Is America a Reactionary Country or Not?

It’s actually a good question. I suppose the answer is somewhat up in the air. RR writes:

Do you really believe that US Whites are horrifically rightwing? This 2 years after 4

Well, look at all of these insane Tea Party lunatics. A bunch of them are going to win. Those are the craziest bunch of rightwing nuts we’ve seen in a long time. The Tea Partiers are essentially John Birchers. The John Birch Society has taken over the Republican Party! Married with some seriously insane Christian fundamentalists. Tea Party lunatics may well take over the House and possibly even the Senate. There is no way that could happen in any other White country on Earth. In fact, US style radical rightwing politics hardly exists anywhere on this planet, though to some extent it does in Chile and the UK. There are some other radical rightwing regimes, but they don’t campaign on minimal government, near-Libertarian neoliberalism. They mostly campaign on “Kill the Commies,” or something like that. The only regimes I can think of like that are Colombia and Guatemala. Elsewhere, the Radical Right usually campaigns on populism, poverty reduction, etc. You hardly see the US rightwing, “kill the poor,” fuck the middle class, minimal government, celebration of inequality stuff anywhere else on Earth, with a couple of exceptions above. Neoliberalism is hated all over the globe, for good reason. Only in the US do people actually campaign on this shit. And nowhere on Earth to my knowledge does the Right campaign on batshit nuts Protestant fundamentalism, with the possible exception of Canada. Protestant fundamentalism is hated all over the world, with good reason. One of the problems with the US is that rightwingers all over the world flock to the US to escape whatever brand of socialism they are living under. Most Indian immigrants to the US are high caste. Vietnamese, Lao and Hmong immigrants are fleeing Communism, and all vote Republican. South American immigrants in the US, especially from Venezuela, are typically from the elites. The Venezuelans are hard rightwingers fleeing Bolivarianism. Most Nicaraguans in the US are hard rightwingers who fled Sandinismo. Cubans in the US are hard rightwingers fleeing Castro. Many immigrants (such as some of our commenters) from Russia and the East Bloc are rightwingers fleeing various types of socialist and Communist regimes. Even most British immigrants to the US seem to be Tories. Many or most Filipino immigrants seem to vote Republican. They mostly come from the Filipino middle class. After the Iranian Revolution, Shah’s hard right supporters fled to the US. They flavor the Iranian community to this day. Rightwingers around the world properly see the US as a rightwing anti-socialist paradise and leading light of anti-Communism. Hence, wealthy and reactionary elites have been fleeing progress, running backwards, all over the globe to the seek their dreams in rightwing America. This has been going on for a long time now, and it’s about time the Democrats put a stop to it. If you’re fleeing a Left regime, you usually get to flood into the US no questions asked. People fleeing murderous rightwing death squad governments, as in Guatemala and El Salvador in the 1980’s, have high rates of rejection. Over 9 In some cases, the US government would check names against databases of the Guatemalan and Salvadoran governments. They also tested palms to see if guns had been fired recently. Results were reported to the governments down there, and these folks would be pulled off the planes and murdered. The upshot of this bullshit is that we have allowed millions of hard rightwingers to flood into the US since we have decided we are the world’s destination for anyone fleeing the Left. All this does it create millions of permanent Republicans when they get citizenship. This exacerbates the already frighteningly reactionary character of US politics. Why the Democrats go along with this is beyond me. To give you an example of how out of it the US is, all of Europe has been electing socialist parties of one type or another since WW2, with the exception of Thatcher in the UK. Even Europe’s so-called conservative parties are to the Left of the Democratic Party, and they refuse to dismantle the social democracies already in place. Even Thatcher barely touched the social democracy, and she is probably one of the most hated UK politicians of the past century. Even backwards Mexico has been governed by an openly socialist party since the Civil War. The PRI is a member of the Socialist International. The PAN, a conservative party, won recently, but they are only social conservatives. They have not dismantled Mexico’s social democracy – free healthcare for everyone, free education for all through university level, etc. So even Mexico is ahead of the US. How embarrassing.

Multiculturalism and Socialism: The Odd Couple

Repost from the old site. In the comments section, Scott, who is a White nationalist, discusses the disconnect between multiculturalism and socialism or social democracy. Yes, we do allow White nationalists, even anti-Black ones, on the board, but every time a cute Black woman shows up on the board, we force them to kiss her. On the lips. On penalty of banning. None have left yet. Brown sugar, how come you taste so good? Scott says:

Look at the countries that have the highest index of egalitarianism in the West: Iceland, Norway, Sweden (used to have more). The inhabitants are all pretty closely related to one another. I’ll spot my sibling $100 cash.  It’s basically the same thing but in a less dramatic way in such countries, but when other nationalities come in because of the aforementioned ethnostates’ welfare system, as seek to take advantage of it, the whole system gets messed up. Find me an ethnically diverse country with a social democracy.

I respond: Scott is right. Does the UK count as a multicultural country? If it does, it’s growing a nasty White racist – fascist party of reaction to the diversity in the BNP. Does Venezuela count? If Venezuela counts, I would say that Venezuela is a country riven with violence, tension and class war. There seems to be a racial angle, but in the upper class and upper middle class, it’s really more about class than race. Nevertheless, it’s clear that the oligarchy is much more light-skinned than the Underclass that supports Chavez. Is multicultural Russia a social democracy? Maybe so, but it’s riven from one end to the other with horrible racism. Do Communist states like China and Cuba count? Maybe so, but those countries, probably due to the class warfare (in the case of both) and combined class/race warfare (in the case of Cuba) inherent in their societies, needed full, bloody Communist revolutions to institute any kind of socialist system. Vietnam and Laos are multiethnic countries, but the Lao and the Vietnamese are the overwhelming majority. They also needed Communist revolutions to put in socialism. I would say Sri Lanka. They have a pretty good social democracy there, and the ruling party is a member of the Socialist International. There’s also a horribly vicious civil war going on, because that “socialist” party in power has never done much to help the Tamils. Socialist parties in Chile, Argentina and Brazil haven’t been able to get much done. In Chile and Argentina the problem is probably much more class than race. In Brazil, surely it’s both race and class together. The socialists in Ecuador and Bolivia are trying to get something done, but Bolivia is riven with a horrific class/race division and it’s almost civil war there. I don’t think that the socialist parties in Nicaragua and Guatemala will be able to get much done. Both nations had Leftist revolutions for decades, in the case of Nicaragua followed by a revolutionary government and more civil war, this time counterrevolutionary. Nicaragua was always more about class than race, but the oligarchy is light-skinned. In Guatemala, the situation is very much about both class and race riven together. One thing becomes clear in this analysis. The only way to peacefully vote in a socialist or social democratic government is to have a relatively homogeneous society. Typically a White society. As diversity and multiculturalism increases, even in White European countries, White racist/fascist groups rise up for various reasons and racial violence against minorities becomes common. In multiethnic or deeply class-riven nations (Note how often the two are conflated!), socialism, social democracy or movements towards them is typically accompanied by either outright civil war, de facto civil war, tremendous open class war in terms of coups, attempted coups, lockout strikes, riots, imperialist interventions, class-based separatist movements, and much violence. In other places, socialist governments are not able to get much done due to deep class and race-based conflicts and the threat of violence from dominant ethnics and/or classes. In other places, long civil wars eventually installed Communist regimes in multiethnic countries and ethnic conflict subsided or stopped. Short of installing a Communist regime, multiethnic countries moving towards socialism are likely to experience a lot of internal violence and chaos. If diversity is so bad for socialism, why do socialists in the West keep pushing it? Good question.

Venezuela and the USSR In Context

Erranter disputes my views in A Look at the “Failed Socialist States”:

Venezuela is certainly not better than much of Latin America. Russia is probably better off now than it was with communism. The Soviet Union killed way more people than recent alcoholism. I see no reason to romanticize the USSR whatsoever; it was infernal. The nuclear meltdown alone may have killed 1 million people.

Actually, Venezuela does look good compared to the rest of the region. More importantly, when Chavez took power, about 8 Venezuela, with the exception of a few tiny islands in the Caribbean, is the wealthiest country in Latin America! So Erranter is wrong, Venezuela is indeed better off than the rest of Latin America.


		Robert LindsayPosted on Categories Americas, Asians, Capitalism, Chechens, Chinese (Ethnic), Crime, Economics, Eurasia, Europeans, Fascism, Hispanics, Immigration, Israel, Jews, Lao, Latin America, Middle East, Near Easterners, Neoliberalism, Nicaraguans, Organized Crime, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, Russians, SE Asians, Socialism, South America, US Politics, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnamese, War, White RacismLeave a comment on Venezuela and the USSR In Context			

Do US Conservatives Resemble Nazis?

The short answer is no, they do it. This is tough to swallow, because we on the Left love to call the US Right Nazis, but we really need to stop doing this. I’m tearing Johnny B. Goode apart in the comments, but let’s give some credit where it’s due. Certainly Johnny is correct when he says that the extreme statism of the Nazi regime is anathema to US conservatives, who, for better or for worse, buy into the the “limited government” thing in terms of democracy vs dictatorship. As proponents of limited government, US conservatives in general are not very authoritarian, though Bush was getting a little close. Nevertheless, the case is harder to make on repression grounds, though there the Nazis have US conservatives beat. US conservatives like to ban books from school libraries, but they don’t set them on fire. They don’t run concentration camps or execute dissidents. They don’t even imprison them, though the FBI gets pretty weird towards strong dissidents at times. The no-fly lists, the Patriot Act, widespread wiretapping, “free speech zones” far away from candidate appearances, detention of suspects without trial or even charges, trial of suspects in kangaroo courts, etc. are all examples of how US conservatives love repression and hate freedom when it comes to the law and order and national security stuff. Nevertheless, they’re still a long ways away from Nazis. The Nazis’ extreme intervention in the capitalist economy of Germany surely would be anathema to US small government conservatives, as would the euthanasia, animal rights, anti-smoking, abortion rights, generous pension, full employment, guaranteed employment, Keynesian deficit spending, public works, public education spending, national health care, secular separation of church and state and gun control projects. So in economic and social terms, US conservatives in many ways resemble more the extreme opposites of Nazis. It’s almost as if on economics and social stuff, no one could be further from a Nazi. As such, it’s wrong of those of us on the Left to call US small government conservatives Nazis. Sure, US conservatives suck, but Nazis they ain’t. They’re another critter altogether.

Is "Limited Government with Checks and Balances" a Conservative Concept?

