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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Iranian PMU “Militias” Have Not Done Any of the Rocket Attacks on our Bases Tht We Have Accused Them And Iran of Doing

There was a rocket attack on the US base in Taji, Iraq the other day. 30 Katyusha rockets were fired at the base from a rocket launcher positioned in an abandoned pickup truck. 3 troops were killed,  2 Americans and 1 British, and 10 more were wounded, some badly. The US immediately blamed the PMU Division and Iran, specifically accusing the Kataib Hezbollah Battalion of the Iraqi Army for some reason, whom they have blamed before.

The Kataib Hezbollah Battalion is part of group of militias of the Iraqi Army called the PMU Division. These militias are now actual battalions and divisions of the Iraqi Army. The US stated “all intelligence points to Iran as being the source of the attack.” They also said that the attack was “beyond the capabilities of ISIS” and that only the PMU Division among the country’s armed insurgents and militias have the ability to carry out such an attack.

We will examine all of these claims below.

First of all, the PMU Division (Iraqi Army) didn’t do it. They already said they didn’t do it. They also said when we start attacking, we will announce it. This makes sense as the PMU Division generally claims all of its attacks. However, the Kataib Hezbollah Battalion of the Iraqi Army congratulated whoever did it. So what?

The previous attack on Kirkuk which Trump used to murder 30 members of the Iraqi Army and later Soleimani and Muhandis was proven to have been done by ISIS. The US lied and said Iran and the PMU Division did it. The Iraqi Army investigated and said it was an ISIS attack. The (((New York Times))) investigated and said the same thing. The (((Jew York Times))) has zero motivation to lie about this and they would love to blame Iran and the Shia militia Division.

Despite my name-calling here, I would like to commend the New York Times for not giving in to  (((ethnic chauvinism and lying))) and for telling the truth for once, even if the truth isn’t good for the Jews. Thank you, (((Mr. Shulzberger)))!

Journalistic integrity ought to come first and (((ethnic solidarity))) ideally ought to come last, but humans are emotional and that is why humans will always be a frequently irrational species – because emotions and facts go together like oil and water, and many truth-statements that people arrive at are derived by emotions, and  hence they are false.

This is very important to understand because most of us have views of the world that depend on seeing ourselves and fellow humans as rational beings, while the truth is that people are not very rational at all, and they are often quite irrational. The more emotional the subject is, the more irrational people will tend to act about it, and this includes determining what’s true and what’s false.

After we killed 30 of their men, the PMU Division then stormed embassy because…well…the US just murdered 30 of its men? Is that hard to understand? Of course they were mad.

I have a good source, a journalist, who is close to the Iranian and Iraqi governments as well as the IRGC, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. He stated that Iran had nothing to do with the embassy storming. It was a PMU Division decision to storm the embassy. Nevertheless Trump murdered Soleimani who had nothing to do with it and Muhandis, head of the PMU Division, who was only protesting the murder of 30 of his men. US lied and blamed Iran.

Next came many rocket attacks on US embassy, My source told me that the Shia militias didn’t do any of them as they wanted to give the US time to leave. The US nevertheless blamed the Shia militia division and Iran for all of these embassy attacks and other attacks on US bases. Neither the PMU Division nor Iran had anything  to do with any of them.

And note that the the rockets fired at embassy always came from Sunni parts of Baghdad. Why would the Shia PMU Division fire rockets from Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad who are utterly hostile to the PMU?

Now we have this latest attack on the base in Taji. The Kataib Hezbollah Battalion said they didn’t do it and asked whoever did it to take credit for it so the US would quit falsely blaming them. The PMU Division denied doing the Taji attack, and they claim all attacks. The US once again lied and blamed Iran and the PMU Division for the rockets and death of the US soldiers.

Keep in mind that the PMU Division is nothing but the Iraqi Army, a division of the army. They answer to Central Command in Baghdad, not to Iran. Iran doesn’t give orders to any of its allied militias. They get to do what they want within limits.

These rockets were launched from an area east of Taji called Rashidiyah. Tarmiyah is to the north. The entire area is made up of Sunni tribes who practice Sufism and were strong supporters and members of the former ruling Baath Party. The Sunni resistance against the US was here for years, and the US and Iraqi government never could clean them out. The original armed factions were made up of Sunni tribes with a strong adherence to the  Naqashbandi Sufi Order, the main Sufi order in Iraq.

After resistance died down, this area became an ISIS hotbed. In fact, ISIS weapons caches were found at the precise location that these rockets in this Taji attack were fired from. I have a hard time believing that Shia militias went to an utterly hostile pro-Baath Party Sunni neighborhood of former Sunni guerrillas and ISIS supporters and shot some rockets.

Nevertheless, we still no idea who did this attack. I would bet once again on Sunnis and/or ISIS. The US presented zero evidence for Iranian and PMU Division involvement. The Pentagon said the attack was beyond ISIS capabilities.

This is a complete lie because this was the exact same setup ISIS used in the earlier Kirkuk attack. ISIS also did an attack in Afghanistan three days using this setup, and ISIS used this setup endless times during the heavy fighting in Iraq several years ago. The US is lying that ISIS does not have this capability. Of course it does.

There is a good argument that Sunni groups and/or ISIS are doing all these rocket attacks. These Sunni folks utterly despise Iran and the Shia PMU Division.

They know that the US automatically blames Shia militias and Iran with every rocket attack no matter who shot the rockets. So they may shoot rockets at the US taking no credit for them (as that would spoil the trick) to frame the PMU Division and Iran for the attacks. If this is what is going on, it’s working great. Muhandis, Soleimani, and scores of Shia soldiers in the PMU have been killed by the US in retaliatory strikes for something  they didn’t even do.

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

RL:

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

A commenter responds:

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

But let’s explore the first:

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’d be pissed to, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Refuting Western Media and State Lies about Iran

The Evil Basij Repress the Vast Majority of Iranians

The media in the West says there is this evil group called the Basij who come out and break up every demonstration, no matter how peaceful, with serious violence. Supposedly the vast majority of Iranians are being oppressed by this tiny group of thugs.

First of all, the Basij is simply something like the National Guard of Iran. The Basij has an incredible membership of 11 million men; in other words, an amazing 42% of Iranian men are part of the Basij. The Basij is not some tiny horrible group of monsters oppressing the vast majority of Iranians. The Basij is literally the Iranian people themselves, an army of the people if there ever was one.

Demonstrations, No Matter How Peaceful, Are Not Allowed in Iran and Are Always Broken Up with Violence

This is absolute nonsense. Though Iran is not Cuba where the only people who demonstrate are the Ladies in White – the wives and family members of political prisoners, neither is it China where there are 500 demonstrations every single day.

Instead it is somewhere in between. Nevertheless there are demonstrations all the time in Iran, practically every day, the vast majority of them are peaceful, and nothing ever happens. Khameini himself recently affirmed the Iranian people’s right to demonstrate peacefully about a wide range of issues.

The Peaceful Demonstrations about a Fuel Price Hike Got Broken up by Evil Regime Elements, Killing 1,500 demonstrators

First of all, that death toll is way off. It’s inflated by at least five times. The highest reasonable toll for those killed during the demonstrations is 300. Furthermore, the demonstrations that were broken up were not about the fuel hike, and they were certainly not peaceful. On the contrary, they were extremely violent, and from day one, they were advocating the violent overthrow of the government. In fact, they were actually trying to do just that – violently overthrow the government.

Here’s the truth about what happened.

Yes, there were large demonstrations about the fuel hike. The demonstrations were dumb though. Iranian gasoline is massively subsidized by the state to the point where Iranians  pay ~10 cents/gallon for gas. The state simply cannot afford to keep subsidizing gas at that level, especially with the extreme sanctions it is under.

Furthermore, the regime advocated only a small raise in price from ~10 cents/gallon to ~20 cents/gallon. So what. In addition, all of the money saved by raising the gas price was going to be given to support the poor of Iran. So the gas hike was necessary, the new price was easily affordable, and the price increase was going for a great cause.

However, these demonstrations, which were all completely peaceful by the way, lasted for only one day. Huge crowds of peaceful protesters showed up to protest the fuel price hikes, and nothing happened to them.

However, at nightfall, violent protesters or rioters showed up, and all the peaceful protesters quickly left. After that it was nothing but violent rioting for a couple of weeks, with ~200,000 mostly young men burning down almost 100 banks and other buildings, destroying everything in sight, and attacking and even killing police.

Furthermore, these violent rioters had already showed up at the peaceful rally on motorcycles and fired on the demonstrators there. So they obviously weren’t there to protest the gas hikes. Instead, as noted, these violent rioters were trying to overthrow the government by force. Most but not all of the dead were violent rioters.

There are indeed demonstrations in Iran that get broken up, often with violence. These demonstrations feature young people, often university students, who are objectively contras or counterrevolutionaries. These demonstrators typically call for the overthrow of the regime either via force or otherwise. Demonstrators yell slogans like “Death to the dictator!” and fly  American and Israeli flags.

The vast majority of Iranians absolutely hate these people. Surveys show that 85% of the population hate these contras, refer to them as traitors, and think that either sufficient force or not enough force was used to put down the riots.

The rioters have no support. Only ~15% support them. However, that boils down to a lot of people. There are ~8 million Iranians who support the violent overthrow of the regime. 8 million people can make a lot of noise and do a lot of damage, but they still only have 15% support.

There Is No Freedom of the Press in Iran

Although there are definitely limits on what you can say in Iran, and some journalists are arrested and sentenced to prison there, the press is freer than you think.

For instance, Iranian social media is a wildly free place swarming with contras. Hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Iranians regularly post counterrevolutionary material there, often advocating for the violent overthrow of the government. There’s not a lot that the government does about this, as the situation is out of hand. Is Iran really going to arrest 2 million people for speech offenses? Come on.

After the recent accidental shootdown of the  Ukrainian jet in Tehran, I looked at the English language editions of several Iranian papers. I was absolutely stunned by the headlines. All of these papers were furious at the jet shootdown and quite a few articles were demanding the resignation of the government and its replacement with new people.

The truth is that there are two large forces in Iran that are within the revolution. One is called the Reformers and the other is called the Hardliners. Right now, the Hardliners are in charge.

Recently the Reformers captured the presidency of Iran via elections. President Rouhani was a Reformer. However, the Rouhani Administration did not rule very well, and the voters threw them out at the ballot box. Yes, Iran has fairly free and fair elections, although there are occasional cases of vote fraud. Former President Ahmadinejad, a Hardliner, was said to be elected via fraud ion 2009.

Although the Reformers support the revolution, they are quite antagonistic towards the hardliners. All of those papers I saw with those incendiary headlines were run by Reformers. So in that sense, the Iranian media is extremely free.

Surveys of Iranians

Excellent surveys of the Iranian people, some run out of the University of Maryland, paint a completely different picture than the one we get in the Western media.

Surveys show that 78% of the population supports the current system of religious rule, 90% pray every day, 86% hate America, and the same number liked Soleimani. Iranians are very religious people – some of the most religious people on Earth – and Soleimani was the most popular political or military figure in Iran.

The contra riots typically call for an end to Iran’s foreign policy, where it is supporting the armed Shia forces in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon in addition to supporting the Palestinians.

The Western media says the Iranian people are opposed to this foreign policy, which they see as expensive and unaffordable adventurism, but surveys show that ~2/3 of voters support Iran’s support of armed Shia groups in those countries. A similar number also back Iranian support for the Palestinians.

I’ve got some news for brainwashed Westerners. The Iranian Revolution has lots of supporters. Did you see the size of those crowds mourning Soleimani?

Even a lot of these hip young women with their push the limit hijabs you see nowadays showed up in huge numbers. Some of these women were wearing headbands saying things like “I Fight Israel.” I kept seeing photos of these hip young liberal women at the funeral processions, and I thought I must be hallucinating. Except I wasn’t. The media in the West lies constantly about Iran and never tells you the full and true story of what is going on there.

Alt Left: The State of the Alternative Left and Realist Left in the US and around the World

Both the Alt Left and the Realist Left definitely continue to exist. There are Facebook groups, websites, and even a couple of online major magazines for these groups. But both movements are quite small, there are no political parties in the US promoting this view, and as far as I can tell, there are few if any people in national office or even running for national office who are Alt Left or Realist Left.

For the purposes of this post, we will focus on the Alt Left and not the similar but not equivalent Realist Left. The differences between the two movements could be summed up by saying that the Alt Left is further to the left than the Realist Left on economics but further to the right of the Realist Left on social issues.

Some media personalities and political thinkers fall into the category of Alt Left. As an example, I would regard Cenk Uygur, Jimmy Dore, and Chapo Treehouse (the “dirtbag Left’) as Alt Left. They would fall into the category of “Bernie Bros.” There are some male Bernie supporters who are  pretty much Alt Left, but it’s not reflected in the candidate Bernie himself or anyone running along his lines – for example, see “The Squad.”

Interestingly, Bernie used to be part of the anti-Identity Politics Left or so-called “class reductionists.” The Trotskyite World Socialist website of the International Socialist Tendency is in the old Left tradition of class reductionist and  anti-Identity Politics. Most other Trots in the West are extreme SJW’s, as are almost all Western Communists and Leftists.

I would proudly call myself a class reductionist, but it’s used as a term of insult on most of the Left, where it translates to something like “bigot” or “Nazi.” Sanders also used to be a nationalist and the Alt Left is absolutely a nationalist movement, but now Sanders along with the whole Western Left is internationalist, much to their detriment.

There is a sort of an “Alt Left” forming on the Danish and French Left. A couple of the major parties there like Melancon’s in France and the Social Democratic Party in Denmark have taken an anti-immigrant line, a stance which is throwing shock waves through the Left.

Victor Orban in Hungary is said to be a Rightist. In some ways he is, but he has nationalized quite a bit of the economy and promoted huge social spending under the nationalist rubric. If he was in Latin America, we would be calling him a Communist and trying to overthrow him. Orban is virtually Alt Left.

There are also some pretty strange Alt Left-type formations on the Arab Left, especially among Arab nationalists. Keep in mind that Arab nations are very socially conservative, so even the Left parties there reflect that.

