms.

Actually, this country was going in a good direction until the mid 1970’s. We were heading towards a progressive society.

Then a group of the heads of the top corporations of the US got together and held some meetings. They said if we don’t stop this trend, the US “will end up as just another European social democracy” (exact words). They and many of their ultra-rich backers (but mostly corporations) vowed to pour money into think-tanks to change the discourse of America. Hence the birth of the Hoover Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Foundation and the rest of the Stink Tanks.

At the same time, the Left think tanks were starved for money, and they still are. The think tanks control political intellectual discourse in society. When a politician or journalist wants to write about something, AEI or other stink tanks have a paper served right up to you. They will probably even courier deliver it to your office with flowers.

Also, right around this time, a Jewish scumbag named Milton Friedman was really getting going at the Univershitty of Chicago. He gathered  acolytes around him, published books, monograms, journal articles, etc. went on TV, interviewed, and publicized the Chicago School of Economics.

Economics is a dismal enough science as it is, but this stuff was horrible. A lot of it was out and out lies. For instance, they invented a new theory about how Antitrust regulation doesn’t work and how monopoloy corporations are great for business, society, consumers and workers. They coined new theories on all sorts of economic matters that was long ago settled debate. On and on with a lot of areas of economics. Lies, lies, lies and more lies, and more lies piled on top of those lies. This is the base of modern neoliberalism.

At heart it has some truths. Sure, a dollar invested in the private capitalist sector is more productively invested than a dollar invested in a public socialist sector. But so what? So what should we do then? Shut down public roads, housing, medical care, research, schools, dams, parks, canals, trash collection, sewage treatment, water, power and phone delivery, airwaves, airports, highways, refuges, forests, grasslands, oceans, lakes, rivers, beaches, police, fire, courts, regulatory agencies, social programs?

According to these POS’s, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, etc. They don’t believe that much of anything should be public, and they want to shut down most everything public and privatize it. They essentially want to privatize all society and end the public sphere altogether. Friedman was evil, and so are his scum buddies, but right now, Chicago School is all you will learn if you take Economics classes at a university. If you get an Econ degree, you will be a Chicago School economist. All the texts, journals, grads and big names in the field, everyone and everything, are Chicago School.

So the Chicago School staged a Bolshevik like coup against the field of Economics in the US, a coup which is ongoing. At the same time, the entire media, including the “liberal media” the rightwingers whine about, became Chicago School acolytes and defensive linemen. Chicago School become the Bible you swear on when you take the oath to be a journalist in the US.

Chicago School Economics also captured both parties. First it grabbed the Republicans, who had been drifting Left with Nixon and Ford.  They went Chicago School in 1980 with Reagan.

Next it took he Democrats with the Democratic National Committee in the late 1980’s, which held that Democrats were losing elections because they were too liberal in every sense, including economics, and that the only way to beat Republicans was to become a pro-corporate political party, one that lived off the fat donations of corporate backers. They would never beat the Republicans at the corporate money game, but at least they could survive and get enough money to win some elections.

Clinton and Obama are both Chicago School types. Obama even has ties to the institution. The Chicago School Revolution is ongoing as we speak. Tea Parties are Chicago School rallies. All this deficit slashing bullshit is straight up Chicago School.

Hence was the modern reactionary coup of the past 35 years won.

It all boils down to Information Theory. He who controls Information, controls the world.

Capitalism Hits the Fan, A Marxian View

Repost from the old site.

Great video by Richard Wolff, professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Wolff is a Marxist, and the lecture is from a Marxist POV. However, it is interesting in many ways.

One thing that is clear to most sensible folks with an understanding of economics is that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is one of the greatest ever done by anyone. For a long time, it was taught in all economics departments. With the advent of crazy Friedmanite neoliberalism in the past 30 years or so, Marx may not be being taught so much, but that’s a mistake.

It’s sometimes said that Marx is great for analyzing either what capitalism does well or poorly, but not the opposite. Not true. Marx is great for analyzing capitalism both when it is doing well and when it is doing poorly.