The US rightwinger is still in the comments section, exemplifying once again the sheer insanity of US conservatism. But is conservatism elsewhere any better? I doubt it. Latin American conservatives seem pretty insane. So are the Indian and Filipino rightwingers. But the only place on Earth you hear this Nazis are Leftists stuff is in the US:

If you feel that the Nazis did not exemplify socialism as you understand it, they sure didn’t exemplify the right wing concept of a restricted government with limited powers and checks and balances either.

Listen. A restricted government with limited powers and checks and balances is not a rightwing concept. If anything, it’s progressive. As far as limited government goes, the founding fathers were opposed to tyranny. Hence the limitations on the state and system of checks and balances. They had nothing to say about economics or socialism or any of that. They were more worried about monarchy, a sort of dictatorship of the king. The Constitution was set up so that monarchists and other dictator types could not reinstate themselves. The Republican version of “limited government” means no socialism. No taxes, no government spending, no state intervention to better our lives, no state intervention in the economy. The founding fathers had nothing to say about this type of libertarian anti-socialist philosophy. There was no socialism back in those days, and no government anywhere tried to help its people. What the conservative scum do here in the US is twist the founding fathers’ fears about monarchist tyranny into their hatred of socialist economics, progressive taxation, redistribution of income, limitations on and regulation of business, etc. They’re basically putting words in the Founding Fathers’ mouths. According the Right, when the government raises your taxes or puts in a national health care system, this is a violation of the “limited government with checks and balances” that the Founders envisioned. Ridiculous! Do these punks actually believe this BS or are do they know they’re lying and they just figure it’s a good lie? Once again, on a worldwide scale, conservatism is not about limited government or checks and balances. In the few cases where it is, it is because the Right is in the opposition, and they are trying to thwart a Left regime, as in Venezuela. Truth is that on a worldwide scale, the Right hates democracy. There has rarely been a case when a ruling class will not resort to a military coup to overthrow a Left government that they don’t like. Conservatism on a worldwide scale is an undemocratic system of elite rule kept in place by the military and by police and security forces’ repression if necessary. They often run death squads against the Left to keep their power. The opposition press is bombed and opposition journalists are jailed or murdered. The system is also typified by extreme rightwing control of the media – typically ~9 “Limited government with checks and balances” is not a conservative concept. Maybe in some twisted version of US conservatism, but not in general. At any rate, the only reason that US conservatives subscribe to extreme checks and balances is when a liberal regime is in place. Then they hope to so overuse the checks and balances system to gum up the works and make it so government can barely function. When a rightwing regime is in, as in George Bush’s regime, the government runs roughshod over the checks and balances system, and the Right never says one peep, because checks and balances are only for liberal governments. So US conservatives don’t even really believe in checks and balances really. Worldwide, conservatism is typified by:

  1. Extreme lack of democracy
  2. Dictatorship
  3. Military control of the state
  4. Coups against Left regimes
  5. Near-total control of an extremely propagandistic and lying media
  6. Repression against the Left by security forces and the judicial branch
  7. Death squads
  8. No separation of powers – the three branches are linked.
  9. Frequent dissolving of the legislative branch by the executive branch.
  10. Massively corrupt judicial branch in the hands of the elite.

Good Things About Nazis

Well, it’s an ill wind that blows no good, eh? I suppose National Socialism was ok if you were a Aryan German who was not a criminal, homeless, or mentally or physically handicapped, or a dissident. All those folks went to concentration camps, or prison, or slave labor, or got bullets in the head. There was a positive aspect, to wit:

  1. Full employment
  2. Heavy spending on public education
  3. National health care
  4. More or less guaranteed employment for non-troublesome workers
  5. Secular, separation of church and state
  6. Anti-smoking public health initiative
  7. Pro-choice, free abortion available on demand
  8. Euthanasia
  9. Gun control
  10. Generous old age pensions

All of these fall into the realm of what we consider to be social democracy or modern social liberalism. Nazism was definitely a very strange movement. It’s almost unclassifiable. In terms of whether they were capitalist or socialist, they may well have been something else altogether, something in between. Socialists generally favor the workers at the expense of the capitalists and the rich. They are usually hated by big business because they side with labor and restrict the profits of capital. Nazis didn’t side with workers against capital. Capitalists generally favor the capitalists against the workers, consumers, society, the environment, the nation, everything is sacrificed to the God of Capital. Workers, consumers, society and the environment are openly attacked by the capitalist state. This doesn’t describe the Nazis either. They seemed to be trying for some sort of a balance between the interests of capital and the interests of the workers. Surely, society, the environment, the nation and the state were elevated above both workers and capital. Nazi fascism was all about the state. Everything was for the state. Workers worked for the interests of the state. Capitalists ran their enterprises for the betterment of the state. Capitalists who defied government directives could go to concentration camps or prison or be executed. Workers who defied their bosses or went on strike (harming the state) faced the same fate. It’s probably best to see Nazi economics as some weird Third Way that isn’t really capitalism or socialism. They also mixed in some social democratic policies along with some liberal or even progressive social initiatives. All of these good things of course were negated by the bad, which crushed and overwhelmed anything good they did with a tidal wave of evil.

Another Rightwing Lie: FDR Didn't Get US out of the Depression, WW2 Did

FDR did stop the Depression. It began in 1929 and was mostly fixed by 1934. The economy became stronger in 1935 and 1936, and only experienced a mini-depression in 1937 because FDR listened to the Republicans. He stopped listening to them in 1938, and the economy got back on track. Pearl Harbor didn’t happen until Dec 1941. The US Depression was well over by that time. FDR got out of the Depression the same way most every sane government always does – through Keynesian economics – massive deficit spending and even public works projects. While we are on the subject of Nazi economics, I will say that some of the aspects of Nazi economics were admirable. The Nazis inherited a horrible Depression, like FDR did. They got out of it the same reasonable way he did – massive Keynesian deficit spending and public works projects. Unemployment was staggering when the Nazis took over. Within a few years, Germany had full employment. This is all good, but many other things they did were bad. Anyway, Nazi economics is irrelevant to Nazism. Their claim to fame rests on their:

  1. Racism
  2. Eugenics program
  3. Censorship
  4. Concentration camps
  5. Repression of dissidents
  6. Racial mass murder
  7. Killings of the physically and mentally unfit
  8. Extreme militarism
  9. Attacks on the surrounding states in order to conquer them to turn them into vassals of imperialist Nazi Germany, where they also committed racial mass murder and repression.

Nazis economics is not important. It’s not relevant whether they were capitalist or socialist or whatever or this or that. That they were capitalist or socialist or some weird thing in between has nothing to do with 1-9 above. They weren’t killing and repressing people in the name of some poltico-economic project. Nazis barely cared about economics. All they cared about was militarism, ultranationalism and racism. It’s true though that the Nazi economic project in the 1930’s was very successful. In some ways, it did resemble a standard liberal Keynesian project, and it was similar to the New Deal in a lot of ways. Germany climbed out of the Depression faster than any other nation due to this Left economic project. Good for them. In 1936, the rightwing media and the Republican Party had been on a jihad for four whole years nonstop against FDR the socialist/Communist bringing Communism to America. FDR was probably one of the most hated men in America among the wealthy US elite. By 1936, they had bombarded the American people with enough lies and crap about “excessive government spending” and an “out of control budget deficit” that the propaganda was starting to work. There was no excessive government spending. What there was was necessary to get us of out of the Depression, and it worked like it usually does. There was no problem with a budget deficit. Compared to nowadays, things were fine on that front. But the American people, suckers then like they are today, fell for the bait. They were aroused into a frenzy over the need for deficit reduction. FDR and the Democrats warned them that deficit reduction in a hazy economy would be a bad idea and would hurt the economy. They were right. FDR fell for it and enacted deficit reduction and heavy cuts in government spending. Predictably, that resulted in a mini-recession in 1937 as GDP declined by 3. Republicans didn’t make sense then, and they don’t make sense now. I don’t think they’ve ever made sense. Deficit spending and public works projects work. There’s no better way to get out of a Depression or bring down high unemployment. There’s no better job creation engine on Earth than deficit spending and public works projects. Works like a dream. I suppose Republicans ideologically do not want to believe this, because ideologically they are opposed to deficit spending to stimulate growth and public works projects. So to be consistent ideologically, they have to lie and say that stimulus-led growth and public works projects don’t work and all they do is ruin the economy and lead to Depressions and high unemployment, when in fact the truth is the opposite. Do Republicans ever tell the truth about anything? Ever?

More "Nazism is a Left Movement" Insanity

A rightwinger writes the following in the comments, arguing that Nazism, bizarrely enough, is a movement of the Left.

I have to disagree with you comment that the right wing and conservative movement being about smaller government is “just rhetoric.” If you look at the U.S. constitution, you can see that it is very much about enumerating, specifying and limiting the powers of the federal government while reserving power to the much smaller governments of the states and to the people. The separation of powers in government to executive, legislative, and judicial branches that keep each other in check was specifically designed to prevent the kind of runaway government that exemplified Nazi Germany or the British Crown in the 1700’s. I fully agree with you that the U.S. government has not lived up to that ideal in many ways, but this government has hardly been in the hands of right-wingers or conservatives for the past half century. Also, some bloggers claim that the fact that Nazis fought against other left wingers proves that they were not socialists. This argument has no more validity than saying that different denominations of Christianity fighting each other proves that any one of them wasn’t Christian. Within any belief system, you may well find factions fighting over who will be top dog. The unbridled centralized power of the Nazi government to control the economy and corporations, while trampling on the rights of individuals and exterminating millions of people based upon race and religion is just an especially warped form of socialism. I maintain that one of the biggest lies of the twentieth century has been that Nazis were right wing. That kind of centralized government power is completely inconsistent with right wing ideology which strives to put strict limits on government. George Washington said it well: “Government is like fire – a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