The Iranian regime is actually quite far to the Left. Most of the economy is actually nationalized and social spending is huge. They’re almost Marxist in a sense. But they don’t think much of the Cultural Left, so in a sense Iran could be an Alt Left country.

The Russian Communist Party (KPRF) supports Putin, and they are quite socially conservative for a Leftist party. I would absolutely consider the  KPRF to be Alt Left.  Putin himself is rather leftwing believe it or not, but he is very much against the Cultural Left. The Alt Left generally supports Putin, or at least I do, and I consider Putin to be a type of Alt Leftist.

The former Communist regimes were all very much against the Cultural Left, which they called Western bourgeois decadence, so in that sense, most if not all of the former Communist regimes could be thought of as Alt Left. That strain of Communism is pretty much through though.

Things here in the West as far as the Left-Right split have gotten wildly partisan and “party line,” but if you step outside the West, there’s a lot more heterogeneity.

Alt Left: Bernie Sanders Politics Is Simply the Natural, Normal Everyday Politics of Parties That Run or Have Run Nearly Every Country on Earth

Jason: Well, we got a Marxist/Leninist trying to get the democrat nomination. Will he get snuffed out? Seems like Biden is getting all the states.

See how insane this country is? Jason is actually a liberal Democrat, and even he thinks that this everyday, banal social democrat Bernie Sanders is a Communist! If this is how liberal Democrats think, imagine in horror what conservative Republicans think of Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is absolutely not a Marxist-Leninist. He’s just a run of the mill social democrat. Do you realize that social democratic parties with philosophies exactly like Sanders’ have been running nearly every country on Earth for at least part of the last 50 years. And when they were not running the show, they were often the biggest opposition party.

Social democracy is simply the norm all over the world other than the US, Canada, and maybe Hong Kong and Singapore, though both places have massive public housing projects and in Singapore, all or almost all housing is owned by the state.

The US and a handful of other countries are literally the only countries on this planet that regard social democracy with outrage and want nothing to do with it. Except for us and a few other freak countries, to everyone else, platforms like Sanders’ are simply the natural, normal platforms of most of their political parties.

In most of the world, even rightwing parties call  have words in the names of their parties like social, socialist, popular, progressive, labor, revolutionary, liberal, etc. A lot of the hardest rightwing parties of all literally call themselves social democrats and are members of the Social International. That’s because in almost every country on Earth except for this freakish weirdo land, you can’t win office without positioning yourself, even dishonestly, as some sort of a socialist or social democrat. Call yourself anything other than that, and you’re doomed to lose.

Alt Left: The West Is Complaining about Possible Election Fraud in Guyana

I am trying to see why they might be doing that, as the only time the West bitches about vote fraud is when their guy loses and the guy they didn’t want won. When their guy cheats and steals an election, there’s a mass blackout of the news in the controlled media and in the states of the West.

The basic rule is our guys get to lie, cheat, and steal all they want to, but if their guys do it, we’re going to flip out and declare some sort of a war against them. In fact, if their guys don’t lie, cheat, and steal, we will make up lies and say they do and most shitheads in the West, including almost all liberal Democrats (there’s nothing worse than a liberal Democrat) will believe every word we say because everyone in the West is as brainwashed as a North Korean.

The news has come out after an election in Guyana. The party seeking re-election won in a very close race with some very serious electoral problems. The counting stopped for no reason for days on end and there were more voters on the roles than people. I’m not sure if that adds up to fraud, but it doesn’t look real great.

On the other hand, we really need to know why the West is bitching so much. I mean what’s the reason. The only reason can be that we don’t like the guy who won and we want the guy who lost instead.

Let’s see if that makes sense.

The guy who won is a social democrat and a Leftie. He’s the guy we maybe don’t like. Incidentally, his party has been stealing elections forever, mostly in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I have heard that they knocked it off in recent years, but you never know.

The guy who lost is an out and out Marxist-Leninist. He’s the guy we maybe like.

It already hardly makes sense, right?

Guyana’s politics have been Hard Left for quite some time, but they suck up to the Empire, so no one really cares. This tendency goes back to Cheddi Jagan all the way back in the 1960’s, who was overthrown in a coup by the CIA and especially the British MI6.

The coup was accomplished in about the manner as the 1953 Mossadegh coup in Iran and the recent fascist coups in Ukraine and Bolivia – riots precipitated by outside intelligence (CIA, MI6) followed by an ousting of the president.

We also tried this exact same method last year in Nicaragua and have been trying it for a number of years in Venezuela. We seem to be doing thing in Iran at the moment. It failed and/or is failing in all three countries. We are also trying to do this in Iraq and Lebanon, but it’s failing there too. People are starting to catch onto this shit.

This is how these fake color revolutions work. The color revolutions tend to be more of the peaceful type of coups, but they often turn violent too. The whole ball of wax is called hybrid warfare.

What about the Oil?

There are now reports that Guyana has the 10th largest world reserves of oil. However, the area under discussion is in off the coast on the border of Guyana and Venezuela and is in dispute between the two countries.

Also Guyana recently extended its territorial waters 150 miles off shore. They did this illegally because it could only be done if there were territorial disputes. Guyana lied and said they had no such disputes. Actually they had one with Venezuela, so their 150 mile extension is null.

However, they explored out there anyway, and Exxon found this very large deposit that is the subject of the discussion around Guyana having oil reserves. However, ownership of this deposit is the subject of dispute, as noted. That case has now gone to the World Court. I don’t really know who has a better claim to the area, but they have been fighting over it since 1963.

Why don’t they just split it fifty-fifty and call it a done deal? For some reasons, countries never do this. Why are all geopolitical disputes based on a zero-sum game? Is it that it is simply human nature to boil every dispute among humans down to a zero-sum game. I mean that’s how lower mammals do it. You ever see lower mammals sitting down and hammering out peace treaties? Ok then.

Guyana signed a deal with Exxon for the development of this deposit. This deal is far too generous to Exxon, and Guyana will lose $55 billion over time as a result of this deal. Guyana is getting massively screwed over by this deal but the “left social democratic” party and the “Marxist-Leninist” party are apparently both on board with this nation-selling treason.

It really makes you wonder what it means anymore when a party says it’s leftwing, social democratic, or, Hell, even communist? Do those terms even mean a damn thing anymore in this world of neoliberalism uber alles?

But at the end of the day, the question remains:  Does Guyana even have oil in the first place? I mean forget the world’s tenth largest reserves? I want to know if they even have one barrel. The answer is: well, maybe.

Alt Left: Why I Hate the Cultural Left

You are an idiotic moron who claims to be Left but is a blatant rightwing White Supremacist with ego issues who posts crap all the time about ‘races’ and other such shit. I hope your blog gets taken down permanently!

I had to edit this for style because this guy is apparently not capable of writing the English language properly.

I’ve been getting bonehead comments like this from Cultural Leftards for many years now.

There’s the old chestnut about me being a rightwinger. Ok, then why do I always vote for Democrats. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican if you paid me, and it’s been this way since I started voting long ago. How come I absolutely despise all Republicans and other rightwingers such as Libertarians? How come I don’t even like most Democrats because I consider them too rightwing?

Also, could someone please show me a rightwing group anywhere in the US that I could join, please? Because I’ve looked around at rightwing groups in the US and even at various formations on the Net and in other countries and I can’t see any rightwing ideologies that I am interested in at all. Except maybe Russian conservatism or Putinism but the problem with that is that Russian conservatism is to the left of the US Democratic Party.

If I despise all rightwing ideologies, how could I be a rightwinger? Am I part of some ideology that has only me as a member? I’ve had this standing offer out there for a while now, and none of these losers has ever taken me up on this offer.

Whatever. This is in reference to this article. The article is titled What Did Africans Look Like 40-45,000 YBP? I noticed that that article caused this shithead to blow a few blood vessels, so I went and checked it out to how racist and White Supremacist and rightwing and evil it was because it must be all those things if this dipshit says it is, right?

Well, I went over and read through the whole thing. It is a discussion of human races and ethnic groups from an anthropological sense from the point of view of what their skulls look like. Perfectly legitimate subject. It does refer to several large races called Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Negroids. It also refers to races such as Negritos, Papuans, Khoisan, and Pygmies. All of these are absolutely human races.

The post makes no statements positive or negative about any of those groups. There is no White Supremacism, as nowhere do I try to imply that Whites or Caucasoids are superior to other groups.

I don’t even talk about superiority or inferiority. I just describe the races by looking at their skulls and comparing them. It also goes into how some ancient skulls looked. The post points out that all modern races, including Europids are modern, that is they all appeared in the last 15,000 years. It also talks about the Out of Africa movement of many of the Earth’s people.

First of all, White Supremacists as a rule all hate the Out of Africa theory because it basically states that White people came from niggers ha ha. Well, White folks just won’t have that. That’s just a bit too insulting, ok? A bridge too far.

Asians are a lot smarter. I pointed out once that all Asians came from Black people, and some Asian guy said, “So what? If you back far enough, we were all frogs.” I told my Mom and she said, “See? That shows you right there that Asians are smarter than White people.” She’s right.

Also White Supremacists really hate that model of an early Caucasian face because he doesn’t look White. Not to mention that he has a face that not even any mother could love. They claim that all Caucasian skulls look White for tens of thousands of years. White people be all ancient and shit! Not only that, but Whites wuz kangs! What’s next? We flew airplanes and developed nuclear power?

That article is about as utterly non-racist as an article about that subject can possibly be.

But you see, to the Cultural Left, if you write about race at all, especially if you suggest that there are different races of humans that have had different evolutionary trajectories, you are a vicious, evil, White Supremacist racist. Because apparently race doesn’t exist or some shit.

Well then, lets get rid of the hate crime laws then because if there’s no race, no one can be attacked on that basis, right?

While we are at it, let’s get rid of all civil rights and void all civil rights legal rulings. Since race doesn’t exist, no one needs to be protected against discrimination against something that doesn’t exist, right?

Let’s get rid of affirmative action and goals and all that crap because how can you have goals to fill X percent of positions in your company with this category or that of a nonexistent category?

Ready when you are, Cultural Left fucktards.

Ethnic Nationalists and Language Classification Mix Like Oil and Water

Mithridates: What’s for damn sure is that ethnic nationalists (Oh, the myriad varieties of them!!) are the #1 threat to any sane and sensible discussion on topics like… and language classifications…

I am not sure if you have read any of my linguistic work, but some of it has already been published. I had to deal with ethnic nationalists a lot (Turkish ethnic nationalists – some of the worst of them all), and it was definitely not pleasant. For instance, they insist that the (IMHO – 53) Turkic languages are all just dialects of Turkish! And good luck trying to disabuse them of that notion. They’re very aggressive and they’re even violent (check out recent videos), and that makes them even more scary.

Right now I am dealing with a Macedonian ethnic nationalist (all Balkan varieties are very unpleasant to say the least) and he was extremely unpleasant. He is trying to get me fired from my professor job LOL. I’m flattered that he thinks I’m obviously a university professor, but nope, I’m not. So I wish him luck getting me fired from a job I don’t have.

Beyond that, ethnic nationalists are the bane of language classification. There are so many “dialects” that are so obviously separate languages but we can’t split them because ethnic nationalists run the discourse in those countries. Idiotically, my field utterly unscientifically states that there is no way to tell a language from a dialect.

Oh yeah? We can put a man on the moon but we can’t develop a successful definitions of language and dialect? How absurd is that?

So we stupidly throw up our hands and say this is not a linguistic question (though obviously it is) and say the distinction between the two is a political matter (!), so we throw it over to the most dishonest  reprobates people on Earth next to out and out criminals, namely, politicians! Of course politicians  never lie or anything like that!

So really we should take all of our scientific questions over to politics and let politics answer these questions! Hell, politics won’t even give you a straight answer if you ask it what time or day it is. If a politician’s mouth is moving, he’s lying. It’s practically a requirement to score high on the psychopathy scale to be a politician. So let’s let these pathological lying sociopaths called politicians answer our scientific questions in Linguistics!

Ethnic nationalists have infiltrated language classification by petitioning to get languages removed from their countries, as they wish to believe that the only language in say Ruritania is Ruritanian, and all of the other languages, no matter how different, are dialects of Ruritanian!

So Basque is just a dialect of Spanish, right? And Suomi or Lappish is a dialect of Swedish. And Sorbian is a dialect of German. And Breton and Basque are dialects of French. As you can see, we could go on and on here.

There are probably 2,000 languages within the scope of “Chinese,” yet the Chinese government lies and says there is only one Chinese language. We linguists have to go along with this insanity because…why?

Ethnic nationalists dishonestly removed several Occitan languages and several North Germanic languages in Sweden, among other places. I can’t believe that SIL (the publishers of Ethnologue who are now in charge of handing out ISO codes for new languages) fell for this.

Alt Left: Eight Negative Arguments Smearing China’s Virus Fight That Must Be Refuted

Eight Negative Arguments Smearing China’s Virus Fight That Must Be Refuted

The COVID-19 outbreak in China has begun to decline outside Hubei Province; meanwhile in some countries it is on the rise. This shows that the epidemic is a challenge faced by all humanity and needs to be addressed by all countries. China’s experience in combating the outbreak shows that timely, accurate, and authoritative information disclosure is crucial.

However, “negative energy” arguments in the public opinion sphere which undermine the solidarity and cooperation between human beings and even create panic out of nothing will harm the efforts to fight the epidemic and can be called a “tumor” in the public conversation about the epidemic.

Here we summarize eight typical “negative energy” arguments in international public opinion and reveal their absurdities, hoping to provide a mirror to show the other side of these arguments about the epidemic.

1. The Economic Fall of China Argument Ignores the Complete Picture

During the coronavirus epidemic, the streets in Chinese cities were empty for a time, and as a result, there is no doubt the economy will be affected to some extent. However, to claim that the fundamentals of the Chinese economy have changed and that growth will plummet from mid-high speed to zero or negative is an overstatement.

For example, the New York Times published an article on February 11 titled “Like Europe in Medieval Times”: Virus Slows China’s Economy suggesting that the epidemic has put the Chinese  economy into low gear.

This coronavirus epidemic has been widespread, and many industries such as catering, tourism, and film and television have been severely impacted. However, it should be noted that the impact of the epidemic on China’s economy is mainly reflected in the restriction of the demand side resulting in a short-term structural imbalance between supply and demand.