In my opinion, where Marx has problems is in proposing alternatives to capitalism, and history has born this out to some extent. Capitalism, with all of its chaos and problems and horrors and deaths, may just be the only way forward for the time being. Like death, disease and taxes, it may be a necessary evil.

Wolff describes how US workers saw 150 straight years of growth and improvement in their living standards, from 1820 to 1970. This is correct. He doesn’t lay out how this happened, but there are many explanations for this. He also says that this scenario was rare to unheard of in the rest of the capitalist world.

After 1970, things changed. Productivity kept going up, but wages went flat or even went down. A US worker in the late 1970’s made more per hour than a worker working today. As productivity rose and wages went flat, capitalists began raking in incredible profits.

This is what has happened to the US economy over the past 35 years, as neoliberalism took hold and 8

As workers got more and more screwed and the capitalists, the owners, those who lived off the labor of others, saw their incomes skyrocket, confused workers began advancing all sorts of explanations about why this was happening. Anti-Semites, as usual, blamed the Jews. White nationalists and White Supremacists blamed Blacks and Browns. Lots of middle class and working class Whites blamed Big Government.

The truth was that the culprits were the business owners who were reeling in superprofits while workers got the shaft.

As this process continued, capitalists found more ways to keep the cost of labor down. They began importing massive amounts of legal and especially illegal immigrants as labor to drive labor costs down even further. They began moving many enterprises offshore and later, began offshoring work via the Internet.

Confused workers scrambled to keep up their standard of living. Others in the family, often the wife, began taking a job, bringing in a second income. Then one or more persons in the household began to work second and third jobs. Americans worked more and more hours, setting new records for workers in the West.

The despicable US media extolled this fact, and praised US workers for working themselves nearly to death, taking pains to point out how tough and hard and slaving-away Americans are compared to pampered, wussy, “soft” Europeans kicking back under socialism.

It’s true – part of the US war against European social democracy has been to declare that Europeans are soft, wimpy, sissified and wussy. How did they get this way? Socialism turned hard self-reliant European men into soft, pampered girlymen. Americans were hard, tough and macho. They didn’t need no nanny state to help them out. They could do it on their own. The American worker as Marlboro Man.

Wolff points out that that extra workers did not necessarily fix matters, as when the wife started working, it turned out that she needed many things, for instance a vehicle to get to work in.

Working more than one job didn’t seem to work very well, nor did having others in the household go out and work, but it did the trick for a while.

After some time, Americans would have to turn to some new tricks to try to keep up their standard of living. They turned to loans. At first they ran up their credit cards. Americans were setting records for going into debt on credit cards and were among the Western world’s poorest when it came to saving money.

This isn’t really very good personal economics, but the vile media cheered it on nonetheless. Silly, wimpy Europeans and Japanese saved their money for a rainy day, presumably because they were too neurotic to enjoy life. Americans went for the gusto! They spent ever nickel they earned and then went in debt up to their waders! Cheers, cheers, cheers!

After the credit cards were maxed out, there was an explosion in US housing prices. Call it a housing bubble. This came at a propitious moment, for it enabled Americans to use as collateral the biggest asset they owned, their homes. Americans borrowed on their homes, refinancing them, taking out second mortgages and using the money like a credit card to continue to pursue the standard of living to which they had become used.

The capitalists continued to reel in the dough from the leveling of wages, now via outsourcing and use of immigrant labor, and now the capitalists found a new tool – debt.

They loaned money to their own workers! It was like the old days when you lived in a company town, bought at the company store and ate at the company diner, all deducted from your check. Not only will we pay you a crap wage, we will snag every dollar you spend on food, rent and shopping too.

These same capitalists were now swimming in ultraprofits with the money they were making off loaning money to workers and home mortgages (just another type of loan). They had so much money they did not know what to do with it. They threw it into the stock market, and the market for high-end goods of all sorts went through the roof.

Conspicuous consumption came back with a vengeance, and the scummy media once again sang and danced the praises of the most idiotic and obscene ways the rich chose to blow their unneeded and often unearned cash.