There is a field called political science. They don’t agree with you. Nazism is considered by political scientists to be a movement of the far right, for what it’s worth. There is a recent movement by some lunatics, mostly in the US, to repackage Nazism as a movement of the Left. This movement is led by extreme rightwing loons like libertarians, extreme Chicago School neoliberals and the Austrians who follow Mises. Because the rightwing in the US is insane, it’s filtered down to the Republican Party as a whole. You would be hard-pressed to find a single respected political scientist anywhere on Earth who thinks Nazism is a Left movement. It’s not. It’s not a Left movement. Not at all. The founding fathers were actually liberals, progressives, and in some ways libertarians. A movement for limiting the extreme powers of government at that time was a very liberal movement. Back then, conservatives were all big government types. The rightwing in the US at the time, the Federalists under Hamilton, were big government types. They were monarchists, elitists who were anti-democratic. The rightwing has been opposed to democracy all over the world and at all times. Conservatism is a movement of elites, typically wealthy elites. Democracy is bad for business. Your notion that the Right is about small government is ridiculous. Here in the US it tends to be, but they don’t even do very good on that score. Government is usually much more repressive under a US rightwing regime than under a left one. George Bush’s regime was one of the most dictatorial we have ever seen in the US. It was a radical rightwing regime. Around the world, rightwing regimes have almost always been big government projects, at least in terms of the national security state. They are typically quite repressive too. The “small government” conservatism is pretty much a uniquely American phenomenon. Other than Thatcher’s Britain, show me one more rightwing government since WW2 that believed in or practiced “small government.” This is a fetish of US conservatism not shared by the Right of the rest of the world. I have a hard time understanding why this “Nazism is a Left Movement” has got going. This is a recent thing. When the Nazis were in power, they were generally loved by the Right all over the world because they were some of the most badass anti-Communists that ever lived. After the war, former Nazis sought refuge in hard rightwing regimes in South America and joined with CIA groups and the rightwing governments of Taiwan and South Korea in fighting the Left all over the whole world. Post World War 2, many hard right dictators have lauded the Nazis as their heroes. No one on the Left has. I suppose it is because we say that Nazism was a far rightwing movement. Well it was, and it is. Big deal. So the right is defensive about this because they don’t want to be associated with Nazis. It’s ridiculous. It’s as if every liberal had to renounce the Khmer Rouge and deny that they were a Left movement for fear of being tainted with them. There have been plenty of nasty folks on the Left. The Khmer Rouge were mass murderers. Mao, Stalin, the North Koreans, the Vietnamese, Hoxha, Mengitsu – they all killed lots of people when they were in power. But the Nazis were not among the mass murderers of the Left. Those were the mass murderers of the Right. As if it matters though, really.

Nazis Were Socialists?

Three commenters in the comments section have all chimed in to say that the Nazis were socialists. Two of the commenters are hard rightwing libertarian types. The other is some sort of a strange Yockeyist type. Not that it matters one way or the other, but what the Hell kind of socialists act like this? The Nazis, and all fascists everywhere, always attack the Left and the socialists, the Communists. The Nazis first arrested the Communists. What kind of socialists would have Communists #1 on their enemies’ lists? Next, the Nazis went after all the socialists (except national socialists I guess) and put them in concentration camps. What kind of socialist regime arrests all the socialists and puts them in concentration camps, after first arresting all the Communists? Third, the Nazis arrested the trade union leaders, then they went after their members. It was illegal to be a member of a union. What kind of socialists first arrest all the Communists, then arrest all the socialists, then arrest all the trade unionists. These guys just out and out declared war on the Left. In every country they conquered, they did they set up Nazi puppet governments that followed the same policies, always attacking the Communists, the socialists and the trade unionists. Mussolini and Franco were much the same, as was Salazar later on. Fascism has been described as a “a radical authoritarian popular movement against the Left.” Workers had few to no rights under Nazism. Workers who caused trouble for management or owners could be and were shipped off to concentration camps. At first, the Nazis did make plant owners install gymnasiums for workers, but they later backed down on this when the owners complained too much. The whole idea of fascism is that the class war under capitalism is over. There are rich, middle class and poor, and everyone is where they are supposed to be. Whatever the wealth distribution is, is normal and set in stone. Don’t mess with it. This is in total contradiction to the redistributionist agenda of the Left. The state did not run most enterprises under Nazism. The capitalists did. The capitalists were told what to make by the state. If they complied, they were assured of good profits. If they did not comply, they could be shut down or have their assets seized. Big business was one of the major supporters of the Nazi regime, because it was good for business. Big business rarely supports socialist governments. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what sort of economic system the Nazis had. Their evil nature was in their radical nationalism, their racism, their expansionism and their plan for world conquest. What the Hell does socialism have to do with racism, ultranationalism, expansionism or world conquest? Not much. As part of the Left, socialists are more internationalist than nationalist, generally tend to oppose racism rather than support it, and look dimly on imperialism, expansionism, foreign conquest, etc. Yes, the Nazis were very racist, went after the Jews, practiced Eugenics, killed the mentally ill or handicapped, etc. What does their economic system, capitalist or socialist, have to do with any of that? Nothing at all. Capitalism and socialism are modes of economic development. Racism, eugenics, murder of the less fit, world conquest, expansionism and ultranationalism are realms of society that are outside of the economic sphere. This whole “Nazis were socialists” thing is just a crazy way to bash the Left. Not that it matters one way or the other anyway.

So Hitler Was a Communist After All

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsE1dVd56yA&feature=related] National Bolsheviks claiming that Hitler was a socialist/Communist after all, which means he was good in their book. The more NazBol crap you check out, the weirder it gets. This stuff makes my head spin. No! Hitler was not a Communist! No! Hitler was not a socialist! No! Hitler was not pro-Bolshevik! No! Hitler was not pro-USSR and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact does not prove this. No! Operation Barbarossa was not a war between two socialist states over rival ideology, like the China-Vietnam War in 1979, or the Vietnam-Kampuchea War in 1979! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Admittedly, it’s a complex question, but few political scientists would agree with this, Hitlerism being the mysterious beast that it was. Stalin’s USSR was not, not, not a White racialist state a la the USSR. This is Nazbol fantasy. If you can make it through more than 2 minutes of this Nazi tribute, a gold star. You also have a strong stomach or are not easily bored. If you like this video, well. Um. Screw you.

More Silly Black Nationalist Arguments

A Black nationalist in the comments continues to make arguments that hold little to no real world value these days. His post required a considerable edit for grammar, punctuation and spelling.

So says a white man, the most dangerous race of people to ever walk the earth, responsible for two world wars which nearly destroyed humanity. The Soviet Union alone murdered over 70 million between 1917 and the early 1950s (Oops but that was organized), not forgetting the 20 plus million Hitler’s bloodletting was responsible for (Oops but that was organized). If you want to learn about rape on a mass scale, learn about what the white Germans did in Namibia at the turn of the 20th century (Oops but that was organized).Seems like you already know every single imperfection in the black race. The media, comedians, Hollywood, and the general public, do their bit to ensure no stone is unturned when it comes to black people. However I have noticed an effort from certain whites to sanitize your own history. Whites never talk about how in the 20th century tens of millions died of starvation in Europe, mostly because of a deliberate effort from others, but you often talk of the hundreds of thousands who have died in African famines or Rwanda. The wars which caused tens of millions of lives in the 20th century are presented just as an historical fact – little mention is made of the fact these tens of millions of lives were taken mainly by white men at arms. But a lot of time of yours is spent talking about wars in Africa, which have seen a fraction as many lives lost. We hear a lot about poverty in the black community, but most white Americans are extremely reluctant to mention the fact 9 But you were never a part of any of it. The Europeans who were advanced, who were elite, who had money, who had wealth are still by and large in Europe! The British royal family still reside in Britain, as do thousands of Lords, Ladies and aristocrats. But millions of peasants from Britain and beyond are now living in America. It’s a sanitized history, which I guess is necessary, for whites to continue the white illusion of a racial superiority when deep down it’s the racial inferiority.

OK here we go. There were no 70 million murdered in the USSR between 1917-1953. I will acknowledge 3.3 million killings or murders by the state during this period. There were no famines that killed millions in Europe in the past century. Can you point some out to me? The point of all of this is a little mysterious. Ok, so Whites have killed more? So what? We also have the best weaponry and most advanced killing machines. You also touch on an interesting point. The worst murderers of the past century were people who thought themselves superior to everyone else – the German and Japanese fascists. Some race realists would say that they are better than everyone else. So we can see the danger that supremacism can lead to some serious mass slaughter of those deemed inferiors. The main point is how is the fact that we are the biggest killers important to me in my life? It is not. Whites are the biggest killers. Ok. So I should fear them then right? But I do not. I don’t fear going to White places in the US or in general to White countries outside the US. There’s not a lot of crime to be afraid of, and at the moment, there is no Organized Violence going on in White countries. You say Blacks have killed fewer. Ok, fine. But how does that affect me? According to this logic, I should be less afraid of Blacks than I am of Whites, since Whites are vastly more dangerous than Blacks. Yet I am afraid of going to Black areas in the US and am afraid of going to many Black countries in the US and Africa. And that fear is based on reasonable things. I am much more in danger from Black people on this Earth than I am from White people. And I have the facts to back that up. So your argument is little more than empty theorizing. It has little to no real world value. It’s just something to make Blacks feel good and Whites feel bad for no real good reason. History is history. It’s over, dead and gone. All that matters is now and honestly the future. Whites have gotten over the mass killing thing, and there have been few wars in Europe in the past 60 years. The only one I can think of was in the Balkans. 200,000 people died there. Africans have not gotten over the mass killing thing. When will they? Ever? In 30 years max I will be dead. There will have been few to no wars in Europe in that period and many wars in Africa. When I die, Africans will still be slaughtering each other away in mass violence. When are they going to knock it off? Ever? America has been leading the way in inventions and innovation for some time now. The Europeans pull their weight too. So most Americans are from peasant stock, if that’s even true? My mother’s line is from royalty. I’ve also heard that most Americans are descended from royalty if you go back far enough, because most everyone else’s lines died off. But why does this matter? If we come from royalty or peasant stock, it’s not important in terms of our innovations and progress. Sure, only a few Whites were the authors of this tech, but that’s always going to be the case. What matter is this? What is important is the achievements of a civilization, not the