In the long run, the means of production are still there, and production equipment and technology have not been affected by the outbreak. So the outbreak will not dent the internal dynamics of the Chinese economy. International Monetary Fund (IMF) spokesman Gerry Rice stated at a press conference on February 13 that “over the medium to long term, we remain confident that China’s economy is resilient.”

The IMF expects a V-shaped recovery for the Chinese economy in which a sharp decline in economic activities would be followed by a rapid recovery. With improvements in containing the epidemic, the supply side will gradually return to normal, while at the same time the potential demand suppressed during the epidemic will be released, and there will be a large rebound in future economic growth.

Structural transformation has given China a strong and resilient economy. First, consumption has become the primary driver of growth. In 2019, consumer spending contributed 57.8 percent to economic growth. Second, the proportion contributed by the service industry keeps rising, and the proportion of value added by tertiary industry to GDP in 2019 is 53.9 percent.

The third is a shift from an excess of savings to an absorption of savings which has led to a continuous increase in disposable household consumption. Fourth, via a huge wave of innovation, the current digitization and intelligent transformation of various industries has led to the rapid development of online business.

Although the epidemic outbreak has increased short-term downward pressure on the economy, the long-term positive trend of the Chinese economy has not changed.

2. The China-US Decoupling Prediction Is Farfetched

During the coronavirus epidemic, the resumption of work in many factories in China has been delayed, which has affected the global supply chain. But it may be delusional to talk about international companies fleeing China and to think that the US and Chinese economies will decouple as a result of the outbreak.

For example, US Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross told Fox Business Channel on January 31 that the novel coronavirus epidemic helps “accelerate the return of jobs to North America, some to US and probably some to Mexico as well,” adding that factors such as this will prompt US companies to reevaluate risks such as the supply chain of China-related businesses.

It should be noted that in the face of the epidemic, the Chinese government has demonstrated its firm belief in winning the battle. It is believed that the outbreak will not last long nor will it cause lasting damage to the economy. Business confidence in the future has not disappeared. The experience of the SARS epidemic in 2003 also shows that after the epidemic, people’s desire for consumption will erupt and the economy will see rapid growth.

Compared with the US, where the tertiary industry accounts for 85 percent of the total economy, China’s tertiary industry only accounts for just over 50 percent. There is still more room for development. Naturally, companies will not lose sight of this and abandon huge development space to go to a place where competition is fierce.

The US government’s push for the return of manufacturing is not new. It began during the Obama administration, but the real results have been poor. This is because China is the world’s largest manufacturing base with a complete upstream and downstream industry chain and a large and diversified consumer market.

Only by being close to the Chinese market can companies accommodate cutting-edge demand, have faster production speed, and ensure more reliable product quality.

Of course, China’s industry is in a period of transformation and upgrading, and some enterprises that can no longer adapt to China’s market will leave. This is the natural law of economic development, and it is by no means the exodus that Ross is talking about.

3. The Collapsing Image of China Meme Is Baseless

Under the coronavirus epidemic, some voices in international public opinion have tarnished the image of China.

For example, on February 6, under the headline “This is Not a Coronavirus, It Is an Official Virus,” a Deutsche Welle report stated China’s governance system is not modern, so it was vulnerable in the face of the epidemic.

On some overseas social media, some people have hyped the argument that China’s national image has collapsed in order to disparage China’s image as a responsible power. They even claimed that China would not be able to build a moderately prosperous society as planned.

It is clear that the above slander is groundless and based on a play of words. The “China threat theory” is a virus in the field of international public opinion.

After the outbreak of the coronavirus epidemic, the Chinese government quickly set up a special team to deal with the problem, deployed team members extensively throughout the country, and assisted relevant countries in evacuating personnel. These things could only be achieved by an excellent governance system with modern capabilities.

Compared to some advanced economies, China has also done a much better job of reducing the risk of the disease spreading globally.

On February 16, in response to the shortcomings and deficiencies exposed in the response to the epidemic, the Chinese government again made a “two-handed” deployment, improving the biosafety law, the national emergency management system, and the distribution of production capacity of key materials.

China’s epidemic prevention measures have been praised by the international community. French President Macron expressed admiration for China’s effective measures and the country’s openness and transparency in fighting the epidemic.

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised China for taking many prevention and containment measures that go far beyond the relevant requirements for responding to emergencies. This has set a new benchmark for epidemic prevention in all countries. The speed, scale, and efficiency of China’s actions reflect the strengths of its system.

4. The Sick Man of Asia Metaphor Rekindles a Century of Discrimination

Amid the outbreak of the COVID-19, governments, enterprises, and people from dozens of countries have donated humanitarian aid to China to support the country’s fight against the epidemic. Meanwhile, some people have maliciously taken the opportunity to spread discrimination against China. For instance, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia” on February 3, hurting Chinese people’s feelings.

We should not only refute such absurdities with a comprehensive victory over the epidemic but also continue increasing China’s public health services and national capabilities, throwing the discriminatory views like the one above into the junk heap of history.

China was once weak due to its seclusion and was taken advantage of by Western powers which derogatorily called China the “sick man of Asia.” Such contemptuous words have been a scar on Chinese people’s  psyche. With unremitting efforts of more than 100 years, China is much stronger than it was, and people’s general health status has reached a new high.

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the country has been improving its public health status, eliminating malignant infectious diseases such as smallpox and cholera and developing a cure for schistosomiasis, which once threatened Chinese people for a long time.

A comprehensive medical system has been established in China, covering all rural areas. China has also sent medical teams to help African countries battle against epidemics such as Ebola. As China is completing the building of a moderately prosperous society, the country is rapidly increasing the budget for medical treatment and public health, assuring residents in cities and towns have basic medical insurance.

Currently, Chinese people’s average life expectancy, which continues to grow, has surpassed that of Americans. Through international medical and health cooperation including the building of a Health Silk Road, China’s experience in medical treatment and public health has been widely recognized and accepted.

5. Yellow Peril Hysteria Is Pure Racism

On February 1, the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel had a cover headline saying the novel coronavirus was made in China. At a crucial time when the world is jointly fighting the epidemic, the German magazine inhumanly spread Yellow Peril hysteria, at the core of which is the West’s fear of the East.

The Western world regards the Eastern world as a threat, fears it will lag behind the latter, and thus refuses to accept the fact that the East has become more developed and much stronger than it once was. The West wants to safeguard its dominance in the world.

Hence some nationalists in the West have taken advantage of the COVID-19 epidemic to spread this particular form of racist hysteria.

In the era of globalization, human civilization should no longer engage in zero-sum games between the East and West and between races but rather in building a community of shared future where people can co-exist and jointly develop. In the face of this public health emergency, no one can really escape and remain isolated. Only cooperation, solidarity, and mutual help can help people win the fight against the virus.

It is high time to put an end to the farce of Yellow Peril hysteria that encourages people to play a “hunger game.”

6. The Comparison with the Novel 1984 Obscures Reality

To fight against the COVID-19, China has adopted various high-tech measures such as Big Data and artificial intelligence to control population flow and reduce cross-infection risks. However, some Western media outlets seem to be frightened by China’s governance capability. Real Clear Politics published an article on Thursday saying, “China’s Government Is Like Something out of ‘1984.’” There are two reasons such viewpoints echo in the West.

First, people are more likely to believe stories they are familiar with. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is well known, but not many people know the real China. Therefore, Chinese people find it hard to persuade their Western friends that China is not something out of 1984. This is like giving a friend who has never seen a real panda a toy panda, and the next time you mention pandas, this friend will think of the toy rather than the real panda.

Second, the media always caters its subscribers with reports that draw attention, even though their viewpoints are abnormal. For those media outlets, a frightening China is obviously more effective than a normal China at attracting an audience.

Using 1984 as a metaphor, those Western media outlets can spread fear of China among Westerners and thus make more profit. This is why a very ordinary story with an eye-catching headline can be forged into something that is scary and strange about China. As many Western media outlets are driven by business interests, it is not hard to understand Western people’s stereotype of China.

What 1984 describes can happen anywhere people live. The novel was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual. George Orwell’s masterpiece is not banned in China. Instead, his books have been among the bestsellers in China since the country’s reform and opening-up. China is moving forward in a broad way using Chinese people’s accumulated experience rather than something out of a novel.

7. The Biochemical Weapon Conspiracy Is Pure Fantasy

Conspiracy theories are a constant reality in the international public opinion field. Once there is a disturbance, they will surface.

On January 31, US senator Tom Cotton tweeted “It’s more urgent than ever to stop travel between China and US,” and “MESSAGE TO ALL AMERICANS IN CHINA: GET OUT NOW.” He also claimed that the virus might have originated in a super laboratory in Wuhan.

The Ministry of Heath of Russian Federation on January 29 published a guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the novel coronavirus. The handout stated that COVID-19 was recombination of a bat coronavirus and another coronavirus from unknown origin, triggering speculation that the virus had been developed by the US as a biological weapon.

Although such arguments have been common, even in mainstream Western public opinion, there are few experts who agree.

The Washington Post on January 29 published an article entitled “Experts Debunk Fringe Theory Linking China’s Coronavirus to Weapons Research,” with interviews from five experts from prestigious US universities and research institutes. All of them rejected the idea that the virus was man-made.

An expert on chemical weapons said he and other analysts around the world had discussed the possibility that weapons development at the Wuhan lab could have led to the coronavirus outbreak in a private email chain, but none of them had found convincing evidence to support the theory.

A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also pointed out that a good bioweapon in theory has high lethality but low, not communicability, but the opposite is true with the coronavirus. He also described the bioweapon theories as irresponsible misinformation.

The Lancet, the world’s leading general medical journal, released on February 19 a Statement in Support of the Scientists, Public Health Professionals, and Medical Professionals of China Combating COVID-19 signed by 27 top public health experts around the world.

The statement strongly condemned conspiracy theories saying that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin and stated that scientists from multiple countries overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife. The statement also called on the World Health Organization (WHO) to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.

8. Questioning WHO’s Impartiality Is Destructive

China’s valiant efforts and achievements in fighting the epidemic are obvious to all. Everyone with a realistic attitude will make a fair evaluation. However, some in the international community have been looking at China through colored spectacles and have even stooped to slander those entities and individuals who have praised China.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ affirmation of China’s performance has been described by certain media outlets as skewed in China’s favor.

Tedros was asked on February 12 whether the Chinese government had approached WHO and asked it to praise China’s efforts in confronting the virus and if there was there pressure put on WHO to make statements along these lines, considering how important the notion of saving face is in China. He responded, “China doesn’t need to ask to be praised…because we have seen these concrete things that should be appreciated.”

He noted that he has observed China’s tremendous efforts to stop the virus from spreading to the rest of the world, including notifying other countries of those confirmed cases with outbound travel history.

State leaders and public health experts of various countries have applauded China’s efforts and transparency. Tedros has also called on the international community to stop stigmatizing China and stand in solidarity with the country in fighting against the common enemy, COVID-19.

Similarly, former WHO Director General Margaret Chan Fung Fu-Chun was also criticized in 2015 for taking sides with South Korea in combating MERS.

WHO’s remarks and actions are based on information reported by the government at the epicenter, the latest data generated by the organization, and suggestions given by the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee. Clarifying and dispelling rumors and misinformation is also part of its job.

Moreover, the WHO has already taken action to prevent the coronavirus epidemic from triggering a dangerous social media ‘infodemic’ fueled by false information and to try to curb rumors, lies, and misinformation.

Along with China, the Singaporean government is also urging citizens to stop spreading rumors.

Authors: Wang Wen, Jia Jinjing, Bian Yongzu, Cao Mingdi, Liu Ying, Liu Yushu, Yang Fanxin, Guan Zhaoyu, Wang Peng, Liu Dian, Chen Zhiheng, Zhang Tingting, and Zhang Yang from Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn

Dana Rohrabacher Is Gay

Dana is in the news a lot lately.

Just thought I would tell you. My Mom used to work for a clinical psychologist, Dr. R., who knew both Dana and Dana’s brother Kim well. Kim died in 2007 at age 62. Dr. R. once told her that Kim loved women, unlike Dana, is how he put it.
Kim was a notorious womanizer who rampaged through small armies of women.

Dr. R’s implication in saying Dana didn’t like women was that he liked men instead, i.e., he was gay. My mother called me up on the phone and told me about the conversation and that the implication was that Dana was gay.

I suppose it could mean that he was simply a celibate heterosexual, but people usually don’t talk that way about such straights.

He married in 1998 soon after gay rumors about him got going in a strong way. Word on the street at the time was that the wife was a beard. He did have triplets with her recently though, but a lot of gay men marry and have kids.

Turns out I am not alone in this speculation. Dana said, apropos of nothing and out of the blue, that he was not gay, to a reporter interviewing him. The reporter was taken aback as there was no reason for Dana to say that.

Dana said that the DA, Mike Capizzi, in a case against Dana’s friend Scott Baugh, a California Republican Assemblyman, had been spreading a rumor that Dana was gay. Dana denied it.

However, Baugh is almost certainly gay. Soon after these rumors went a-swirling, Baugh married a woman. So did Dana.

Capizzi beat around the bush about whether Dana was gay or not, but he did say that he didn’t spread any rumors. Nevertheless, he appears to have lied about that. A prominent member of the Republican Party in Newport Beach told reporters that Dana was gay.

The local paper The Orange County Register tried to help Dana counter the rumors by running a story about his antics in straight bars. The story never showed up, probably because Dana does not go to such places. In Dana’s first election, several people who knew Dana reported to the local media that he was gay.

Dana shared a house with another man for many years. Rumor is that the man was his boyfriend. A gay activist who specializes in outing homophobic gay politicians has listed Dana as one of the ones he wants to out.

I’m not sure if we will ever be able to prove this about Dana until people come forward saying they had sex with him, especially now that he’s married up.

Incidentally, Dana’s legislative record is wildly anti-gay. I know that the “homophobes are gay” argument is pure nonsense. A few homophobes are gay men engaging in reaction formation, but most are not. They’re just assholes who hate your guts. Nevertheless it is common for closeted gay politicians to be stridently anti-gay.