A whole new financial industry, a parasitic industry on the economic body of the nation, sprung up, an industry that created no products and no real wealth. It was nothing but a gigantic casino on Wall Street.

All sorts of funky instruments that no one understood were dreamed up – derivatives, CDO’s, mortgage securities and all sorts of other stuff that probably shouldn’t even be legal. Almost no one understood these things and no one seemed to understand what they were worth.

The inevitable bubble came and the party crashed, as it always does when capitalist bubbles go bust.

The root causes were the destruction of the regulations put in in the 1930’s, during the Depression, in order to prevent another Depression. As soon as these regulations were put in, the capitalists began plotting and working to get rid of them.

Over the next 80 years, the capitalists created a Gramscian cultural hegemony that attacked socialism, government and regulation and exalted free market capitalism. Socialism, government and regulation were described as possibly good ideas, but doomed to failure. The only way to avoid the inevitable failures of socialism, government and regulation was to completely deregulate the economy. Anything less was the road to ruin.

With their money, the capitalist interests bought up all the media and most of the politicians. They used this to get rid of the Depression-era regulations and create the manipulate US culture to where your average worker thought that was a great idea, if he understood it at all.

There are various proposals for how to deal with this economic mess. As discussed in a previous post, conservatives, reeling and increasingly discredited, have tried to blame the catastrophe on too much regulation, not too little. Even the slimy media that normally goes along with this crap is finding this too much to buy.

White racists are promoting the racist notion that liberals (via affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws), niggers* and beaners* are the ones that destroyed the US economy. The Republican Party has to some extent bought into this, as has the business press, their amen corner in the mass media, and their academic hacks, but the argument is too slimy and racist for most decent people, plus there isn’t an ounce of truth to it.

Steve Sailer, an excellent writer who is widely read, is the latest to promote this racist travesty, much to his shame. Sailer is looking more and more like a Republican Party hack than a really deep-thinking, independent and empirical author.

Furthermore, Sailer has been skating on the edges of racism for some time now without really going over. More often, he seemed to be giving the racists lots of nice talking points. Now he’s finally pushing an explicitly racist discourse, and it’s not even true. Too bad.

Rate of subprime mortgage defaults by race:

Whites       1
Blacks       1
Hispanics    1

End of discussion!

Liberals, Leftists and social democrats have proposed re-regulation, but the problem here is that we are probably going to re-do the 1930’s experience all over again. We will put in a bunch of great regulations and as soon as we put them in, the capitalists and their mass media machines will start plotting to get rid of them.

Then the capitalists and their media machines will launch a jihad, for as many decades as it takes, to reverse all these regulations and get back to total deregulation again. In time, workers will forget why they put the regulations in in the first place, and they will go along with it.

The capitalists will buy most of the politicians all over again, and the politicians will vote to deregulate again. The capitalists will work to recreate their Gramscian cultural hegemony, and the average worker will once again think deregulation is the smart thing to do. The economy will blow up again and we will be right back to 1929 and 2008.

Wolff suggests that there is a third alternative. He describes a paper done by a colleague that describes Silicon Valley workers who hated their jobs. They had to dress up, sit in a cubicle and take orders and crap all day from a bunch of assholes. Can they pay anyone enough to put up with that? With the destruction of the Silicon Valley workforce, these workers were laid off.

A number of them got together and formed IT worker-run cooperatives, a non-capitalist form of ownership along the lines of anarcho-syndicalism. The study found that these workers said that they had never been happier. They were manufacturing software, selling it to buyers and dividing up the profits among themselves. The workers themselves were the new owners.

Wolff said that as a condition of the bailouts to the financial industry, we should mandate that they staff their board of directors with workers, not management, as a first step towards workers democracy.

Wolff also said that he had been giving speeches like this for 25 years now and he has had more interest in the past five weeks than in the previous 25 years.

That’s ending on a hopeful note for now. Enjoy the video.

*Used sardonically

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)