A Look At the Venetian and Friulian Languages

Repost from the old site. Here we will compare Friulian and Venetian with Italian. The Friulian language is spoken in northeastern Italy. Among Friulian speakers, the language is affectionately known as Marilenghe and is best known from the Udine, the main town of the Friulian zone. It has 794,000 speakers and is in pretty good shape. There is a close relationship with Ladin and Romansch. Most speakers also speak Standard Italian. In regions of Slovenia bordering Friuli, almost everyone speaks Friulian as a second or third language. Friulian is closer to French than to Italian. legal status of Friulian and feels that it is lacking, although a landmark law was passed in Italy in 1999. This law was very controversial, and public opinion in Italy continues to be that regional languages should all give way to Italian. Venetian is said to be a dialect of the Italian language, but it is actually a completely separate language related more to French than Italian. It is spoken mostly in northeastern Italy in Venice, Trieste and other areas by 2,280,387 people, but the number may actually be up to 3 million. ethnic nationalist myths have arisen – that Northern Italians are Celtic (more White) and that Venetian is some kind of Celtic language. There was a Celtic language spoken in the area some 1,800 years ago, but it has not left much trace on the languages of today. North Italians are not Celtic and Venetian has no relation to Celtic. Venetian is close to the northern Italian languages Piedmontese, refer to such a mindset as “that of the Roman Empire” and those who promote it as fascists. My English translation is a free literary translation and is not literal or word for word at all. It translates the text into the best possible literary English. Central (Udine) Friulian Copiis Il puar biāt al ą copiāt il Siōr par dīj: “O soi come tč”: ma il Siōr nol ą copiāt. Magari chel biāt j ą vuadagnāt, ma i fīs, daspņ, cetant ąno pajāt no savint jéssi sé? Il lōr destin al č, savéso quāl? Copie de brute copie origjnāl! Eastern/Coastal (Triestino) Venetian Copie Il sempio il gą copią il Sior par dir “Mi son come ti” ma il Sior no’l gą copią. Forsi quel sempio xč divegnudo sior, ma i fioi, dopo, quanto i gą pagą par non saver come xe stado? Savč vł qual xč il loro destin? copie dela bruta copia original! Notes: Both Friulian and Venetian are structurally separate languages. It’s very difficult to write in Friulian, and very few people know how to do it properly. Venetian is easier to write, and more speakers are able to write it. Friulian ā is a long a. Venetian x is the same as English z Venetian ł resembles the “lh” sound. This sound does not occur in English. Standard Italian Il poveretto voleva copiare il Signore per dire: “Io sono come te’, ma il Signore non ha copiato. Forse quel poveretto ha guadagnato ma i figli, dopo, quanto hanno pagato non sapendo cosa ? Sapete qual’č il loro destino? Essere copia dell’originale brutta copia! Notes:  Poveretto: povero di mente: simpleminded fellow. Signore: educated, gentleman. Guadagnato: learned something, got wiser. Pagato: to pay in a moral, education way, to “learn your lesson.” English The simple man tried to copy the gentleman so he could say, “I’m just like you”, but the gentleman could not be copied. Now, maybe that simple man learned a thing or two, but how much would his sons, later on, have to pay for not knowing a thing? The sons’ destiny? To be a copy of the original rude copy.

Birds of a Feather: Anti-Semites and Super-Jews

Repost from the old site.

I got the strangest reaction as I read this article on an extremely weird and crazy website. It was mingled in with a bunch of semi-anti-Semitic conspiratorial more-or-less bullshit, and I read bits and pieces of this article, assuming it was part of the whacked out anti-Semitic crap.

After a few minutes, I figured out that instead of being written by an anti-Semitic nutcase, it was actually written by an ultra-pro-Semitic frothing-at-the-mouth Zionazi Jew crazy from Israel.

So the craziest of the Jews actually sound like anti-Semitic kook Nazis when they talk.

Is that weird, or is that does make sense in some version of the universe?

Is that anti-Semites say that Jews are evil, crazy, bigoted and dangerous as Hell, and super-Jews do their best to play the role?

ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS.COM 03/26/03, 3:19 AM This War is for Us

by Ariel Natan Pasko

Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us. … – i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal – our sages – throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People.

Simply put another way, if all the world is a stage, then the Jews – and especially those in the Land of Israel – are the lead actors on the stage of history, and the goyim – the nations, i.e. the gentiles – have supporting roles, while the evil-doers are props and background scenery.

As our tradition states, G-D – the great playwright – created the world for the sake of the Jewish People, and it is our responsibility to implement the Torah … in it.

Stop and think for a moment: the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev – just before – Purim. This Gulf War began motzei – just after – Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, “The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor.” (Book of Esther 8:16)

Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the prototypical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons – all hanged – and the Jews kill 75,800 members of the anti-Semitic – i.e. Nazi – party of the time.

This is not so different from the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, when 23 Nazi war criminals were tried. Originally 11 were to have the death penalty imposed if found guilty. Everybody in those days thought that they would be shot – as is customary in military executions – or get the electric chair – as was common in the United States.

But when the judges announced the verdict of guilty, they also said that hanging would be the method of execution. Two hours before the execution, they found Hermann Goering dead in his cell. He had committed suicide. That left only 10 Nazis to execute.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. In Megilat Esther (9:7-9), when it describes the execution of Haman’s ten sons, their names are listed in a vertical column. If you look at the Hebrew closely, you’ll notice extra-small letters in three of the names. The first name, Parshandata, has a small tav.

The seventh name, Parmashta, has a small shin. The tenth name, Vayzata, has a small zayn. Hebrew letters are also used as numbers, as well as for dates in the Jewish calendar. Tav, shin, zayn numerically means 707, corresponding to the year 5707, which began with Rosh HaShanah – the Jewish New Year – on September 25, 1946.

On October 16, 1946, as foreshadowed in the names of Haman’s ten sons, ten Nazi leaders were hanged as war criminals. And if that doesn’t impress you, out of nowhere, with the rope around his neck, Julius Streicher – editor of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper – shouted out with flaming hatred in his eyes, just as the trap door opened, “Purimfest 1946!” It was reported in the international press of the day.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, … we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin Laden, and the other dictators, terrorists and mullahs of the region, are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.

Great things are yet to come. …

Alt Left: Is the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Taking Over the White Christian West?

Olive is a Jewish commenter who is a pretty reasonable person. However, she tends to buy into neocon scare stories from the likes of the slimy Ultra Jew Daniel Pipes. One of Pipes’ theories is that the Palestinian solidarity movement is sweeping the White West, the result being Arabization and Islamicization of the West. This is actually a joke.

Olive:

I don’t like Daniel Pipes either, and I never said the UK was becoming “Arabized.” Just that this supposed support for the Palestinians goes far beyond that. They now see the Palestinians through the same lens that Westerners supposedly saw the holocaust survivors.

As victims they can do no wrong and their culture should be elevated to a different status and beyond criticism. Anything critical we might say about Islam or the Arab world is dismissed as “Zionist propaganda.”

Olive also spoke about how hordes of White Christian Westerners were going to Palestinian cultural festivals and even celebrating Muslim holidays.

I’ve never heard of a Palestinian cultural festival. But I might go to one, maybe for the food. Also your typical Western Palestinian is a very nice, warm, and friendly person, a typical Arab. Unlike most Western Whites. It’s nice to meet friendly people.

We have a few Palestinians around me. You can talk to the men, and they are very friendly. The woman are not very approachable, perhaps for cultural reasons. But the Arabs in this town act very good. They act better than the native Euro-White people, many of whom look like they are strung out on meth.

I’ve never heard of a White Western non-Muslim celebrating a Muslim holiday to show how much they love the Palestinians.

There are not that many Whites in the US who think the way Olive described. Or on the Left either. Even in the UK, I do not think there are too many. Some Leftists are in on this, but there are not many of those folks. I would say that these types are far eclipsed by the Islam-haters in the BNP and it’s offshoots, many of which have British Jewish support.

This whole thing about pro-Palestinian sentiment taking over the West is preposterous. Most liberals don’t care about the Palestinians that much. We think Arabs are uncivilized, and we are dubious and wary at best about Islam, especially in our countries.

Liberals just don’t like the US supporting a big fat bully, Israel, that pushes the Palestinians around, that’s all. Liberals support the underdogs and the oppressed and fight the bullies and the oppressors. The oppressed don’t have to be good citizens. They need only be oppressed. Then we sign on.

So with US liberals it’s not so much support for Palestinians (Tough sell!) as it is disgust with an openly fascist ethnic nationalist state in Israel. Openly fascist ethnic nationalists do go against almost everything we liberals stand for, you know.

As far as support for the Palestinians, their religion, their culture, whatever, that’s just a fringe group called the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. Compared to the Jewish Lobby in the US and the world, it’s so tiny in the West that it’s almost a joke. In fact, I think it is a joke! Why isn’t Daniel Pipes laughing? He should be doubled over.

Yes, some of the PSM folks elevate Arab and Palestinian culture and religion ridiculously, refuse to criticize them, call all critics Zionists, etc.

I was part of that movement for a while. The group I was with was run by Palestinian Communists (most of the top membership were apparently members of the PFLP political wing).

I was thrown out as a “Zionist spy or agent” (LOL) after a while. I suggested that Ashkenazi Jews had roots in the Middle East, and I criticized Arabs and their crap culture. I also slammed Islam. You can’t do that. You can be as anti-Semitic as all get out (the Palestinian Solidarity movement is full of anti-Semitism) but don’t you criticize their pet Arabs and Muslims.

The group was also full of Muslims, and they make sure you can’t attack their lousy religion. Also, the Whites are mostly Muslim sympathizers, and periodically one of these idiots “embraces Islam” (converts to Islam) to the cheers of the whole crowd. Even the Communists cheer! It makes you want to puke. There were a few Middle Eastern Christians in the group, but they were the minority. Even the Arab Communists were pro-Islam. It’s sickening!

In terms of Western Whites, this PSM thing is a fringe movement of a bunch of crazies. It has little to no importance in the scheme of things. Pipes is a nut and a liar for blowing the movement out of proportion, but I suspect he knows he’s lying? You never know with Super Jews. They lie like rugs.

What is it with Jews and lying, anyway?

Does their religion give them permission to lie, maybe to save or help the Jews, or fight the enemies of the Jews? As so many things can be interpreted as protecting the Jews from their enemies, this gives Super Jews a lot of opportunities to lie religiously.

Why America Sucks

All the voters are White. Of course the country is a reactionary nightmare.

As you can see, the overwhelming majority of US voters are White. It is US White voters and only US White voters who have sent America down the conservative and reactionary sewer pipe in the last 30 years. An operation that is yet ongoing, and that seems to be gaining quite a bit of steam. In the 2006 election, it was even worse. 7

The electorate also is overwhelmingly White.