Alt Left: The U.S. Is Recycling Its Big Lie about Iraq to Target Iran

A superb article. People need to get this through their damned heads: Iran does not have a Goddamned nuclear weapons program! The CIA even said so itself in its last word in the subject in 2007. Yet this evil government of ours keeps insisting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

This is literally the reason for the entire sanctions regime, the targeting and war threats against Iran, the bombing of pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia militias in Iraq, and the assassination of Hajj Qassem Soleimani.

How many Moronicans believe these big fat lie? How many Eurotrash believe this lie. It must be a large majority of both of them.

After all, the entire MSM in the West – every single newspaper, magazine, and TV and radio news show, along with all Western governments insists that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Not even one media outlet anywhere in the West will admit the obvious truth that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons and hasn’t had one for a minimum of 30 lies.

Guess (((who))) cooked up this big, fat lie in the (((US media))). Guess (((why))) the entire media and every state in the West keeps repeating this lie? I’ll tell you why. (((This))) is the reason why. (((These people))) want Iran invaded and destroyed because it is the only country left other than Syria which is a sworn enemy of (((their state))).

Guess who the US, UK, France, and Germany take orders from. (((This)) is who they take orders from.

Granted the US is also out to destroy Iran because the Shia-haters in Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco, and Turkey all hate Iran simply because they are profoundly bigoted Sunnis with a homicidal hatred and paranoia of Shia Muslims.

In addition, US imperialism has had a hard-on for Iran ever since the Embassy Takeover in 1979. We never got over it. And the rule of US imperialism is simply “never forgive, never forget.” Exactly the same motto as (((some people))). Coincidence? For the crime of standing up to the US and shouting “Death to America! Death to Israel!” for 40 years, US imperialism wants Iran gone.

In addition, Iran has no central bank. US imperialism demands that all countries have central banks.

In addition, Iran is selling its oil in currencies other than dollars. This threatens the “petrodollar,” one of the essential pillars of US imperialism. The use of the dollar in international trade has indeed been declining in the past 10 years. It’s down to 63% now and a number of countries are definitely going off the dollar and substituting other currencies or a basket of currencies for international trade. So it’s not just a petrodollar. It’s a world dollar.

As long as most international trade is conducted in dollars, US imperialism can charge full steam ahead. But when that number goes down below 50%, there are going to be some serious problems for US imperialism. Namely that we won’t be able to be the Dictator of the World anymore.

And this World Dictator and Most Powerful Nation on Earth nonsense is one thing that America wants to keep perhaps more than anything else. The US will do most anything, start wars, kill millions of people – it matters not- to retain those positions.

As Lenin said, power does not give up without a fight which was one reason that he said the electoral road to socialism could never happen and why he called people who supported it “parliamentary cretins.” It’s not so much that he opposed it, as he simply thought it would not work.

It is instructive to note that every single country that has gone off the dollar has been either attacked, subjected to heavy sanctions, had coups, color revolutions, or armed insurgencies unleashed upon. Sometimes more than one or all of the above.

  • Iraq went off the petrodollar. It was invaded soon after.
  • Libya went off the petrodollar. It was quickly attacked.
  • Syria went off the petrodollar. It had an insurgency unleashed upon it.
  • Iran is going off the petrodollar. It’s been subject to many threats and vicious sanctions.
  • North Korea went off the dollar. Result was totally brutal sanctions, many deaths, and endless military threats.
  • Venezuela is going off the petrodollar. Result: sanctions, economic warfare, and coup attempts with lockout strikes, use of armed forces, violent street demonstrations and now with an entire fake alternate facts government set up led by a man who was never elected President even one time.
  • Russia and China are going off the dollar. Result: sanctions, tariffs, and hybrid warfare was launched on both countries and both have been designated as top US enemies. A color revolution is being attempted in Hong Kong.

See how this works?

The U.S. Is Recycling Its Big Lie About Iraq to Target Iran

Sixteen years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, most Americans understand that it was an illegal war based on lies about non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” But our government is now threatening to drag us into a war on Iran with a nearly identical “big lie” about a non-existent nuclear weapons program, based on politicized intelligence from the same CIA teams that wove a web of lies to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In 2002-3, U.S. officials and corporate media pundits repeated again and again that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that posed a dire threat to the world. The CIA produced reams of false intelligence to support the march to war and cherry-picked the most deceptively persuasive narratives for Secretary of State Colin Powell to present to the UN Security Council on February 5th 2003.

In December 2002, Alan Foley, the head of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) told his staff,

If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so.

Paul Pillar, a CIA officer who was the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, helped to prepare a 25-page document that was passed off to Members of Congress as a “summary” of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.

But the document was written months before the NIE it claimed to summarize and contained fantastic claims that were nowhere to be found in the NIE, such as that the CIA knew of 550 specific sites in Iraq where chemical and biological weapons were stored. Most members read only this fake summary, not the real NIE, and blindly voted for war. As Pillar later confessed to PBS’s Frontline:

The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don’t think so and I regret having had a role in it.

WINPAC was set up in 2001 to replace the CIA’s Nonproliferation Center or NPC (1991-2001), where a staff of 100 CIA analysts collected possible evidence of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons development to support U.S. information warfare, sanctions, and ultimately regime change policies against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and other U.S. enemies.

WINPAC uses the U.S.’s satellite, electronic surveillance, and international spy networks to generate material to feed to UN agencies like UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which are charged with overseeing the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The CIA’s material has kept these agencies’ inspectors and analysts busy with an endless stream of documents, satellite imagery, and claims by exiles for almost 30 years. But since Iraq destroyed all its banned weapons in 1991, they have found no confirming evidence that either Iraq or Iran has taken steps to acquire nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

UNMOVIC and the IAEA told the UN Security Council in 2002-3 they could find no evidence to support U.S. allegations of illegal weapons development in Iraq.

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei exposed the CIA’s Niger yellowcake document as a forgery in a matter of hours. ElBaradei’s commitment to the independence and impartiality of his agency won the respect of the world, and he and his agency were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.

Apart from outright forgeries and deliberately fabricated evidence from exile groups like Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC) and the Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), most of the material the CIA and its allies have provided to UN agencies has involved dual-use technology which could be used in banned weapons programs but also as alternative legitimate uses.

A great deal of the IAEA’s work in Iran has been to verify that each of these items has in fact been used for peaceful purposes or conventional weapons development rather than in a nuclear weapons program.

But as in Iraq, the accumulation of inconclusive, unsubstantiated evidence of a possible nuclear weapons program has served as a valuable political weapon to convince the media and the public that there must be something solid behind all the smoke and mirrors.

For instance, in 1990, the CIA began intercepting  Telex messages from Sharif University in Tehran and Iran’s Physics Research Centre about orders for ring magnets, fluoride, and fluoride-handling equipment, a balancing machine, a mass spectrometer, and vacuum equipment, all of which can be used in uranium enrichment.

For the next 17 years, the CIA’s NPC and WINPAC regarded these telexes as some of their strongest evidence of a secret nuclear weapons program in Iran, and they were cited as such by senior U.S. officials. It was not until 2007-8 that the Iranian government finally tracked down all these items at Sharif University, and the IAEA inspectors were able to visit the university and confirm that they were being used for academic research and teaching as Iran had told them.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the IAEA’s work in Iran continued, but every lead provided by the CIA and its allies proved to be either fabricated, innocent, or inconclusive. In 2007, U.S. intelligence agencies published a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran in which they acknowledged that Iran had no active nuclear weapons program. The publication of the 2007 NIE was an important step in averting a U.S. war on Iran.

As George W. Bush wrote in his memoirs, “…after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

But despite the lack of confirming evidence, the CIA refused to alter the “assessment” from its 2001 and 2005 NIE’s that Iran probably did have a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. This left the door open for the continued use of WMD allegations, inspections, and sanctions as potent political weapons in the U.S.’s regime change policy toward Iran.

In 2007, UNMOVIC published a Compendium or final report on the lessons learned from the debacle in Iraq. One key lesson was that “complete independence is a prerequisite for a UN inspection agency” so that the inspection process would not be used “either to support other agendas or to keep the inspected party in a permanent state of weakness.”

Another key lesson was that “proving the negative is a recipe for enduring difficulties and unending inspections.” The 2005 Robb-Silberman Commission on the U.S. intelligence failure in Iraq reached very similar conclusions, such as that“…analysts effectively shifted the burden of proof, requiring proof that Iraq did not have active WMD programs rather than requiring affirmative proof of their existence.

“While the U.S. policy position was that Iraq bore the responsibility to prove that it did not have banned weapons programs, the Intelligence Community’s burden of proof should have been more objective…

“By raising the evidentiary burden so high, analysts artificially skewed the analytical process toward confirmation of their original hypothesis – that Iraq had active WMD programs.”

In its work on Iran, the CIA has carried on the flawed analysis and processes identified by the UNMOVIC Compendium and the Robb-Silberman report on Iraq.

The pressure to produce politicized intelligence that supports U.S. policy positions persists because that is the corrupt role that U.S. intelligence agencies play in U.S. policy, spying on other governments, staging coups, destabilizing countries, and producing politicized and fabricated intelligence to create pretexts for war.

A legitimate national intelligence agency would provide objective intelligence analysis that policymakers could use as a basis for rational policy decisions. But as the UNMOVIC Compendium implied, the U.S. government is unscrupulous in abusing the concept of intelligence and the authority of international institutions like the IAEA to “support other agendas,” notably its desire for regime change in countries around the world.

The U.S.’s “other agenda” on Iran gained a valuable ally when Mohamed ElBaradei retired from the IAEA in 2009 and was replaced by Yukiya Amano from Japan. A State Department cable from July 10th, 2009 released by Wikileaks described Mr. Amano as a “strong partner” to the U.S. based on “the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA.”

The memo suggested that the U.S. should try to “shape Amano’s thinking before his agenda collides with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy.”  The memo’s author was Geoffrey Pyatt, who later achieved international notoriety as the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine who was exposed on a leaked audio recording plotting the 2014 coup in Ukraine with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

The Obama administration spent its first term pursuing a failed “dual-track” approach to Iran in which its diplomacy was undermined by the greater priority it gave to its parallel track of escalating UN sanctions. When Brazil and Turkey presented Iran with the framework of a nuclear deal that the U.S. had proposed, Iran readily agreed to it.

But the U.S. rejected what had begun as a U.S. proposal because by that point, it would have undercut its efforts to persuade the UN Security Council to impose harsher sanctions on Iran. As a senior State Department official told author Trita Parsi, the real problem was that the U.S. wouldn’t take “yes” for an answer.

It was only in Obama’s second term after John Kerry replaced Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, that the U.S. finally did take “yes” for an answer, leading to the JCPOA between Iran, the U.S., and other major powers in 2015. So it was not U.S.-backed sanctions that brought Iran to the table but the failure of sanctions that brought the U.S. to the table.

Also in 2015, the IAEA completed its work on “Outstanding Issues” regarding Iran’s past nuclear-related activities. On each specific case of dual-use research or technology imports, the IAEA found no proof that they were related to nuclear weapons rather than conventional military or civilian uses.

Under Amano’s leadership and U.S. pressure, the IAEA “assessed” that “a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003,” but that “these activities did not advance beyond feasibility studies and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities.”

The JCPOA has broad support in Washington. But the U.S. political debate over the JCPOA has essentially ignored the actual results of the IAEA’s work in Iran, the CIA’s distorting role in it, and the extent to which the CIA has replicated the institutional biases, reinforcing of preconceptions, forgeries, politicization and corruption by “other agendas” that were supposed to be corrected to prevent any repetition of the WMD fiasco in Iraq.

Politicians who support the JCPOA now claim that it stopped Iran getting nuclear weapons, while those who oppose the JCPOA claim that it would allow Iran to acquire them.

They are both wrong because as the IAEA has concluded and even President Bush acknowledged, Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program. The worst that the IAEA can objectively say is that Iran may have done some basic nuclear weapons-related research some time before 2003, but then again, maybe it didn’t.

Mohamed ElBaradei wrote in his memoir, The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times that if Iran ever conducted even rudimentary nuclear weapons research, he was sure it was only during the Iran-Iraq War which ended in 1988, when the U.S. and its allies helped Iraq kill up to 100,000 Iranians with chemical weapons.

If ElBaradei’s suspicions were correct, Iran’s dilemma since that time would have been that it could not admit to that work in the 1980s without facing even greater mistrust and hostility from the U.S. and its allies and risking a similar fate to Iraq.

Regardless of uncertainties regarding Iran’s actions in the 1980s, the U.S.’s campaign against Iran has violated the most critical lessons U.S. and UN officials claimed to have learned from the debacle in Iraq.

The CIA has used its almost entirely baseless suspicions about nuclear weapons in Iran as pretexts to “support other agendas” and “keep the inspected party in a permanent state of weakness,” exactly as the UNMOVIC Compendium warned against ever again doing to another country.

In Iran as in Iraq, this has led to an illegal regime of brutal sanctions under which thousands of children are dying from preventable diseases and malnutrition and to threats of another illegal U.S. war that would engulf the Middle East and the world in even greater chaos than the one the CIA engineered against Iraq.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is a freelance writer, researcher for CODEPINK and author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Alt Left: 100% Fact: Donald Trump Has Dementia

Check out this guy’s Twit thread. There are also many physicians chiming in in  agreement. The poster says he has gotten many messages from physicians who agree with him but don’t want to go public. He has the same thing that Linda Ronstadt has, but he’s farther along. This is simply 100% fact. Read some of those posts on that guy’s Twit and see for yourself.

This poster also says that Trump’s dementia is declining so rapidly that he probably will not even be able to run for re-election in November. I absolutely despise Trump as much as anyone, but even I do not wish this horrible disease on anyone. Dementia is the worst. I would not wish it on my worst enemy, sorry. Some diseases are just too fucked up, beyond the pale.

Jews and Communism Redux

Polar Bear: What little Communist literature I’ve read seemed very pro-German, Ehrenberg?

I don’t understand. Ilya Ehrenberg was one of the most anti-German people who ever lived.

However, after the war, the USSR had excellent relations with East Germany. Communism was quite popular in East Germany, and nostalgia for the GDR is still a big thing there. A lot of people reminisce about the old days and are not happy with the new capitalism. A lot of West German Leftists left and moved to East Germany after the war. Incredible, isn’t it? People actually moving to a Communist country.