The voter pool is also overwhelmingly White. So the argument that Blacks and Hispanics don’t turn out to vote is washed up. Even if they all turned out to vote, it wouldn’t matter much. It would only shift the electorate maybe -

As long as America is overwhelmingly White, it will be a terrifyingly reactionary and backwards place, the laughingstock of the Western World. There is nothing inherently reactionary about White people. In Europe, they are reliably socialist. Someone show me a reactionary and non-socialist country in Europe please? In New Zealand and Australia, Whites are quite socialist, whatever their limitations in recent days with the horror specter of Mr. Howard.

In Latin America, it is true, Whites are reactionary, extremely so. Even in Uruguay and Argentina, they are reactionary. But these countries also have a revolutionary White Left that in the past has given the White elites the bullets and bombs they so richly deserve.

Argentina today, though a reactionary and Third World mess like the rest of the continent, at least has a Leftist President. A real Leftist, not an Obama rightwinger. The Argentine elite is alarmed about the Communist takeover of Argentina, Commies being coded as “fascists,” and are openly calling for the return of the fascist dictatorship. Fascist Argentines bashing Left opponents as fascists while calling for the return of Argentine fascism. Typical fascist obfuscation and mind-warping.

They claim that Kirchner had Commie “brownshirts” in the streets who have taken over entire zones. The Commie Kirchner is supposedly trying to “censor the media” by breaking up the reactionary media monopolies that own nearly the entire media of the land. But why should the Right own 9

Media should be delineated democratically according to predilection. If 3

Uruguay elected a former Left wing guerrilla, but I’m not sure how much will change, as he is dedicated to following the neoliberal suicide model. Is Uruguay a more socialist state than the USA? An interesting question.

Costa Rica is a pretty socialist place, which is interesting since anti-Communist fools and liars always uphold Costa Rica on their social figures, comparing it to Cuba on the grounds that Cuba is not so hot. What these congenital liars don’t realize (Or maybe they do!) is that all of Costa Rica’s great figures are attributable to Costa Rican social democracy.

Those are the countries in which Whites are a majority.

In the rest of Latin America, Whites are a minority, and they are frighteningly conservative to reactionary. They have generally stayed in power through repression, fraud, imprisoning, assaulting, kidnapping, torturing and murdering the opposition. White elites have done this in most countries in the region: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Mexico.

The implication is that Whites will only support any kind of socialism where they are a good, solid majority. They are only 6

The entire rightwing movement in the US for the last 30 years has been coming from Whites. Has it been coming from Hispanics? Of course not. Has it been coming from Blacks? Please. Has it been coming from Jews? Pull the other one. Has it been coming from Asians? Forget it.

So when you read that “the voters” are furious with Obama and support all sorts of reactionary monstrosities in opposition to him, it’s US Whites, and only US Whites, who are leading this Tea Party opposition wave to Obama. And much of it is undoubtedly racist, no matter how much they scream that it’s not.

US Whites, as a

The other day, my mother (smartest women on Earth) told me that in the lifetime of my brother and I, we will live to see the US become a more progressive country. If all goes according to plan, I will take off around 2035 or so. The reason for this, she said, is the decline of Whites.

White nationalists have told me that a declining White America will lead to a more progressive place. Their reasoning for this is curious, and doesn’t make much sense. One guy told me that as Whites decline further and further, they will get more and more radical. As they dip below 4

Will Hispanics, Blacks, Jews and Asians continue to be reliably progressive into the future? It’s an interesting question. Majority-Indian, mulatto and mestizo places like Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Brazil, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Panama are quite backwards and rightwing. A White minority in all places continues to rule to the detriment of everyone else. Usually they enforce their rule at gunpoint and often with deadly force. But they get the votes of mestizos, Indians and mulattos to do this.

In the Caribbean, Black and mulatto elites have treated their own people horribly. This is particularly the case in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Most of the Black Caribbean is not very socialist, with the exception of Cuba. But Dominica is an equitable country, and Trinidad and Tobago has a decent amount of socialism. Socialism was arrested in Jamaica with the US assault on Manley, a White socialist.

The record in Black Africa is not good in terms of socialism. North African Arab states are much more socialist than Black Africa. True, there is not much to divide in the first place, but still. Even Black African countries that have fallen into some money are still horribly rightwing. Gabon, a wealthy African country, has nightmarish levels of poverty, malnutrition, maternal mortality, child and infant mortality. Apparently, as has always been the case in Africa, a tiny Black elite has grabbed control over the economy for themselves and possibly their tribe and is locking out everyone else.

Given that mestizos, mulattos and Blacks have a poor record of setting up socialist systems in their own lands, one wonders just how socialist they will be here in the US as they grow in numbers. So far, they have been realiably socialist, but what will the future bring.

The model in mulatto, mestizo and Black countries is typically astounding gaps between the rich and the poor, horrifying levels of poverty, and often an enraged, militant and sometimes armed but cash-starved Left minority battling the elite for power. In these countries, poverty is a big deal, the opposite of the US. So there, all parties, from Right to Left, run on reducing poverty and fighting for the poor, with a few overtly fascist exceptions in Guatemala, El Salvador, (Honduras?) and Colombia and a strange overtly rightwing government in Chile, increasingly a US model state in Latin America.

The Right has the entire media spectrum. In Honduras, a 9

The ignorant mestizo, mulatto and Black electorate tends to vote for parties that often have progressive sounding names. In many cases, these parties are said to be overtly socialist parties. This is especially the case in the Caribbean, where almost every party has a socialist-sounding name. So down there, the Right calls themselves socialists, progressives and populists fighting for the poor while they implement reaction.

A similar dynamic is seen in Africa, where most parties have socialist-sounding names.

In other words, the US model of reactionary parties having open reactionary images, programs and politics is nonexistent in most of Latin America and Africa. No one would vote for it. In fact, it’s anathema in most of the world! It’s nearly nonexistent also in Arabia, South Asia, Europe, SE Asia and NE Asia. Turkey does have an overtly rightwing government.

Other than Turkey, show me one overtly reactionary party along the lines of the US Republican Party in power in any of these places.

One wonders if the model of the US reactionaries will change in the future with White decline. Will we see the rise of a backwards mestizo, mulatto or Black elite looking for votes possibly on an ethnic basis. Will we see the rise of fake populism and fake socialism, where the Right will operate rightwing parties with socialist and progressive sounding names campaigning on poverty reduction and helping the have-nots, to get the non-White vote? Will the Republican Party model of an openly and brazenly reactionary party become nonviable as non-Whites refuse to support it, according the model in the rest of the world?

The Rich Are the Enemy (Always and Forever)

“Behind every great fortune is a great theft.”

-Honore de Balzac.

Well of course. The greatest French caffeine addict of all time was onto something.

Marx hinted at the same. If you read Marx carefully, it’s apparent that every bill in your billfold has a history drenched in blood. Blood, theft, mass murder, conquest, genocide, slavery. But no! The rich earned every penny. Earned it with whips, bullets, swords and mass graves, sure.

I keep getting fascists trying to recruit me to fascism. I guess they don’t understand the meaning of the word socialist. Socialism is all about democracy, if not politically, then at least economically, or a movement towards a more egalitarian distribution of income. Fascism at its best is pro-elite and pro-aristocracy. Fascism can never be democratic either economically or politically, though the jury is still out on the Third Positionists.

And why would I support Third Positionism? Third Positionism is racist socialism at best. It’s socialism for Whites. Fuck that. I’m a liberal for Chrissake. We don’t do racist hate, socialist or otherwise. Take it somewhere else!

The rich will always and forever be the enemies of the socialists.

Socialists who make alliance with the rich, the class enemy, have left the fold.

The Socialist International is full of these fake socialists nowadays. This fake bourgeois socialism, the socialism of APRA in Peru, Frelimo in Mozambique and the outrage called New Labor in the UK, is the “socialism” of Obama. In other words, Obama’s socialism is not even socialism at all. It’s not even liberalism. I don’t know what it is. I think it’s an attempt at pro-corporate liberalism, which is a joke on its face, as it’s impossible.

This is Obamanomics in a nutshell:

Obama: Hey! I have a plan!

Liberals: What is it, oh Godhead?

Obama: Look! Let’s get the rich and the corporations to work with us to redistribute income and create a more just society! I talk to them all the time! I can get them to go along with my plan! I promise.

Smart liberals: WTF.

Dumb liberals: Show us the way, master!

Look Obama, you dipshit, if your goal is progress (progressive politics), you don’t enlist your class enemies in the project. Hint: They aren’t on board for the ride.

The Roots of Fascism in Pakistan and Sri Lanka

Great article from one of my favorite websites, The Left Coaster. It’s basically the left wing of the Democratic Party in the US. They sure don’t agree with the idiot 5

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. The conflicts in Pakistan and Sri Lanka have their roots in the fascist language policies of the state. India,on the other hand, for all its faults, has had a good language policy from the very start. English was chosen as the national language, and each state chose its own majority language as the language of the state. To communicate with the central governments, the states would use English. Much ethnic tension and violence was actually defused in India by this very progressive policy.

Pakistan, insanely, chose the language of only

Sri Lanka was worse. Sinhalese, the language of 7

The genocide reached a peak this spring when the state wiped out the remains of the Tamil Tigers, and slaughtered 100,000 Tamil civilians at the same time. The media in the West and India did nothing but stand up and cheer during the whole Tamil Holocaust. Sickening. Now the war’s over, but tens of thousands of Tamils are in concentration camps.

Sinhalese settler-colonists, like the Jews of Israel, have invaded Tamil lands to throw the Tamils off, steal their land and confiscate it for Sinhalese settlers. Not one word of this in the filthy Western media, who apparently have never met a fascist they didn’t like. Both political parties support the fascist Sri Lankan state.

On a worldwide scale, only the Left has managed to peep in protest over the Sri Lankan fascist genocide. This is one reason I’m a Leftist. We’re the only honorable people left on the globe.

FARC Attacks Eliminate 17 Colombian Security Forces

A FARC roadside bomb and automatic weapons fire ambush in Caqueta killed 14 Colombian police in Caqueta. A number of cops were trapped inside a burning vehicle. They were hit with roadside bombs, then attacked with automatic weapons, then doused with gasoline and set on fire. Another 7 police were wounded. There is a government offensive going on in Caqueta right now, and the FARC is resisting it.

Those aren’t really cops. They are “state police,” and their mission is counterinsurgency.

Earlier, there were two other FARC attacks near the borders with Venezuela and Ecuador that left 3 soldiers dead, 7 more wounded and 1 missing.

Altogether, 17 security forces were killed in three attacks, 14 more were wounded and 1 is missing in two days of fighting

In Colombia, anyone having any opinions whatsoever on the Left is fair game to be killed by the state. The military, state or death squads will often denounce you as a “FARC member” or a “FARC supporter.” The first case is almost never true, as the FARC usually wear uniforms. Anyway, FARC members can easily be arrested if there is any evidence against them.

Most people so named are just trade unions, people on the Left, members of political parties, community workers, organizers, etc., members of campesino and human rights organizations, on and on. The second charge is much harder to prove. What in the Hell is a “FARC supporter” anyway, and how does one go about proving such a thing? Most folks so named are probably not even vocal FARC supporters, but even if they were, is that illegal? If it’s ok to kill “FARC supporters,” then why doesn’t the FARC have the right to exterminate every single “government supporter.” Fair’s fair, right?

In addition, there is a long-term process going on of removing peasants from their land by the military, death squads and the state. The land is often taken by force. The military or death squads come out and order you off your land. If you say no, they threaten to kill you. If you don’t leave, they attack you. If you leave, they steal your land. This process of theft of peasant and Indian land for large landowners has been going on for at least 200 years in Colombia. It’s very similar to the fencing of the commons in England which some commenters on this site waxed ecstatic about.

Isn’t it clear that capitalism requires the removal of small farmers from their land, by deadly force if necessary? This has been the process of consolidation of capitalism in most nations in the world, including the US. Why is this something to support?

Notice that the entire world press supports the fascist Colombian state in their war against the people. In the latest election, the Defense Minister was elected President. He’s a true fascist and a mass murderer. The US government, public and the world media can’t get enough of him.

The world fascist press (if it supports fascists, it’s fascist, right?) has been saying that a massive offensive under the genocidal Uribe has reduced the FARC’s strength by 5

The haters of the FARC on this site are asked exactly what it is that the FARC are supposed to do. You don’t support them, so what do you think this organization should do? You have no answers, do you?

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.

Nazis Were Socialists

Yeah right. What a bunch of crap that is. That’s why Big Business fell all over themselves to support the Nazis, because they were pro-worker socialists. Get real. The Nazis assured business that labor would be under the firm control of the state, and business was free to manage their enterprises as they saw fit. The first to go the concentration camps were Communists, then socialists, then trade unions. Jews were fourth! Those first three groups were sent because Nazis were pro-worker socialists! C’mon. From William Shirer’s, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

Goebbels was jubilant. “Now it will be easy,” he wrote in his diary on February 3, “to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money.”

The big businessmen, pleased with the new government that was going to put the organized workers in their place and leave management to run its business as it wished, were asked to cough up.

This they agreed to do at a meeting on February 20 at Goering’s Reichstag President’s Palace, at which Dr. Schacht acted as host and Goering and Hitler laid down the line to a couple of dozen of Germany’s leading magnates, including Krupp von Bohlen, who had become an enthusiastic Nazi overnight, Bosch and Schnitzler of I. G. Farben, and Voegler, head of the United Steel Works. The record of this secret meeting has been preserved.

Hitler began a long speech with a sop to the industrialists. “Private enterprise,” he said, “cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality . . . All the worldly goods we possess we owe to the struggle of the chosen . . . We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist.”

He promised the businessmen that he would “eliminate” the Marxists and restore the Wehrmacht (the latter was of special interest to such industries as Krupp, United Steel and I. G. Farben, which stood to gain the most from rearmament). “Now we stand before the last election,” Hitler concluded, and he promised his listeners that “regardless of the outcome, there will be no retreat.”

If he did not win, he would stay in power “by other means . . . with other weapons.” Goering, talking more to the immediate point, stressed the necessity of “financial sacrifices” which “surely would be much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March fifth will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years.”

All this was made clear enough to the assembled industrialists and they responded with enthusiasm to the promise of the end of the infernal elections, of democracy and disarmament. Krupp, the munitions king, who, according to Thyssen, had urged Hindenburg on January 29 not to appoint Hitler, jumped up and expressed to the Chancellor the “gratitude” of the businessmen “for having given us such a clear picture.” Dr. Schacht then passed the hat. “I collected three million marks,” he recalled at Nuremberg.

As long as businesses produced what the state told them to, they were assured of good profits and a compliant workforce. Strikes and unions were outlawed.

Workers had to obey management. Management threatened disobedient workers with being sent to concentration camps. At first, the Nazis forced businesses to build gyms for their overworked workers to work out in when they were not slaving away. Later, the Nazis got rid of this when business complained that it was costing them too much money.

True, the Nazis built the Autobahn, and that was a public transportation improvement, but improved driving conditions for the masses was secondary. Mostly, those big highways were built to drive tanks and other military vehicles on. To the Nazis, war was everything. Everything was sublimated to the war machine.

When the war really got going, workers were horribly exploited, often forced to work 18 hours a day under miserable conditions all for the Fatherland. Many died of overwork during this period. This is why slave labor was imported from the conquered areas. That was the dominant theme of Nazism: slave labor. Some pro-worker socialists!

References

Shirer, William. 1960. The Nazification of Germany: 1933–34. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Belarus: Dictatorship or Democracy? A Review of Stewart Parker’s: “The Last Soviet Republic”

Belarus: Dictatorship or Democracy? A Review of Stewart Parker’s Book: The Last Soviet Republic. Originally Published on Globalresearch.ca

by Gearóid Ó Colmáin

August 24, 2010

Since the pronouncement of former US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice in 2008 calling the democratically elected president of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko “Europe’s last dictator”, the image and reputation of this noble country has been fanatically tarnished by the mainstream media.

The irony here is that Belarus is indeed deeply familiar with the iniquities of dictatorship. They, more than any other country, suffered the worst of Nazi atrocities during World War 11.

Belarus has always been a multicultural country with Jews, Christians and Muslims living side by side for centuries. This deep tolerance for cultural and religious differences is still celebrated in Belarus today. Yet the European Union, Israel and the United States, never cease from spreading atrocious lies and disinformation concerning the Republic of Belarus.

Belarus has generally received scant coverage from alternative and left-wing media, which is rather surprising considering the fact that Fidel Castro has awarded Alexander Lukashenko with the order of Jose Marti, the highest honour bestowed upon friends of the Cuban people. In a recent visit to Belarus, the president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez praised Belarus as a model of socialist development, one which Venezuela should emulate.

Yet there is a paucity of books and articles about this country and its “controversial” leader. One notable exception to this hiatus comes from Stewart Parker who published a clear and revealing book on Belarus and the policies of Alexander Lukashenko in particular.

For readers seeking an insight into this fascinating country, Parker’s The Last Soviet Republic: Alexander Lukashenko’s Belarus (2007) is a brilliant exposé of the lies and distortions emanating from the European Union and the US concerning “human rights” violations in Belarus and the absence of “democracy.” What follows is an attempt to summarize and evaluate the findings of this valuable study.

Alexander Lukashenko came to power after a landslide victory in 1994. A former director in a collective farm during the USSR era, Lukashenko was one of the few Belarusian politicians to oppose the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1990. Although the Belarusian leader had always been an outspoken critic of the USSR’s corruption, he remained committed to Marxism-Leninism, and opposed the rampant privatization proposed by Boris Yeltsin and his followers.

In the final years of the Soviet regime, Lukashenko, then a deputy to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, formed a group called “Communists for Democracy.” Lukashenko argued that the real problem in the USSR was the decline in democratic participation and the parasitism and corruption of the ruling bureaucracy. He also advocated more autonomy for the USSR’s constituent Republics.

Belarus had always been the most advanced Soviet Republics, with high achievements in education and science. In spite of economic stagnation and increasing corruption in other republics of the USSR, Belarus’s state planning had continued to yield impressive results, with economic growth continuing throughout the Brezhnev era. In 1993 Lukashenko was appointed head of an “anti-corruption committee.”

One of the numerous myths repeatedly circulated since the fall of the USSR is that a majority of the Soviet people wanted free market capitalism. This was certainly not the case in Soviet Republic of Belarus. It was Alexander Lukashenko’s defence of Soviet values, together with his outspoken criticisms of the Communist Party of the USSR and the apparatchiks of the soviet regime that earned him the respect and confidence of the Belarusian people. In 1994 Lukashenko was elected President of Belarus with over 80 percent of the votes.

Finding a place for Belarus in the post-Soviet chaos was a difficult task for the young president. One of the first issues concerned the national flag. The BPF, a nationalist party, wanted to restore the white, red and white flag of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which had been the national flag under the puppet regime of the German empire in 1918. It was also used by the collaborators with the Nazi Wehrmacht during World War II. The people finally settled for maintaining the Soviet flag minus the hammer and sickle. Radio Free Europe later lamented the dropping of the Nazi collaboration flag as a “heavy blow to democratic forces.”

In the intervening years since the fall of the USSR and the rise of Lukashenko, over 15 billion dollars had been siphoned out of the country. Privatization and the lifting of price controls had caused inflation to soar, with prices rising 432 times. The Soviet economy was being replaced by mafia gangsters. Western “freedom” and “democracy” was taking its toll!

Through a series of referenda Lukashenko was able to set in motion a democratic social program which has made Belarus one of the most prosperous and least corrupt countries in Eastern Europe. Just like Venezuela, a clause in the constitution decided by a referendum permits the indefinite re-election of the president should the Belarusian people wish to do so.

Over 80 percent of industry in Belarus remains in public ownership. In 1996 the unemployment figure in the country amounted to 4 percent. Lukashenko’s administration has since reduced this figure to little over 1 percent, one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. Industrial output rose by 9.7 percent in 2004. Wages have been increasing significantly every year since Lukashenko’s accession to power.

Economic growth in Socialist Belarus has been so impressive that even the World Bank and the IMF have had to acknowledge this incontrovertible fact. In June 2005, the World Bank published a report titled Belarus: Window of Opportunity, which admitted that the Belarusian economy was growing steadily, while the IMF admitted that Belarus had significant wage increases coupled with low government debt. Good news for Belarus, bad news for the World Bank and IMF, whom Lukashenko, speaking before the Russian Duma in 1999, had called “a pack of swindlers.”

In a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, Belarus offers real hope that economics does not have to function that way.

According to the system developed by the Italian statistician Corrado Gini, known as the Gini coefficient, Belarus ranks as the most equal country on earth. The Gini coefficient for Belarus in 2005 was 0.217, the lowest out of 113 countries. In Belarus, the lowest income is only five times lower than the highest income. This means that the notion of “corporate greed” one hears about in the United States and Europe is virtually nonexistent in the Republic of Belarus.