Of course Marx was extremely pro-German. He was a German man after all. Marx didn’t really consider himself to be a Jew. Neither did Trotsky. That’s just bullshit made up by anti-Communist antisemites, which is like 95% of them. Pro-Communist or Communist antisemites are rare indeed, despite the blatherings of super Jews, anti-Communist Jews, hardcore Zionists, and other professional liars.

Polar Bear: No, I believe it was Engels. He was also very soft on Jews.

Ha ha ever read The Jewish Question by Marx (1843)? It’s hard to read but a lot of super-Jews really hate the paper. They think it’s antisemitic. I don’t think it really is. It’s anti-Jewish religion. He says there is no Jewish religion – all the religion is is capitalism and love of money ha ha. Good times, good times! Marx didn’t like Christianity either. He didn’t like any religion. I don’t think he disliked Jews ethnically. After all he was Jewish himself. Marx’s father was a rabbi!

Polar Bear: Maybe the great unifier early on was Jews.

There were not that many Communists from Marx’s death until the Russian revolution. The early pre-Soviet Communists were not particularly Jewish. Stalin was a bank robber. Lenin spent most of his time abroad in Germany. They were all wanted men.

Yes, there were a lot of Jews among the early Bolsheviks, but in 1917, 70% of Russian Jews voted for the Zionist party, not the Communists. Also the other socialist parties were also full of Jews. But almost all of the popular parties in 1917 were Left. It was just a question of how far left people were going to go. Most of the Russian people were dirt poor workers or peasants and they were all for the Left.

Hardly anyone wanted the old Royalists back. There were definitely pro-royalists all right though. Those were the Whites in the Russian Civil War. But they lost. Even the Russian Army and especially the Intelligence Services all went over to the Reds.

And the Whites killed a lot of Jews during the Civil War. The Reds probably hardly killed any. Even in the USSR, yes, Jews were prominent in some fields. The NKVD ended up being very Jewish in the 1930’s, but it was run by a Georgian named Beria.

Old Soviets said that ethnicity never mattered in the USSR. You were not supposed to care or talk about things like that. A lot of Jews just drifted into that position at that time for whatever reason. A lot of Russian Jews really hated the Czar, so quite a few of them took to Communism well. But the majority of the people in the USSR supported the Communists. How do you think they won the war?

And there were just as many Latvians as Jews among the early Bolsheviks. Does anyone  talk about evil Bolshevik Latvians? Of course not. It’s like the old adage: Maybe one out of ten Jews is a radical, but five out of ten radicals are Jews. Get it?

Polar Bear: Seems like a lot the men that married Jews ended up hating them.

I don’t know about that. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 5 1/2 years. She was kind of a bitch and she sort of talked down to me and yelled at me a lot to the point that even other women were complaining about how she treated me.

But she adored me and she was a real “stand by your man” and “live your life through your man” type. Almost like a Filipina or Thai woman in that sense. I never expected Jewish women to be like that maybe a lot of them are. They also have a reputation for being nurturing.

As an aside, there are a lot more “stand by your man” and “live your life through your man” types than you think. It’s fairly normal if she’s crazy in love with you. Maybe it helps to be goodlooking too, no idea.

The people who don’t like Jewish women are Jewish men ha ha. I’m not sure if Gentile men even care that much. There’s sort of a war going on between Jewish men and women, sort of like the war between Black men and women.

And I don’t know if it was a factor in Marr’s case.

I think Marr is hilarious. Guy married three different Jewish women, divorces all of them and then forms the Anti-Semitic League, the first openly anti-Jewish organization in modern history. Ha ha! I have no idea what effect his wives had on him. Maybe none. But it is pretty funny just to tell the story because it seems like his Jewish wives drove him so insane that he founded the first modern anti-Jewish organization.

Lulz all around!

Most Identity Groups Don’t Like the “Other” Criticizing Them

They can take it from their own kind (maybe), but they can’t take it from outsiders. This is actually fairly normal behavior, and I’ve even been subject to it myself. It’s probably related to tribalism like so many things we humans do.

Polar Bear: Can good Blacks control the murderous street thugs? Can a small Jew take on Elite Jews? Sometimes the villain is stronger. These influential negative outliers are shit for everyone. As Robert’s stats suggest, bad Blacks are even worse for Blacks. Little Jews will likely get thrown out with the filthy bath water.

Nice.

Polar Bear: Can good Blacks control the murderous street thugs?

No, the good Blacks will not control the bad Blacks. And I wonder if they should. If a non-White told me, “Why don’t you police all those White thug criminals in your community?” I might tell them to fuck off.

It’s not the responsibility of well-behaved Blacks to police the others. They might want to do that but they have no obligation. The Blacks that are well-behaved have their own lives to think about. They need to think about themselves. They’re not the problem. They need to get that through their heads. If they wish to be racial ambassadors, that’s their choice, but their first responsibility first and foremost is to themselves, not to their damned “community.”

Nevertheless, I agree that we Whites police our communities to an extreme degree. I don’t think Blacks police their own  kind very much. They just seem to let them get away with murder and don’t hold them to any standard.

Polar Bear: Can a small Jew take on Elite Jews?

Orthodox Jews are often scammers or white collar crooks of some sort or another, but when they do that, they often explicitly state that they were only trying to rip off the Gentiles and not trying to rip off their own people. Honestly, they actually say that. I have heard Hasidics in upstate New York say those very same words.

Polar Bear: Little Jews will likely get thrown out with the filthy bath water.

Nevertheless a lot of Jewish white collar crooks are just thieves, scammers, and con artists. It’s hard to imagine how you can be a white collar criminal and steal millions of dollars while not stealing  from your own kind.

I’m sure a lot of Jews get taken by these guys too. These crooks do not have the ability to look at every mark and figure out if they are Jewish or not and refuse to fleece the Jews. So Jews do probably get screwed over heavily by Jewish white collar crooks, but no Jew will ever condemn those people.

You can’t. Jews don’t condemn their own kind. That’s treason and siding with the enemy. There’s this paranoid attitude of “we all hang together or we will all hang alone.”

Also there is a tendency to hush up the crimes of Jews to avoid antisemitism. In the early part of the century, the Jewish slums in New York often hid Jewish criminals on the run not because they thought what they did was ok but to avoid setting off a pogrom. To this day, Jewish crooks can usually run to Israel, and that state will protect them against  extradition to the “Gentile enemy.” Even child killers have done this.

I was on newsgroups full of Jews at one time, and when a Jew would start attacking a bad Jew or pointing out a bad thing that Jews did, the others would rush in to shut him up:

What are you trying to do? Start a pogrom?

Those were the exact words.

My mother went to a very heavily Jewish high school. She said whenever the papers talked about the arrest of some Jewish criminal, the Jewish students would all say:

Oh! This is a bad day for the Jews!

Like this crook getting arrested was going to bring it down on the rest of them.

So a lot of this is just self-preservation. A lot of what looks like wicked, sleazy, behavior on the part of the Jews can often be explained away as efforts at self-preservation and attempts to insulate and defend themselves against their enemies. That’s paranoid, but it’s also smart.

Polar Bear: As Robert’s stats suggest, bad Blacks are even worse for Blacks.

Black criminals absolutely nuke their own people. Their own kind get the vast majority of the onslaught from the Black crime epidemic.

Honestly, it really doesn’t effect the rest of us much, at least at the rate that we associate with Blacks (considering there is probably a lot of avoidance). As I pointed out, Blacks are 13% of population and 16% of the murderers of Whites. Black violent criminals effect Whites at close to their rate in the population which would be expected if they were any average human being. So Black violent crime does almost nothing to White people.

On the contrary, Black people get absolutely Hiroshima’d by Black violent criminals. 89% of the victims of Black murderers are other Blacks. Black women are 25X more likely to be raped by a Black man than a White woman. If Blacks single out anyone, it’s their own.

Yet when we bring up Black crime (which overwhelmingly effects Blacks and doesn’t effect non-Blacks very much), we get shouted down as racists or we are met with hostile silence.

Now, I understand that people don’t like others criticizing them. When we Whites criticize Blacks saying, “You all are getting genocided by your own violent criminals,” the average Black will respond by saying, “Fuck you.” People can take criticism from their own kind but they can’t take it from others.

I am the same way. Some Chinese started attacking Americans and I actually got my back up. And I’m the biggest America-hater out there. It’s just that it was insulting to be attacked by an outsider. Considering how little Black violent crime effects Whites, when we Whites bring it up, frankly, what we are (potentially) doing is showing massive empathy for the Black victims of these criminals because they pretty much only attack their own kind.

Now a lot of Whites just bring this up as a club to beat Blacks over the head with. But not all of us. We aren’t really dissing Blacks at all. Nevertheless, most Blacks will still say, “Fuck off,” because it’s insulting to be pitied by Whites. Also they will take the attacks on Black criminals as an insult to themselves and their people. They will ignore our sympathy towards the victims as insincere.

Nevertheless, you would think Blacks would talk about it among themselves. Do they not want to admit that anything is wrong? I agree it’s difficult to say, “Boy are we fucked up. We need to do something about this.” But sometimes you have to.

New Theory: What Makes a Racist Dangerous Is the Level of Supremacy for His Own Race, Not So Much His Hatred of the Other Race

Jason: The NPD is certainly high with racists. Well, beyond the personal level, they certainly have racial narcissism. But of course they excuse it as “love for their own race”.

I think Jason makes an interesting  point that racial supremacists are narcissists in a sense – their racial supremacy being a form of narcissism in which their own narcissism is enlarged and placed on the entire group. In this sense, they are seeing their entire race as part of the self.

I would certainly agree that most true hardcore racists like White Supremacists or White nationalists are very angry people. And a lot of them are just flat out mean. Even the ones I thought were well-controlled had a deep meanness or even homicidality about them. Racists are not very nice people. And the hardcores, if you get to know them outside of their racism, they are often very mean people.

And a lot of racists do look rather “Cluster B,” that’s for damn sure. All that rage and hate looks Cluster B-ish. In particular, a lot of hardcore racists appear rather psychopathic. Most are not true psychopaths, but I assume that they have elevated scores on the PCL. They also act paranoid. They’re also projecting like maniacs.

And their racism does appear as egotism. Nationalism is like egotism writ large, with all of the same problems of egotism – I’m perfect, blaming everybody else, black and white thinking, no insight, the whole nine yards.

Really racism is just another Identity Politics. Most racists who are for their own group in a huge way are IP’ers. Others are not. Some White guy who says, “I don’t think much of White people, but I really don’t like Black people!” is not doing Cluster B, narcissism, psychopathy, or egotism. I think he’s just a cynic. Or perhaps a misanthrope. He’s unlikely to hurt Black people though. Cynics don’t usually shoot up malls. They’re too cynical to do anything that stupid.

It is the combination of extreme supremacy for their own race and extreme hatred for the other race that makes a racist dangerous. This looks like a paranoid. A paranoid has a grandiose sense of self and a vast hatred for the others, who are persecuting him. And racists definitely feel that they are being persecuted by the other race.

In that sense, it is so much of the level of hate that the racist has toward the others but more the degree of their own supremacy towards their own kind that predicts dangerousness in racists. Damn, what an interesting theory!

Also note another theory that racists are basically paranoids! Damn, I am on a roll tonight, huh?

Why Does Everyone Engage in Black and White Thinking, Have No Insight, and Think They Are Perfect?

Polar Bear: I feel if you admit guilt or show vulnerability to them, they will latch on to you in agreement, “Yes, you should be ashamed,” and lick your tears. No uplifting or quarter given.”

A lot of people are like this. I’m living with one now. We have a lot of political arguments though we are both pretty much liberal/Left Democrats – he’s more of a Centrist Democrat though. It was the same thing with my father. He was a liberal Democrat and I was a leftwing/progressive/Leftist, but we fought about politics all the time. My Mom always shook her head and commented on how stupid it was:

But you both basically agree with each other!

As far as this person I am living with, I argue fairly. He doesn’t. He never gives in and never admits he’s wrong. You see, I admit that my side is wrong or bad sometimes. His side is always 100% good. The people against him are always 100% bad. But with me, I might say my side is 70% good. And I will often admit that my guys do bad things, and I will come right out and say so. Whenever I do that, he jumps all over me, and does this:

I feel if you admit guilt or show vulnerability to them, they will latch on to you in agreement, “Yes, you should be ashamed,” and lick your tears.

If you admit your side is even 1% wrong, you basically lost the argument because their side is 0% wrong!

And this person went to university and even got a Masters Degree. He criticizes black and white thinking and says most people don’t engage in critical thinking. But he uses black and white thinking all the time and doesn’t engage in critical thinking.

He has absolutely zero insight.

My father was the same way. Zero insight. My sister too. No insight and she’s always right and never wrong. My NPD brother is the same. No insight at all, though oddly enough, he’s the only one who might have some. He goes into these “NPD depressions” sometimes, and in those periods, he gets quite down on himself. And my other sibling is the same. My Mom does have some insight but not a tremendous amount. She sort of thinks she’s perfect.

And to this person, the US government is always right, 100% of the time. US foreign policy is always 100% right. He never criticizes it, and when he does, he does so in a very soft voice and acts like he’s ashamed.

My Mom is a liberal Democrat, and she is exactly the same. Supports US foreign policy 100%, and acts ashamed, quiet, or embarrassed when she opposes it.

Americans are so weird. What’s wrong with Americans and US foreign policy? My Dad was the same way. He was a very liberal Democrat, but he always supported US foreign policy. He did oppose the Vietnam War though, and he criticized the overthrow of Allende. But he was quiet about the Allende overthrow, like he was embarrassed or ashamed to feel that way (see above).

He swore by Time Magazine, a rightwing publication. But he and everyone else I know describe rightwing Time Magazine as centrist, saying it resembles liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats.

My father, a super-liberal Democrat, swore by rightwing Time Magazine and described it as Centrist! All of these people are only liberal on domestic policies, and even there, the Republicans always wrong because they’re 100% evil, and the Democrats are always, always right because they are 100% good.