Belarus also comes out on top in education. Adult literacy in Belarus is the highest in the CIS nations at 99.

In contrast to Western “democracies” where social security is being systematically destroyed to sustain the financial oligarchies, male workers in Belarus retire at 60, while women retire at 55 with full pension entitlements.

Needless to say, the attitude of the EU and the United States nomenclatura, that is to say, the self-proclaimed “international community,” is that Belarus is not a “democracy.” Media disinformation has backed this hostility of European and US elites to Belarus by publishing an impressive quantity of lies. At the 60th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, President Lukashenko put the US “human rights” obsession thus:

If there are no pretexts for intervention – imaginary ones are created. To this end a very convenient banner was chosen, democracy and human rights, and not in the original sense of the rule of people and personal dignity, but solely and exclusively in the interpretation of the US leadership.

In order to promote the US “interpretation” of human rights, President Clinton sent Michael Kozak to Belarus in 2000. Kozak distinguished himself during the 1970s in the Iran/contra scandal where he was instrumental in organising the sale of arms to the contra terrorists in Nicaragua in exchange for cocaine, which the CIA sold to poor Americans on the streets of Los Angeles, the same poor people who would subsequently be incarcerated for “possession of narcotics.”

While poor people were forced to make military uniforms in US prisons for their drug convictions, Kozak was one of Washington’s key handlers of Daniel Noriega, a CIA narcotrafficker and dictator of Panama. Clinton had deep confidence in Kozak’s democratic credentials, as he himself was governor of Arkansas, where the CIA operation was conducted from. The US-funded terrorist campaign in Nicaragua cost the lives of over 30,000 people, most of them civilians. Kozak had the perfect credentials for spreading “democracy” American style in socialist Belarus.

Upon his arrival in Minsk, US ambassador Micheal Kozak, Clinton’s former CIA gun-for-drugs terrorist handler, now US “pro-democracy” diplomat, was quick to make contact with his European counterparts. Representing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was Hans Georg Wieck. Wieck worked closely with Kozak to groom “opposition” candidates in Belarus suitable to Washington and Brussels.

When Lukashenko won another landslide victory in the presidential elections of 2001, the OSCE condemned the elections as unfair without producing a shred of evidence to corroborate their claims.

After the 9-11 attacks in New York, the US showed the real motives behind the “global war on terror” when Senator John McCain declared:

Alexander Lukashenko’s Belarus cannot long survive in a world where the United States and Russia enjoy a strategic partnership and the United States is serious about its commitment to end outlaw regimes whose conduct threatens us…September 11th opened our eyes to the status of Belarus as a national security threat.

McCain was referring to the sale of arms by Belarus to the CIA’s disobedient puppet dictator Saddam Hussein, a claim denied by President Lukashenko. Here we see the US accusing other countries of crimes which it itself committed for years when it sold arms to the Iraqi dictator. But the real crime committed by Lukashenko was his progressive social policies, which were setting a bad example for other countries strangled by the financial interests of the US global oligarchy; US “national security” meaning the security of the financial elite, and “global war on terror” meaning global war on freedom.

But the US was determined to launch its global terror campaign against any state that dared to resist casino capitalism. Belarus and Lukashenko himself would pay a heavy price for standing up to the IMF and the World Bank. In 2004 the United States proceeded to take action with the passing of the Belarus Democracy Act, calling for sanctions against Belarus and funding for “pro-democracy” groups.

Most opposition groups in Belarus today receive funding from the United States government, paid for by cash-strapped US tax payers. This funding almost culminated in the so-called “Denim Revolution” in 2006, a CIA-funded attempt to arouse popular opposition to the Lukashenko government in order to replace it with a pro-US regime. However, unlike their neighbours in other Eastern European countries, the Belarusians did not take the US bait, and Lukashenko stayed in power.

After the failure of the “Denim Revolution,” the EU imposed a travel ban on Lukashenko and 30 ministers, preventing them from traveling to any part of the EU. This shows the extent of the anxiety among the EU elite in the face of Belarus’s popular democracy.

Stewart Parker sites a number of poignant examples in his book which reveal the extent of systematic anti-democratic interference in Belarusian affairs by the United States and their vassal states in Europe. What is particularly “totalitarian” about socialist Belarus is not the Belarusian state, but rather the way in which that state is portrayed by the so-called democratic authorities of the EU and the US.

The absurdities promoted by the mainstream media come from all sides. Lukashenko has been accused of anti-Semitism, in spite of the fact that the thriving Jewish community in the country seem to be unaware of this fact. In fact, the chief Rabbi of Belarus has praised the Belarussian president for his support of the Jewish community, yet the EU, the US and Israel insist that Lukashenko is “anti-Semitic” and also opposes “free media.”

The Belarus government has been accused of internet censorship and media control. More lies! The Open Net Initiative carried out a study after the “disputed” elections of 2006 to see if the claims about Internet censorship were true. They “found no evidence of systematic and comprehensive interference with the Net. Any regime-directed tampering that may have taken place was fairly subtle, causing disruptions to access, but never turning off the alternative information tap.”

Another slander against the Belarusian president came from Russia’s “free media.” In 1995, Dr. Marcus Zeiner interviewed Lukashenko for the German newspaper Handelsblatt. The interview with Dr. Martin Zeiner was cleverly mistranslated to include positive references to Hitler. This was confirmed by the interviewer himself who subsequently said “a tape of the interview had been quoted out of context and with the sequence of comments altered.”

The BBC continues to propagate this lie about Lukashenko, which only serves to prove the desperation of the corporate media in the face of popular leaders whose policies threaten their empire of lies.

Stewart Parker’s book The Last Soviet Republic is an indispensable guide to a country and leader the bourgeois media does not want you to know about. It is, to my knowledge, the only comprehensive study of a country that only receives attention when vicious opportunities for anti-socialist propaganda present themselves.

We have much to learn from this brave little country that sacrificed so much to defeat the forces of fascism of Europe’s past and is now menaced by those same fascist forces which have resurfaced today in the name of “human rights,” “democracy” and “freedom.” In a world dominated by the ideology of the financial elite, those who stand for the common man and woman are beaten down ruthlessly. Alexander Lukashenko stands for democracy, human rights and freedom, which is why the corporate media call him a “dictator.”

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.

Judeopedia Redux

Repost from the old site.

Via Philip Weiss, who gets the scoop from Electronic Intifada, and thence to Joachim Martillo for final comment, it seems the paranoid and delusional world that I revealed in Wikipedia, Ziopedia or Judeopedia fully two years ago is finally starting to be proven true. But of course. I saw it with my very eyes.

I saw the Jewish Nationalist cabal on there and got nailed, run up by admins and then banned by them. Then I wrote about it. I don’t see how anyone could spend much time on Wikipedia and not notice these wicked little toads running amok all over that precious online encyclopedia.

The Electronic Intifada piece reveals a concerted effort by CAMERA, a rightwing Zionist lobby in the US, to infiltrate Wikipedia surreptitiously, ingratiate themselves with editors, get all pro-Palestinian editors run up on fake charges and hopefully run out, and to eventually move on up into the ranks of administrators. So my paranoid delusions about Jewish conspiracies on Wikipedia were proven true after all.

I can tell you flat out that the Administrators are already chock full of either members of this Jewish Cabal or rightwing libertarians allied with them. Jimmy Wales himself is a rightwing libertarian who has strong pro-Zionist views that he does not hide. The administrators are chosen well to carry out a specific agenda.

No one has ever run up these cackling criminal Heckles and Jeckles in this Jewish Cabal on anything yet, and anyone who mentions a peep about it gets put on their creepy neo-Nazi list (I made it on) which I guess has hundreds of names on it, in typical Jewish paranoid fashion.

Not only that, but the Jewish Cabal runs around crowing and bragging about their very project all the time; they call themselves The Cabal, The Jewish Cabal, and other names, so they are totally blatant about what they are doing. But if anyone dares to notice this and points it out, onto the Neo-Nazi list you go, and soon you will be run up to Administrators on totally faked charges and then run out of Wikipedia.

I don’t think I have ever seen a Jewish-critical or pro-Palestinian editor who lasted long there. It’s been two years since I wrote that post, and I keep hoping things have changed, but I keep getting emails from pro-Palestinian folks who just got run out of Wikipedia.

On Phil’s post, the truly disgusting Richard Witty, “Peace Now Zionist – Jewish nationalist – defender of the Jews” who seems to inhabit all of Phil’s threads is squirming around as usual. One gets the impression he is writing on a pincushion. This crap is getting harder and harder for the Richard Witty’s of the world to deny.

The usual rejoinders are employed by Witty – this happens all over the web, this is the problem with open source editing, there are cabals all over the place in our world, including the Internet.

Sure, I saw plenty of cabals trying to form on Wikipedia, usually on nationalistic or political issues. And they were crushed, one by one, but conscientious editors. However, curiously, the sickening little Jewish cabal was allowed not only to survive but to run amok across all of Wikipedia! Riddle me that!

And recently, a particularly vile and scummy Hindutva – Hindu Nationalist – Indian Nationalist Cabal has formed and this cabal has also been allowed to run wild all over all of the India and Pakistan articles on Wikipedia. The result is that most of the articles on India and Pakistan have been totally destroyed by stinking fascist Hindutva worms.

The Hindutva Cabal, of course, has formed an alliance with the Jewish Cabal, Jewish fascist dogs with Indian fascist dogs, all in one kennel, crapping on the floor, humping each others’ legs and yip-yapping away, just like in real life.

One Jayg is mentioned in the article as not a member of the CAMERA cabal, but instead a sympathetic outsider. Actually, Jayg is one of the leading members of the Jewish Cabal on Wikipedia. He’s one of the worst Jewish POV-pushers of them all.

Zeq, the leader of the CAMERA cabal, is also a well-known member of the Jewish Cabal on Wikipedia. The reason Zeq speaks poor English, I believe, is because he is an Israeli.

I am familiar with both of these sociopathic runts.

I believe they are both admins too, but I may be wrong.

Repeat after yourself: cabals exist, cabals exist, cabals exist.

Anyway, over and out. Writing this is starting to make me really angry all over again.

P. S. I would like to point out that a huge percentage of White Nationalists support Zionism (Jewish nationalism). That right there ought to stop anyone in their tracks and make them wonder why. When you finally figure it out, if you have any decency, you will realize even more than ever that WN is bad news.

Wikipedia Jews Again

Repost from the old site.

Looks like some of the Wikipedia Jews are operating out of Israeli government computers and the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. Well, I guess Wikipedia has really hit the bigtime when the diplomats and spy-types start trying to write it.

This blog has obtained a secret copy of emblem of the Wikipedia Jews, used by them in internal communications via instant messenger and email to ward off spies and infiltration attempts. They make sly references to this motif throughout their communications with each other. This is the first publication of the cabal’s secret sign, and hopefully it will stimulate further research into the workings of this very secret and devious cabal.

Even read Thomas Pynchon’s book The Crying of Lot 49? It’s quite difficult to read, but if you’re smart, you can handle it.

I feel it deals with Information Theory. Supposedly Information Theory is this, but my take on that is, “He who controls information, controls the world”. Right?

Well, that’s what’s up with the Israeli government rewriting Wikipedia. Supposedly other governments are doing this too. Only problem: it’s against Wikipedia’s mission and policy of being an unbiased (LOL!) encyclopedia. So, really, it’s not ok. Wikipedia’s not ok either, but neither is government encyclopedia manipulation.

The comments are really interesting too. Lots of Zionist Jews chiming in with the usual crap, excuses and lines.

Everyone does it.

That’s one of their favorites, from murder to spying to this or that or anything.

The Palestinian propaganda network is just as bad, if not worse.

ROTF.

I used to hear this one all the time in the Middle East Usenet groups. Zionist Jews have this peculiar notion that there is this vast worldwide Palestinian or pro-Palestinian network that almost controls the world’s press. Sort of like the Protocols of the Elders of Palestine or something.

It’s complete crap.

The Palestinians have nothing, just some terrorists ramming dozers into pedestrian vehicles – the latest attack – 3 dead, 70 wounded – is another Hezbollah revenge attack for the Mossad killing Mughniyeh. I knew Hez would make Israel pay for that. And crappy rockets that don’t even shoot straight.

I’ve been on Wikipedia and edited articles on Israel and Palestine in a completely fair manner, usually using the Israeli government’s own statistics to rewrite articles. I was more or less alone in this endeavor. All who went before me were thrown off Wikipedia.

For this crime, I was put on a neo-Nazi list by the Wikipedia Jews and their buddies like this twit Chip Berlet, had 10

That Berlet twerp is in very tight with the top Wikipedia leadership, and seems to work very closely with Ape Foxman, I mean Abe Foxman, of the spies and thugs of the ADL.

Berlet seems to specialize in finding “rightwing” movements where none can be seen for miles, and in finding all manner of “anti-Semitism” that often never seems to exist either. The man’s got quite an imagination. Lately, he’s been working on the Jewish Lobby or Israeli Lobby thingie. There is no such thing, you know, sez Chip. And if you mention it, you’re an anti-Semite. Neener neener.

Chip also insists that the US is in the midst of some sort of White nationalist and anti-Semitic seizure exemplified by fascist White racist thugs running amok on the streets destroying everything gay and non-White. There’s a few of these guys around, but if I were a gay or non-White, I’d rather worry about lightning, heart disease or car accidents. US neo-Nazism is a comically minor movement with almost no support.

Since these Wikipedia toads banned me, I have received repeated letters from editors who tried to put a bit of fairness into articles on the Middle East conflict on Wikipedia. Everyone I talked to was in the process of being taken out by the Wikipedia Jews. Last time I checked, the Wikipedia Jews and their buds were in firm control over anything Jewish or Israeli-related on Wikipedia.

Yeah, Wikipedia’s a hotbed of pro-Palestinian propaganda. Snark.

Amazing the crap some folks believe. Almost like they live in some Matrix reality.

Article written by Charles Levinson, an Jewish American journalist based in Cairo and Baghdad since 2002 and in Jerusalem since 2006. Charles did a great job here. Shout out!

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.

Nazi Condoms

LOL.

Nazi rubbers, WTF man? I thought they wanted all good Germans to produce plenty of fine Aryan babies for the Fatherland. Remember, German women were not producing enough kids. That’s one reason that in Generalplan Ost, Slavic babies with Germanic features were kidnapped by German troops and sent west to be raised as Germans by German women.

Fascism is always pronatalist. That’s one reason why it sucks. As a super-environmentalist, I’m just not down with pronatalism. White nationalist websites always have these articles about some White woman who had 18 kids, followed by a train of wildly cheering comments. I see that shit and I want to vomit.

Russia and China’s Moves Towards Ultranationalism

A commenter, John UK, attempted to defend the fascist and ultranationalist nature of the Chinese and Russian states on the grounds that they are fighting US imperialism. Whether they are or not is not particularly relevant. Anyway, why are Chinese ultra-sweatshops better than US imperialism?

These days both China and Russia are essentially fascist states. Putin smells like a fascist! He even has some fascist “youth league” where they go to these Hitler Youth type “summer camps” where they learn to attack Putin’s enemies – journalists, human rights groups, basically liberal society. He encourages his fascist youth group to “make lots of babies.” That’s natalism. Fascists are natalists. Natalism is not progressive. It’s fascist.

The youth group is even called Nashi. You know? Nashi? What does that sound like? Sounds like Nazi huh? There’s no way that’s an accident.

Putin’s shock troops serve the billionaire elite. The billionaires run their own private armies, like Mafias or death squads. They do whatever they want. When citizens protest their latest plans, like confiscating 10,000 acres for their development scheme, Putin calls his KGB style shock troops out to attack the people, Latin American style. Putin has his critics, like journalists, murdered on a regular basis. He shuts down opposition TV, radio and papers. He has committed genocide in the Caucasus for years now.

I support the armed secessionists in the Caucasus to the hilt. They certainly have a right to self-determination.

I appreciate that Putin is a nationalist and he stands up for his people and takes on US and NATO imperialism, but he’s a fascist nevertheless.

China seems to have abandoned socialism in favor of a form of 19th Century Industrial Revolution capitalism that kills at least 600,000 Chinese a year through overwork alone. It’s basically a murderous and even genocidal state, like a typical 3rd World capitalist state such as India. Mao was always a nationalist, and he always had fascist leanings. He treated the Tibetans horribly. Other minorities were terribly abused during the Cultural Revolution.

The Chinese have now replaced socialism with a particularly virulent type of Chinese ultranationalism with some really scary, fascist-like undertones. It’s sickening and downright frightening the way the PRC keeps threatening Taiwan. Isn’t it clear that they will never allow a free Taiwan to exist?

The Han invasions, riots and pogroms in Xinjiang recently reminded me of Kristallnact. The Han invasions and repression of the Tibetans are disgusting and ought to embarass any so-called progressive regime. Shame on them.

Why Is Indian Nationalism So Dangerous?

fpy asks why I think that Indian nationalism is particularly dangerous.

What makes Indian nationalism uniquely malignant?

They are basically all ultranationalists. They’re fanatics. Seriously, horribly brainwashed fanatics. They’re about as brainwashed as your average North Korean.

I have never met an Indian who was not livid with rage over Kashmir. And their heads were filled with lies. 9

The truth as I studied it in the early 1990’s was that maybe 9

I have talked to many Indians on this subject, and they are almost all insane. Dangerously insane. These views are typical: All Kashmiris want to stay with India. Or, following Golda Meir, there are no such thing as Kashmiris. 10

Even now this War of the Stones, which is so obviously a grassroots popular rebellion, is being blamed 10

It’s hard to believe that educated people could believe this crap, but they do. Ignorance and rage on that level are frightening. Your average Indian reminds me of an Israeli, or a Turk. Basically a flaming, lying, brainwashed, ultranationalist, militant, militaristic kook.

And they are seriously filled with hatred and rage, especially towards the West. They are dangerous people. The place has nuclear weapons!

Full of rage at the failed nature of their society, yet at the same time filled with tremendous pride. Their whole thing is that India was the greatest state on Earth until evil Muslims and British took over and ruined it. They’re furious at the West. We came in there, told them their religion was shit, told them their culture was crap, told them their science was garbage, and they’re still pissed.

Failed nations that are full of pride yet and full of rage at their fall, especially at the scapegoats who ruined their glorious nation, who dream of the Lazarus rising from the fire to reclaim to glories of old, are very dangerous states. These are the essential ingredients of fascism. And Indian nationalists have that in spades.

They remind me of Germans in the interwar period. Very fascist-like people.

Was Obama’s Bailout of the Banks Fascism?

Robert Taylor, an extremely radical super-Libertarian or more properly an anarcho-capitalist, suggests that Obama’s bailout of the banks was fascist. As such, he echoes a Tea Party line:

Robert, what would you call Obama bailing out the largest financial institutions if not Classical Fascism?

Under classical fascism, the corporations must work for the state. Otherwise, the state just takes them right out. The corporations don’t wish to be taken out, so they just obey the state. They have to do what the state tells them to. If they do, they are assured good profits.

Obama’s bailout is the opposite, and anyway it started with Bush. In modern America, the corporations control the state, not the other way around. The corporations were bailed out because they control the government. That’s the opposite of fascism. It’s not fascism if the corporations control the state. That’s just typical capitalism.

The bailout was surely necessary, but there should have been more provisions in there to pay us back. Actually, I wanted the state to completely take over many of those banks, at least temporarily. Take them over, make them solvent again, and then give them back. Even more radically, I would like a US National Bank along the lines of China’s.

Without the bailout, the economy would be way more screwed than it already is. However, it was necessary to pair the bailout with a lot of terms and conditions that effectively re-regulated the banks back to where they were in the 1930’s. That meant reinstating Glass-Steagall, the whole nine yards. The banks would have gone along with it or they would have had no choice. Or offer the banks a choice, we either regulate you or we are going to take your asses over. This is what Roosevelt did in the 1930’s. This was not done at all, hence the criminal nature of the bailouts.

The rightwing, as you see in this comment, uses the “fascist” meme to scare people away from any kind of socialism or state involvement in the economy. Yes, fascists had state involvement in the economy, but they were not pro-worker or even pro-middle class. Anyway, many,  many socialist states have had a great deal of state involvement in the economy and yet they were not socialist. They were mostly pro-corporate and especially supported a hyper-nationalist imperialist project abroad and a conservative, ultranationalist and anti-minority project at home.

I don’t necessarily oppose fascist economics though. The type of corporatism practiced in East Asia is actually a good idea. State control over corporations is actually a great idea. Fascists are bad in many ways, but their economic project is not so terrible.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)