If I ever agree with anything Republicans do (which I do sometimes because I am not an ideologue kook like everyone else), the person I’m living with asks, “So you’re going to vote for Trump now?” Like it’s not possible to absolutely despise Trump but actually agree on a few of his policies? Totally black and white thinking. If I agree with one thing Trump did, that means I’m going to vote for Trump! See how they think?

So I’m Rightwing, Eh? LOL

Well, I’m just not. All of these people who keep screaming at me and insisting that I’m on the Right, I have a question for you. Please point out one single rightwing movement anywhere in the US that I would be ok in. One, just one. All I ask is one. Throw up some and I will go check them out.

Because frankly, I hate, hate, hate, hate conservatives and conservatism, especially the US branch. I don’t mind pure social conservatives that much, but I dislike the US Republican social conservatives. They’re horrible.

If you can’t find one single rightwing movement that I don’t absolutely hate, how can you say that I am a Rightist? Am I part of some movement of one or something?

I’ve never been a part of conservatism. I go to the site of any strand of US conservatism, and I scrunch up my face in disgust. That’s if I’m not pounding the screen. Because I’m liberal/Left on most things. Probably 80-85% of issues. I’d rather eat a bullet than vote Republican or for any US rightwing party. I can’t stand to go to any conservative website because I get angry so  quickly that I have to leave.

On the other hand, the liberal/Left have always been my people. I mean like my whole life. And they still are. I go to Left/liberal websites, and I think “these are my people.” It gets a bit weird with Western Communists and anarchists because they are so radical and so far left and especially so ultra-SJW.

But still a lot of what Communists and some of the anarchists say resonates with me. It’s like we are on the spectrum, but they are just going further on the spectrum than I am. Nevertheless, they all hate my guts, and I get immediately banned from any anarchist or Communist group that I try to post in. Like, instantly. After like two posts.

And I’m telling you: I haven’t changed one bit. The world changed, not me. My social values are exactly the same now as they were in the 1970’s and 1980’s – in fact, I am more culturally liberal than I was back then! I’ve gone further to the left on culture in the last 30 years or so.

But while I stand still, the crazy train called Clown World keeps racing by me at the station, refusing to pick me up. I wouldn’t get on anyway. I’m still waiting for the 1990’s PC Version. But that train never comes. I sit at the station waiting for it forever and ever as the days turn into nights, and the train never shows up. But like a fool, I keep waiting. Waiting for nothing. Waiting for Godot.

You see, there were really a couple of waves of PC or Political Correctness. The first big wave was in the 1990’s with gay marriage and whatnot.  That’s the wave that I am still a part of!

But the problem is that the world has shifted so much that if you are a 1996 Cultural Left type, you’re now a Nazi! They move the goalposts every year, and you have to go a little bit more insane every year to keep up with them. Well, I don’t feel like going crazy. Or getting more crazy than I already am.

There was another huge wave of Political Correctness, more properly called SJWism. It probably started sometime in the 2010’s, but I am not completely sure. I know that we had a lot of them in the 2000’s, too. It is this new wave and this new wave only that I am opposed to. I’m not against the Cultural Left. I’m just against this new radical Cultural Left. Instead I want to go back to the PC culture of the 1990’s. But if I want to do that, I’m a Nazi.

And most people don’t realize it, but these SJW fucktards were around even in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Only difference was that back then almost everyone hated their guts. There were more in the 1980’s, but not much more. Most were self-described Marxists.

The ones in the 1970’s were just radicals, often sexual radicals. They were “ultra-groovy.” A lot of them were into weird sex stuff like threeways, group sex, orgies, and especially male bisexuality. Even among most liberals, we were seriously turned off by these people who were “too cool for school.”

Alt Left: The Pro-Israel Project in the US Involves a Lot of US Gentiles Too

Mithridates: Yeah, basically Soleimani’s high crime was being a major thorn in the side of Israel.

I honestly think that’s the real reason he was killed. However, it’s not just a Jew thing. Pompeo is the one who convinced Trump to kill Soleimani, and Bolton had been pushing for it too. Neither one is Jewish though they might as well be. I call people like that Judaized Gentiles. Both men support Israel more than your average Jew does.

That’s the thing: the Israel thing is not just a Jew thing. A lot of Gentiles are in on this Israel project too, and they are doing it because they want to, not because some Jew put a gun to their head.

That’s why I say that the US is a Jewish country, or more properly a “Jewish” country. The Jews are all Jews, and the Gentiles are all Jews too (Judaized Gentiles).

That’s why I say there will never be a Nazi revolt here. I mean Alex Linder and his pals could decide to start killing Jews, but the problem is that they would have to start with their White nationalist buddies, who in my opinion are basically “Jewish” (Judaized) themselves. So the Nazi revolution would ultimately be suicidal.

We are not Jews de jure obviously and maybe not even de facto. Americans are Jewish “in spirit.” It’s a tough concept to get your mind around, but if you study Jews long enough, maybe you can figure it out.

I dated an Iranian Assyrian Christian woman once. She was pretty into being Christian. Like, as in the kids went to Christian classes after school, like that. She was emphatic that America was not a Christian country. She said:

No, America is not a Christian country. America is a Jewish country. All you care about is money here. You worship money. That’s not Christianity. That’s Judaism.

I actually think she was right. We are all Jews now! Face it, guys. We’re all a bunch of kikes! You, me, and everyone else. Get used to it.

Malignant Narcissism: From Fairy Tales to Reality

Malignant Narcissism: From Fairy Tales to Reality

If you want to know the sort of stuff I read all day, here is an example. This was actually very hard to read. Not so much hard to understand but hard to put all of these ideas into my head and walk around with them. You think this is easy to understand? Fine. Read it and then tell me exactly what it said about all of this. You’re going to have to recite almost the whole document to me, as this thing is packed with valuable ideas in nearly every sentence.

I think most of the information here is correct. This article is quite unlike the typical medical model stuff you see in US psychiatric journals, which I have read extensively in off and on for almost 30 years now, in case any of you think I don’t know anything about mental health.

I am not sure how well-tested a lot of the suppositions here are, but from the tone of this article, it seems that the majority of people come out of their families pretty screwed up in the psychiatric sense of the word. And keep in mind that this field is all about minimizing the number of people who are diagnosed as nuts. Believe it or not we want to diagnose as few people as possible as nuts for a lot of reasons.

Also, there is a strong sociopolitical message here which seems quite leftwing. I couldn’t believe that this was published in any US psychiatric journal, so I looked up where it was published, and sure enough, it was published in a journal in Croatia.

Croatia having gone through 46 years of Communism. The population likes to claim it is cured, but I don’t think so, and having worked closely with a lot of Croatians lately on a piece I am working on (presently 250 pages), I think that leftwing values are still quite common here whether they admit it or not.

Anyway this piece had a lot of great information in it, albeit packed in real tight and hard to digest at once or at all for that matter. If you’re interested in what sort of stuff I spend my time reading or if you have any interest in abnormal psychology, you are free to check it out.

Also, our very own president is absolutely a malignant narcissist, so if you want to understand Donald Trump, look no further. Let’s just say, for starters, that malignant narcissism is the “personality of the dictator.”

Alt Left: Standard Antisemitism Is Rightwing and Has Nothing to Offer Me or Any Other Liberal or Progressive Person

Other than the role of Israel in US politics and foreign policy, which is truly malign, as far as any other beefs against Jews that antisemites have, I’m not really into them. Those arguments just don’t resonate with me. I don’t particularly care what Jews do in my country outside of the Israel thing. Who cares!

Antisemitism is rightwing anyway. I get annoyed at Jews’ bullshit, and I like to talk about how they annoy me, but that’s not a matter of hatred. I don’t hate annoying people. They’re not contemptible; they’re just annoying. Two different things.

But as far as the Jews’ bullshit, games, and scams, that’s just them being silly.  All of the rest of us are morons for falling for these silly ethnic games they are playing on us. And if we are falling for their crap, oh well. We deserve whatever we get.

I’m not into Jews’ Endless Victim trip, which is really just Jewish Identity Politics. And I’ll bash Jewish IP on here like I bash any other IP. But I bash all retarded IP’s. Jewish IP isn’t anymore idiotic and nonsensical than all the others. All the IP’s are really the same at the end of the day.

Anyway I don’t hate professional victims. I just think they are complete idiots, and I laugh at them. What sort of a moron spends his whole life wailing about what a victim he is? I hate to use the word, but that’s what a loser does. So all the victim addicts are losers in a sense. They lack the basic pride needed to love themselves enough to not fall into the pathetic victim trap.

Now if your people really are getting fucked over, ok, well, you don’t have much choice. The victim role has been shoved upon you, and owning it is just facing facts.

The classic antisemitic beef has always been rightwing.

I will go over the standard anti-Semitic line as it has been forged for the last 150 years or so, but first I will discuss other things. Prior to that, antisemitism was based on other things.

Some were silly things like Jews killed Jesus. Except Jesus himself was a Jew, and Christians are literally worshiping this Jewish dude as their hero, but never mind that. It’s really sad how many Jews were probably killed for this BS.

Another silly reason was that Jews refused to convert to Christianity. I don’t understand why that’s important at all much, less a reason to kill a man. Obviously this doesn’t resonate with me.

Others were tragic lies like Jews being accused of poisoning village wells during the plague. That’s just made-up BS; it’s not even true. Sadly, many Jews were murdered for this nasty lie.

In the Middle Ages, Jews were often persecuted due to being the visible face of feudal rule. No one saw the feudal lords. The only face of feudal rule your average serf saw were Jewish tax collectors.

Logically, Jews tended to get killed when the usual peasant rebellions took place, except they pretty much deserved it for collecting taxes for the lords, although the Jewish women, children,  old men, and those who were not working for the lords should have been spared. Anti-Jewish pogroms were very ugly things. You don’t even want to know the details.

The modern form of antisemitism is a racial antisemitism which was founded by a German man named Marr in the 1870’s  who founded the Anti-Semitic League. Yep, that’s where we get the term that everyone likes to take apart as being irrational.

Except words and phrases get to be irrational in terms of etymology. Does “You’re pulling my leg literally mean that?” No? Ok, then why say it? In Spanish, you say, “You’re pulling my hair?” Does that make any more sense? Of course not. See what I mean? Words and phrases don’t have to literally make sense. They only have to mean whatever the people who use them say that they mean. #1 rule of a subfield of Linguistics called Semantics.

Oddly enough, Marr had previously married and divorced three separate wives, all Jewish. Hell, that’s probably why he hated Jews right there, ha ha. The general argument of these “new antisemites” or “modern antisemites” was that Jews are anti-nationalists and basically traitors to the homeland. I’m not sure how valid that argument was or is. The Dreyfus Affair is a case in point of this argument.

A lot of Jews fought nobly in World War 1. During Kristallnacht, many Jews put on their WW1 uniforms and went out and stood in front of their shops to try to protect them on the grounds that people would respect the fact that they were patriots. It didn’t work. They got beat up and their stores got burned down anyway. That’s so sad.

There was an argument that a lot of Jews tried to get out of World War 2, but I’m not sure how valid that is. That’s rather low if they did considering that in Europe anyway, we fought on their behalf.

But my father had two close Jewish friends who he met during World War 2.

One man served in the Pacific with my father in Okinawa and then went to China with him after the war. That trip to China was one of the peaks of my father’s life. He talked about it a lot. It was like this wild adventure.

Another served on the European front in Italy and then in Germany with the Liberation. He was there when the death camps were liberated. The US military said that Jewish soldiers didn’t have to go see the death camps if they didn’t want to, but my father’s friend went anyway. It was bad, real bad. No words to describe how bad it was. So two of my father’s Jewish friends served in the war. Doesn’t sound like a lot of them got out of it.

Later, other forms of rightwing antisemitism formed in the 20th Century with these basic arguments.

  1. Jews are Communists and Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution that killed 90 million billion zillion gazillion Russian Christians!!

This one is funny. I supported the Bolshevik Revolution. I’m practically a Goddamned Commie. Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution? Ha ha, thank you very much, Jews! Jews are a bunch of Commies? It’s not true anyway but if it’s true, thank you very much, Jews!

2. Jews push racemixing and are trying to genocide the White race. There’s actually some truth to this. Jews in the US have indeed been trying to make Whites a minority in the US,  or at least some of them have. Some of them have anyway. As one Jew said, “When we get Whites down below 50%, a Nazi government can never come to rise in the US.” See what they are doing? It’s all about self-preservation. They’re not just doing it be evil.

I don’t particularly care about this either than to note that the Jews are engaging in sleazy double standards as usual.

1. Jews all have to marry other Jews and no mixing is allowed or they go extinct.

2. But Whites need panmixia!

So promote racial fidelity for your own group while promoting racial suicide and mixture for  your enemies. Sleazy. But hey, that’s the way they are.

I figure that if Whites are so stupid as to be conned by this by pissant little tribe of humans called Jews (who are no more important than any other pissant tribe like Chechens, Burushaski, Dinka, Tuareg, or what have you) then we deserve whatever they con us into. I have no sympathy for morons. And if we Whites want to mix away and go extinct out of own own free will, which is apparently the case, well then, that’s own choice.

3. Jews promote racial hatred against Whites,  make Whites out to be the bad guys, and promote non-Whites as glorious, perfect people while promoting Whites as devils. Well, that’s awful rich of the Jews to do that considering that they’re obviously White themselves, except they lie as usual and say they’re not.

This is just a stupid Jewish game:

We’re not White (though we are), and we are non-Whites (except we’re not) along with the glorious Browns, Blacks, and Yellows, all fighting the evil White oppressor (which is actually us because we’re White). Except that Jews won’t date or marry these glorious non-Whites they throw themselves in with. Hell, they won’t even live in the same neighborhood with them.

It doesn’t even make sense logically, but a lot of Jewish arguments are like that.

So, more Jewish scamming, double standards, tribal thinking  – the usual crap. But this game is so stupid. I mean if we Whites really cared, we could probably raise a fuss about all this anti-White hatred, except the Jews and their non-White pals call us Nazis when we Whites ask people to please, pretty please not be racist against us.

Well, the Jews are definitely playing a real low game here all right, but I don’t particularly care about White-bashing and anti-White racism. I hardly deal with it, and I just laugh at any non-White who acts racist towards me because, I hate to say it, I actually do feel superior to them deep down inside at that point when they are bashing my race.

But I can see why any racially aware White person, certainly a White nationalist, would have a huge beef against Jews. They have a right to that beef because from these Whites’ POV, Jews are definitely screwing over their people.

Except I’m not a racially aware White or a White nationalist, so I don’t care.

4. Jews promote civil rights, feminism, gay rights, tranny rights, and all sorts of other civil rights stuff to weaken the moral fiber of White society so the Jews can take over and out-compete the Whites. Well, all of those movements were good ideas at least in  theory, so good on the Jews. And I doubt if they did it to weaken us. They probably just did it out of a strong sense of social justice, which Jews have had for a long time now, and that is very noble of them.

The argument also says that Jews promote these divide and conquer movements among Whites while sparing their own kind. Well, that’s not true. Jewish society is full of some of the worst feminists of them all. And it didn’t use to be, but gay and lesbian Jews are on just about every corner. I assume there are plenty of Jewish trannies too, as Jews seem to go in for anything sexually perverse for some reason.

But then you have (((George Soros))) who goes around to White Gentile countries promoting all of these rights moments, including a truly insane feminist group called Femen, which is his baby. Femen is raising the usual Hell that femikooks anywhere raise, mostly in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when Femen tried to set up a chapter in Israel, (((Soros))) refused to fund it.

Now I am very suspicious of this man!

His game:

White Gentile societies need the most divisive radical feminism to turn the men and women against each other (Why do they need this?), while we Jews wouldn’t dare subject our own people to this divisive bullshit.

Ok, this is the sort of thing that the Elders of Zion do in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Promote all this junk for their enemies to divide them while sparing their own kind.

So congratulations Mr. (((Soros)))! You succeeded in being a living example of the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes of all! In fact, you appear to have walked right out of the pages of the Protocols, one of the most anti-Jewish books ever written! Brilliant!

Jews act out the worst anti-Jewish stereotypes and then they are shocked! Shocked! When antisemitism logically follows that. They create antisemitism, then they scream and yell about it. That’s dumb, but that’s not a reason to hate them. That’s just these foolish Jews bringing in down on themselves. Why should I hate someone for being self-destructive?

In general, I don’t care that Jews push all these SJW movements, but Mr. (((Soros)))’ behavior is extremely uncool. At any rate, (((Soros))) is not even good for the Jews. The guy’s a one man Antisemitism Manufacturing Plant in the form of a human.

Another thing I want to point out is that the SJW’s are on autopilot now. I doubt if feminism, gay rights, civil rights, tranny rights, and whatever else rights need Jews to push their causes anymore. All the US Jews could take off for Israel or the moon tomorrow, and I am pretty sure that these movements would charge right ahead. That’s because the leadership and bases of these movements is swarming with Gentiles.

5. Jews own the media. Yeah, they do, sort of. And they took it over on purpose. Not to be evil but to protect themselves. And the consequence of this Jewish media is…? What? Other than the Israel-firster stuff, not much.

Further, I do not think the media needs Jews anymore either. The other day, I saw a Canadian paper formerly owned by (((Izzy Asper))), an Israel-firster billionaire who was also a real ratfuck, as you might expect. The paper, The  National Post, is now run by Gentiles.

Well, if you go read that paper, you would think that (((Asper))) never left because the paper reads exactly like it did when (((Asper))) ran it. Still a full-blown Israel-firster paper, but now the Israel-firster articles are all written by Gentiles!

I have seen other papers go from Jewish to Gentile ownership, and not one single thing changes. So I think there is just a “media elite” politics in North America which is shared by all owners, editors, and writers for the MSM, Jews and  Gentiles both. They both push wild SJWism, bash Whites, uphold non-Whites as glorious, and are fanatical Israel-firsters.

6. Jews own Hollywood. Yes, and? Granted, it’s not very democratic, but Hollywood is not nearly as Jewish as it used to be. Many directors and producers now are Gentiles. The Jews still own a lot of the studios, but Gentiles have been forming their own studios lately – Coppola is an excellent example.

Supposedly Jews use Hollywood movies and TV (which is still very Jewish, granted) to push the same stuff – SJWism, anti-White propaganda, reverence for glorious non-Whites, etc. Except Hollywood doesn’t really go along with the Israel-firster stuff, and a number of directors don’t even go along with US imperialism.

And once again, the Gentile directors and producers push all the same themes that the Jewish ones do.  There is a Hollywood elite that has a similar politics shared by both  Jews and Gentiles.

7. Jews make porn. They do. But there are an awful lot of Gentiles making porn now too, right? The industry used to be extremely Jewish in the 1970’s and 80’s – now it is much less so.

But let’s try a thought experiment. All the  US Jews take off for Israel, the moon, Atlantis, wherever. No more Jews. You think the porn industry will go under? Hell no. All the outlets owned by sleazy Jews will be immediately taken over by sleazy Gentiles. Isn’t that obvious? And the Gentiles in porn push all the same sleazy crap: racemixing, Blacks cucking Whites, or whatever.

7. Jews are aggressive, rude, tight, and don’t like non-Jews. A lot of them are. This is particularly the case with the Orthodox and Super Jews like you find in Israel. The more “Jewish” the person is, the more they act in this “Jewy” way. The more assimilated the Jew is, the less they act that way. A lot of Jewish men can definitely be pretty aggressive. The women seem to be less so. After all, they are females.

But that’s not really important. Anyway, exactly how many people actually hate Jews because they are like this? Hell, I know wild Judeophiles who laugh and openly admit that the Jews are obnoxious. And these are people who love Jews.

I’ve also read thousands of antisemites on the web over the years. I haven’t found one yet who actually hated Jews because a lot of them are not real nice. So few if any people are actual antisemites for that reason. I’m sure Jews will call these people antisemites, but they all everyone that.

As far as my opinion goes, at the end of the day, this is just not important. That’s just the petty sociological behavior of a single ethnic group.

Lots of ethnic groups have funny ways of behaving, both good and bad. In many cases, ethnic behavior isn’t important as long as they don’t break the law or seriously disrupt society. Being annoying is nothing. I’m not going to hate some whole race of humans because a lot of them act annoying. That’s a petty issue. It’s hardly a reason to hate a whole ethnic group or race. I imagine most people who feel that Jews act this way feel the same way.

It should be clear now that standard antisemitism is rightwing and has always been rightwing. There’s nothing here for liberals, Leftists, or progressive people.

Alt Left: Why Identity Politics Gets Crazier Every Year, and Why It Has To

Every year things get a little bit better for all of these groups, so they are less oppressed. Instead of throwing a party like they should, they jump up and down even harder and yell that they are oppressed more than ever.

And all the while the move the Oppression Goalposts a bit further away and declare a number of behaviors and  speech forms which were previously harmless now forms of hate and hate speech. The need to continually be oppressed even while their lives get better and better is the reason that IP gets a little bit more insane every year.

Do you follow?

Obviously feminism in the Current Year is more insane than it’s ever been. Black IP is nuttier and more extremist than it’s ever been. Gay IP has never been crazier. Pretty soon we will be homophobes if we refuse to put a cock in our mouths.

I’m already seeing a few signs of this mindset here and there with Gay IP people saying that being a heterosexual man is inherently homophobic in and of itself. The only way to stop being a mean homophobe gay hating Nazi and be nice to teh geyz is to go find yourself a nearby penis and put it between your lips, I guess. That way you’re bisexual which is now the only way not to be a homophobic bigot, I suppose.

Of course the trannies are more nuts than ever. Their particular form of IP is new, so the goalposts are flying away faster than you can run. This is typical of any newly created IP which needs to go into overproduction mode to catch up to all of the more advanced forms of oppression who have gathering grudges and insults for decades.

It’s true that the older fave oppressions don’t grow nearly as quickly because they’ve already concluded that half of daily life by the oppressive Other somehow oppresses them in some way or other. In other words, they’re running out of things to complain about. The only solution is to start complaining about nuttier and nuttier things, to get even more sensitive, and to increase the crazy demands on the evil oppressor Other a bit more.

Alt Left: I Admire Blacks for Their Intellectual Honesty, No BS Thinking, and Telling It Like It Is

PB: Poles stayed in Detroit. Most Whites left, as Trash said. Can’t be easy to “save” there.

Some Poles are still in Detroit, right? Detroit’s like ~90% Black. I hate to say it, but let this be a warning sign. Any good-sized city in the US that gets to ~90% Black, well, I’m not optimistic about that place to put it mildly.

Even Blacks don’t want to live with Blacks, believe it or not. I mean they don’t mind living with their own kind, but they do not want to live in majority-Black places. When asked what sort of racial environment they prefer, most Blacks checked “diverse.” That would mean Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians and maybe Indians, etc.

I’ll say one thing for Black people. They aren’t stupid in some very important ways. Black people are very good at “adaptive” thinking.

They have a knack for cutting to the chase and getting right down to basics, screw all the emo BS. In the above case, instead of using emo thinking and thinking and saying they want to live in majority Black places, they’ve figured out with intellectual honesty that those places are are often not real great.

Not great for non-Blacks, sure, but also very much not great for Black people either. And a “diverse” community is indeed probably one of the better places for a Black person to reside. Good on them for figuring that out instead of retreating into lame emotional thinking that’s bad for their best interests.

Blacks look out for their best interests politically better than any other race. There’s no reason at all that ~90% of Blacks should not vote Democrat. Blacks are adaptive and intellectually honest enough to figure out that the White Republican Party is not their friend.

Alt Left: The Deep State of the US Is All-Encompassing and Surrounds US All of Our Lives

What is the Deep State? Everyone talks about it but no one seems to know what it is. A lot of people say it doesn’t exist. They’re wrong. And I know they’re wrong. I’ve been studying this for decades, and my answer to the question of what the Deep State is, which is both maddeningly complex and ridiculously simple, is the answer I have arrived at after many years of deep study

Most of the US Executive Branch dealing with foreign policy is Deep State.

All of the many intelligence agencies with their $30 billion black budgets are Deep State.

The Pentagon is completely Deep State.

Most all of Congress is Deep State, with a few bright new exceptions.

And most importantly, all of the large corporations of America are part of the Deep State. If you have worked for the CIA, you can walk in the door of almost any corporation in the US and get hired for a serious position. CIA and other intelligence and foreign policy types cycle in and out of the corporate sector and vice versa all the time. It’s all connected, dammit.

In fact, the intelligence agencies are simply the hired intelligence agencies of the rich and the corporations. The Pentagon is simply the hired military of the rich and the corporations. The foreign policy establishment in the Executive and Legislative branches are simply the state structures of the rich and the corporations.

Obviously all of the US MSM is Deep State. Most large US media outlets have long been infiltrated by the CIA. It’s a good guess that many of the top editors in the US media are on the CIA payroll. It was revealed recently that many of the top journalists in the US were actually on the CIA payroll.

This is a result of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird initiated in the 1960’s. It resulted in the infiltration of most if not all of the US MSM by the CIA. The reforms of the Church Committee in the mid-70’s were said to put a stop to that, but the truth is that Operation Mockingbird was never shut down and continues to this very day. It just went underground is all.

By this view the Deep State is all around us all the time. It’s omnipresent in this country. You can’t escape it.

The Deep State is nothing other than the Foreign Policy Establishment of the United States. 

As such, it includes:

  • All of the MSM
  • The foreign policy aspects of the Executive Branch
  • The foreign policy aspects of the Legislative Branch
  • The Pentagon.
  • The three letter agencies and the US intelligence agency complex, much of which is “black” or underground and unaccountable
  • All of the large corporations of the US, including all of the Silicon Valley “cool” corporations
  • Most of the rich of the US
  • Most but not all of Hollywood
  • Wall Street

I believe that this theory of an all-encompassing Deep State that surrounds us every minute of our lives is the best definition of the Deep State. Think about it if it doesn’t make sense. If you find the question interesting, keep on thinking about it. After you think for a while, I believe you might just come around to a definition of the Deep State that is not far from mine.

Alt Left: All of the MSM and all of Silicon Valley Is Deep State

It’s painfully obvious that there is no free press at all anywhere in the West. There is only Fake News MSM completely controlled by the US government and NATO.

There is some real news on the Internet but the Deep State is now going after all of that too. Twitter and (((Facebook))) are mass-banning any pages or users that publish anything that goes against the Deep State/CIA line.

Twitter and (((Facebook))) are both absolutely part of the Deep State now.

So is (((Google))). (((Google))) partnered with the Atlantic Council (NATO Deep State) to downgrade most leftwing outlets critical of US foreign policy as “fake news.” The Atlantic Council issued reports showing all the “fake news” or “Russian” sites.

Any site critical of US foreign policy is not only fake news but it is also always Russian. Hundreds of Americans were banned from Twitter when Jack Dorsey (Deep State) said they were “Russian propaganda bots.” (((Mark Zuckerberg))) (Deep State) also banned many pages from (((Facebook))) as either “fake news” or “controlled by Russia.”

The leadership of (((Google))) is absolutely Deep State. Not only did they bury most leftwing sites on their search engine, they have also removed many videos from (((Youtube))) on the grounds that they are “fake news” or “Russian propaganda.” Quite a few of these accounts were left up, but (((Youtube))) required them to carry warning messages saying that the creators of the video had links to Russia.

I’ve been telling people for a long time that there is nothing groovy or cool about these bitchin’ new capitalists in Silicon Valley. They’re the same old capitalist ratfucks, except possibly they’re even worse than the old kind we sort of got used to. Like any corporation on Earth, the Silicon Valley corporations are not progressive in any serious way and are in fact conservatives and reactionaries like all corporations are.

These corporations are said to be “progressive” because in addition to being rightwing corporations on anything important, they have also adopted leftwing SJWism as it’s no threat to their bottom line.

And in answer to the question I assume you are getting ready to ask me, no, supporting degenerate nonsense like Drag Queen Story Hour at your local library, perverted gay pride parades, and transsexual bathhouses for all ages does not make you a progressive because those are not progressive issues.

They fall into another category called Moral/Traditional versus Immoral/Degenerate. Supporting sick nonsense like the above doesn’t make you left wing at all. It just makes you a degenerate. You SJW degenerates proud of yourselves?

 

Alt Left: Some (((Background))) to the (((Jeffrey Epstein Sexual Blackmail Spy Agency Case)))

This is the audio version of Whitney Webb’s excellent article on Mintpress about the (((Jeffrey Epstein))) case. 45 pages if you want to read it instead. A lot of great photos though if you only want to listen to the podcast. The link is worthwhile if only for the photos.

This sort of thing has been going on a long time in the US, and it’s mostly been run by a certain type of (((person))). It started with the elder (((Bronfman))) of the spirits and later airline (Virgin Airlines) fortune in Canada. While the current (((Bronfman))) seems pretty above water, his father was not.

And the spirits fortune got its start with mass bootlegging in Prohibition by the elder (((Bronfman))). Elder (((Bronfman))) was in deep with (((organized crime))) his entire life, in part the Mafia but early on mostly the (((Meyer Lansky crime family))), later of much prominence in Las Vegas.

Early on these people got deeply involved in sexual blackmail of important politicians.

It is little known but the US government made extensive use of the Mafia in World War 2 to help defeat the Axis Powers. After the war, the Mafia exploded in size and influence. For ~10 years after the war, almost all criminal cases against the Mafia were dismissed at the behest of the US government.

Later we move on to an awful man named (((Rosensteil))), another extremely rich man and major (((Organized Crime))) figure. This man later got in deep with J. Edgar Hoover. Both men were gay. (((Rosensteil))) perfected the art of sexual blackmail, specializing in teenage boys.

He threw parties at his house with many VIP’s and politicians in attendance. There were always plenty of teenage boys there. The men in attendance there were all gay or bisexual and made use of these teenage boy prostitutes. The encounters were then recorded and used to blackmail VIP’s and politicians.

(((Rosensteil))) later formed a very close friendship with J. Edgar Hoover. He blackmailed Hoover via these same teenage boy parties, which Hoover often attended, usually dressed in a woman’s dress and introduced to others as “Mary.” Hoover’s homosexuality was a dirty little secret for decades. My grandfather used to say that Hoover was a “fruit,” which was what homosexuals were called back then.

Hoover himself via the FBI also used sexual blackmail to blackmail many VIP’s and politicians, so the FBI was in on this too. Hoover said he was doing it as part of the US government’s war on Communism.

Later during the McCarthy era, a horrible man named (((Roy Cohn))) became Joseph McCarthy’s right hand man. He was even more malicious than McCarthy during the hearings, and his behavior was so awful that he eventually had to be removed from his position. But (((Cohn))) also had deep relations with Hoover and later with Ronald and Nancy Reagan and Donald Trump.

(((Cohn))) was Trump’s mentor and it was via (((Cohn))) that Trump perfected the art of being, well, Donald Trump. (((Cohn))) was also friends with (((Alan Dershowitz))) and other awful human beings. (((Cohn’s father))) was a prominent New York judge who was high up in the local Democratic Party. At that time, the Democratic Party in New York was virtually an annex of Organized Crime.

(((Cohn))) later perfected the art of sexual blackmail via parties at a special light blue painted room in a large well known hotel.

These parties were well-stocked with teenage boys, who were utilized by (((Cohn))), Hoover and many other VIP’s and politicians, including, believe it or not, Cardinal Spellman of the local Catholic Church, one of the most famous Catholic Cardinals in the US. Spellman was also very gay and he protected many homosexual priests who liked teenage boys during his tenure.

Keep in mind that (((Cohn))) was also friends with people like (((Barbara Walters))), Bill Clinton, Roger Stone (another protege of (((Cohn)))), and (((Cohn’s cousin))), a monster named (((Dick Morris))).

As the podcast ends, we learn that (((Jeffrey Epstein))) was simply one of the successors to (((Roy Cohn))) after (((Cohn’s))) death of AIDS in 1986.

As we can see, sexual blackmail has a long history in the US and it has mostly been used by a (((certain group of highly amoral people))). Another shocker that comes through loud and clear with this broadcast the US government’s (and even the FBI’s!) close relationship with Organized Crime spanning decades.

It’s also been very well-known that the CIA has worked closely with Organized Crime groups all over the world since World War 2 as part of its fight against Communism. Yes, the Mafia were an important of the CIA’s effort, but the CIA also infiltrated Organized Crime networks all over the world to enlist them in the war on Communism.

Quite a shocker of a podcast!

N.B. Wow, look at all those (((parenthesis marks))). Never seen so many in my life. Must be a gigantic (((coincidence))).

Alt Left: Final Score – Nature: 200,000, Cultural Left: 0

Tradition exists for a reason. Tradition is the human behavior, morals, norms, values, and wisdom that have withstood the test of time.

Our ancestors were experimenting. Experimenting with human nature and the human condition. Trying to figure out how to run society in the best way possible, given our nature. Tradition is the stuff that was proven to have worked over centuries.

The new stuff that the Cultural Left throws in the face of tradition is the stuff that tradition always maintained didn’t work, a notion they came to no doubt by trial and error. The human experiments, social engineering and wars against nature go on.

This is one great thing I love about conservatism. Classically, conservatism has noticed the endless social experiments of the Cultural Left dubiously. “Ok,” the conservatives said. “You all go off and do your experiments. Just leave us out of it, ok? And hey, after you do it, let us know how it goes, ok?”  But now they’re dragging everyone else along for the ride. We’re donkeys and their pulling us by these damned bridles they forced on us. As usual, it’s not working.

In a sense they are noble, these starry-eyed people of the Cultural Left. These are people who see the ways of nature as limited and backwards. They long for a better world, an engineered one, crafted with pure human intelligence and spirit, adorned with slogans, and enforced with the usual goodhearted social bullying. But one thought is important: these are people who dream of a better world.

These things go on for a bit, and then the reaction sets in, and everyone throws up their hands and wonders why humans keep going backwards. But they’re not going backwards. They’re going home.

You can go to the far ends of the Earth, run as far and hard as you can to escape from the cruel finality of nature, you wake up in Timbuktu, Bangkok, or the heart of Amazon, and it hits you. The crushing disappointment, as heavy as a heart attack. There, rising with the sun to the east, greeting you so horribly, is that fatal reminder: wherever you go on Earth, you’re always back at home. Your home called Nature.

Alt Left: What’s Behind California’s High Housing Costs and High Rates of Homelessness, Poverty, and Welfare Use?

Tulio: Hey RL, just a bit off topic, I was recently reading that California when adjusted for cost of living has the highest poverty rate in the country and that it also has the most welfare recipients.

The Right has been going nuts in the Trump era bashing California and called it a failed 3rd World state that looks the way it does because it’s controlled by Democrats. A lot of that is of course hyperbole, but there is a lot of struggle in California.

I’ve always found this argument a bit specious because there are 15 or so other states where Democrats control the governorship and legislature that don’t have the same quality of life problems. The Right will ignore of course that the majority of high-poverty states are red states.

But there is a question I’m wondering. Is the demographic change of California from majority White to now mostly Latino the reason for these economic problems? It stands to reason that if most of your demographic change is coming from immigrants of a poor country, it will make your state a poorer place.

And this has nothing to do with people voting Democratic per se. If tomorrow 10 million Central Americans immigrated to Nebraska I’m sure you’d see similar issues emerge.

Good question.  This is an excellent hypothesis, actually. I just don’t think there is much of anything to it.

High Cost of Housing: The Secret Behind All of the Problems

The adjusted poverty rate is due to the high cost of housing. Everything else flows from that. What are we supposed to do about it? This is a problem of capitalism. Explain what the state is supposed to do about this housing problem.

I mean we are trying to do a lot of things but the money’s not available for a total solution to the problem. Also our solutions are running into a lot of NIMBYism.

The Homeless Cataclysm

We are fairly kind to our homeless here, so other states kindly put their homeless on buses to California, especially cities like San Francisco. We are trying to deal with this homeless problem as best as we can. What are we supposed to do? The homeless problem is also tied into the housing problem.

Problems of Penal System Reform

The problem is also drugs. Face it, a lot of the homeless are mentally ill or alcohol or drug addicted. They can’t work even if they wanted to. We have decriminalized a lot of drug use here and we released a lot of inmates and reduced a lot of crimes from felonies to  misdemeanors. Also our jails and prisons are badly overcrowded. Hence a lot fewer minor offenders are getting locked up and a lot of them are just roaming the streets instead.

Problems of Drug Decriminalization or Legalization

Everyone says we ought to decrim drug use and I have always tended to agree. But this is what you end up with when you do that. In Seattle, they look the other way on minor drug use and possession, hence there is a huge amount of open drug possession, use, and dealing, a lot of it right out in the open and associated with the homeless.

The drug of choice is often methamphetamine, which can make you act pretty crazy. So you have these crazed meth heads roaming around the streets scaring everyone, certain streets no-go zones due to open drug use, homeless everywhere, even sleeping on sidewalks  where you have to step over them, and rampant crime, mostly petty thievery from stores as addicts steal like crazy to get money for their habits.

I am at a loss to do about any of these problems, sorry. I just want to throw up my hands.

What’s Wrong with Social Programs?

So we have a lot of welfare? Big deal. That’s the state trying to deal with the poverty problem. Good for the state! Keep in mind that to these guys, everything is welfare: Section 8, Food Stamps, Disability, Workman’s Comp, reduced utility bills, on and on.

Serious Limits on What a Mere State Can Do about These Things

We are a very liberal state with a very liberal Legislature that cares a lot about these problems, but they are beyond the scope of the state government to deal with, much less fix. But we are trying our best. Ask these Republicans what we ought to be doing instead.

I don’t think changing from a majority White state to a majority Hispanic state has much to do with it. There is a lot of poverty, here but there is also a lot of wealth. Keep in mind that California has the 8th largest economy on Earth, higher than the vast majority of actual countries. And we’re not even a country. We are just a state.

Alt Left: Economics and Culture: The Deadly Duo

Tulio: Are you familiar with Tim Pool? Would you say he’s Alt-Left? Also do you think Tulsi Gabbard is Alt-Left?

In a way, Tulio is brilliant. He has this knack of summing up whole complex issues in a sentence or two. He’s a genius at that. When the Alt Left first came out, Tulio said, “The Alt Left is just redpilled socialists!” That hit it so perfectly. However there are both liberal and Leftist wings and the left economics ranges from Keynesianism with a safety net to socialism and even communism and anarchism, though there are not many of the latter.

Yeah, Tulsi is Alt Left. So is Yang. So it Cenk Uighur, Kyle Kuklinski and the Young Turks. I just looked up Tim Pool, and yes, he would be Alt Left for sure. Who’s the comedian with glasses who works with Kuklinski? He’s Alt Left too. We’re out there.

There is also a movement called the Dirtbag Left that is Alt Left. It’s associated with Chapo Tree House, an internet radio show. That show would be Alt Left too. There are people called Bernie Bros, who supposedly sexist or at least antifeminist men who are Bernie supporters. They would be Alt Left, although we are opposed to sexism.

The Russian Communist Party would be Alt Left.

I really hate to say it but a couple of those mass shooters were Alt Left. The Christchurch shooter was very hard to categorize. He was not a typical rightwinger at all. Sadly, I’m afraid he was Alt Left. And the El Paso shooter was also Alt Left.

The way I see it is any time you have any sort of leftwing economics and rightwing or centrist on culture, it’s automatically Alt Left. In that case, Third Positionism, NazBols and even Strasserites would be Alt Left.

Obviously you can have very good and very bad people with the combination of leftwing economics and right or centrist on culture.

Really though, the official Alt Left movement would have to preclude the two shooters, Nazbols and Strasserites due to their racism. So the official Alt Left has some but not complete overlap with Third Positionism.

The whole problem is that culture has become completely married to economics and the left/right split. If you’re anti-Cultural Left, you are automatically rightwing and you go rightwing on economics. No exceptions. Now you can be rightwing on economics but left on culture. Those are Libertarians, and we are similar to them in some ways but not in others. Now if you’re left on economics, you must go left on culture. No exceptions.

Our movement got written up in some Polish  political magazines and a prominent political scientist actually wrote an article on us. There is a Polish Left, but Poles tend to be rather conservative on cultural stuff.

Left on economics: Pro Cultural Left, no exceptions!

Anti-Cultural Left: rightwing on everything, no exceptions. This has been the bete noir of the Alt Left, our bugaboo. Every time we find someone who is anti-Cultural Left, they’re more or less conservative. Or they start out left on economics but as they pound away at the Cultural Left stuff, they start drifting further rightwing on economics and other things. It’s as if culture and economics are locked together somehow.

The exceptions are:

Pro-Cultural Left: Can be right or left on economics. Mostly left but there are a lot of Libertarian rightwingers too.

Right on economics: Can go either pro or con on Cultural Left. Libertarians go pro-Cultural Left.

Alt Left: No Virginia, There Are No Gay Animals

For reference.

Any animals have a strap-on equivalent? I doubt there are fake dicks in nature. Lesbians are just low. They want to strap it on and be a man, but this is all imaginary. They are really only good for licking. All they can really do is lick pussy and ass, so those are the cards they play.

In nature, a strong man would penetrate the pussy. What male could the weaker female overpower? She’d take on a submissive role like all women, with the only trace of her lesbianism existing in her proficiency in licking a mans ass.

Of courses there are no aminals that strap it on or do anything equivalent. In fact, in most animals including mammals sex is for procreation, not for pleasure. Only chimps and bonobos have sex for pleasure.

There are no lesbian animals no matter what the Gay Agenda (Gay Identity Politics) tells you. There are few gay animals. There are cases of two female birds guarding an egg together, but that is because there was no male around. Likewise for male penguins guarding an egg. They don’t fuck in either case.

There are no gay reptiles, amphibians, insects or birds. Zero.

And only one species of mammal has gay males, sheep, and even they don’t fuck. They just try to mount each other, but nothing happens. Maybe they should send those sheep to Frisco to show ’em how it’s done.

Sometimes female mammals will try to mount a female animal that is in heat. I had a cat that was going into heat (their vaginas get wet, which is very interesting, like human females). This other female cat I had got this weird look on its face and tried to mount her. Not sure what’s going, but it ain’t lesbianism.

Gay IP says that stupidest stuff, like “10% of all animals in every species are gay!” The 10% of people are gay lie is one of the biggest lies of all told by Gay IP.