Alt Left: Liberal California? Californians Voted Rightwing on Eight out of 12 Propositions on the Ballot

Why people keep saying California is liberal is beyond me. My city is 80% Hispanic. But my county voted Trump +13. As soon as you get outside of the city limits here, all the precincts went for Trump. And the Whiter wealthier areas in my city also went for Trump. The Central Valley is not very liberal at all! Yeah my Congressman is a Democrat, but he’s a crappy rightwing Democrat, a Blue Dog Democrat who might as well be a Republican.

Let’s look at the ballot propositions. Either Californians are dumb and get swayed by the big money and their fake lying campaigns on the propositions or they’re just not that liberal. Because the vote wasn’t very liberal.

Californians Voted Rightwing on Eight out of 12 Initiatives

Proposition 15: A fake privacy law bolstering law written by criminals like Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of the Silicon Valley crooks that actually weakened privacy laws passed! “Liberal” Californians sided with crooked tech billionaire enemies of the people to screw over consumers!

Proposition 16: Bring back affirmative action in employment failed badly. I like that result, but face it, it’s rightwing. So California “liberals” supported an anti-affirmative action proposition.

Proposition 18: Allowing 17 year olds to vote in primaries if they will be 18 in the general in the fall (Big deal!) failed. That’s a very rightwing vote. California “liberals” voted rightwing again.

Proposition 21: Putting in some common sense rent controls in this insanely overpriced housing market failed again. It always fails! Some liberal state! The Legislature won’t pass it either because all the “liberal Democrats” in there are bought off by extremely wealthy landlords. Some liberals!

Proposition 22: Reclassifying gig workers are contractors so their crooked billionaire employers can keep ripping them off and paying them $5/hour, which is what Lyft and Uber pay their drivers (!) passed! “Liberal” Californians voted for big business crooked bosses and ripped off poor workers!

Proposition 23: Regulating the criminal dog capitalists who run crooked dialysis facilities preying on poor workers suffering kidney failure terribly! They’re not regulated at all right now and that’s terrible for sick workers. California “liberals” voted to keep the dialysis crooks unregulated!

Proposition 25: Changing the cash bail system which keeps workers accused of crimes in California’s”liberal” jails that are as terrible as a Hieronymus Bosch painting before they have even been convicted of a thing, sometimes for years, to let non-dangerous people who haven’t even been convicted of a thing out of jail until they go on trial failed! “Liberal” Californians voted to keep poor workers in California’s Dantesque jails just because they’re not rich enough to afford bail!

Californians Voted Liberal on Four Initiatives

Proposition 14: Funding stem cell research barely passed.

Proposition 17: Restore voting rights for felons on parole passed.

Proposition 20: Increasing penalties for some crimes failed.

Proposition 21: The vote to make some large property owners pay the going rate for their property taxes barely passed. The only “homeowners” it applied to had three or more houses! If you own 3+ houses, you’re a “homeowner?” Get out.

There were 12 ballot initiatives. “Liberal” Californians voted rightwing on eight of those 12 initiatives and voted left on only three of the 12, and two of those barely passed with the skin of their teeth!

California “liberals” are not even all that liberal. They’re more like liberal Republicans. The only way they are left is Fake Left which means SJW Left, which isn’t even left at all. It’s just a bunch of bourgeois “fake rights,” most of which attack Whites and men and vastly privilege sexual degenerates and mentally ill freaks who think they’re the opposite sex against people who are normal sexually and do not have a psychosis about their genitals.

Anyone who thinks that is “left” is insane. Remember the Communist countries of the 20th Century? Remember how socially conservative they all were?

Homosexuality was often illegal. Castro put gays in prison.

Trannies would be sent to an asylum where they belong.

Men were free to be men and women to be women.

No Communist country on the face of the Earth was anti-White. In fact, the USSR and the East Bloc were some of the most pro-White countries the world has ever seen.

Porn and gross, open sexual degeneracy and perversion were banned.

That’s the Real Left. The Real Left is left on economics but fairly conservative on the BS social issues..

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

Alt Left: Pixies, “Where Is My Mind?”

Remember this great song from that awesome movie Fight Club? Wow, too much, man. The footage in this video is from another great movie, Trainspotting, which unfortunately I have not yet seen!

Pixies, a great late 80’s-90’s band. Described as Alternative, but I always thought they had a punk sound about them. Oh well, let’s call it post-punk and make it a day, ok? From their first album in 1988, Surfer Rosa. I think I remember hearing them for the first time in the early 90’s. See? Now here I am, nostalgic for the Goddamned 1990’s! WTH.

It must have been that great music. Couldn’t have been much else. Bill Clinton was president busy trying to be a Republican and triangulating his way to compromise after compromise with the Republicans. The decade when this clown issues his famous last words, “The era of big government is over” and “This is the end of welfare as we know it.” Remember NAFTA?

Obligatory political rant having nothing whatsoever to do with the video as usual follows:

Sometimes I think the best propagandists for Republicans are Democrats. The Republicans are always screaming, “The Democrats are stealing our ideas!” I agree that’s disgusting, but from the Republicans’ point of view, why does it matter, other than for vanity? I don’t get it. They’ve always got to be in the limelight?

The US of course wrote the book on shitty politics. And the way this particular atrocity of shitty politics goes is:

  1.  Republicans come up with some awful, shitty, and ultimately sad idea.
  2.  They pound it into the peoples’ head, Goebbels-style for however long it takes until habituation is achieved and the people salivate when the year the Republican bell sound.
  3.  Democrats come along and decide that the reason they are losing is because they don’t act like Republicans enough. Yeah I know? Dumb or what?
  4.  The living abortion called the DNC is spawned from Satan. Their motto, “We’re just like the Republicans, only cooler and not as square! We’re Number 2. We try harder. But please vote for us anyway. Vote for us, the fake Republicans. Please don’t be fooled and vote for the real deal.”
  5.  Democrat achieves Presidency back when we had fair elections.
  6.  Rightwing hate-storm steams up.
  7.  Democrat spends four years denying he’s a Democrat and insisting he’s really a Republican after all. Takes a bunch of the Republicans worst Big Lies, whittles them down a bit, draws cute things on them, and gaslights us by call them niceness and liberalism, and then actually implements these atrocities.
  8.  Then in the mid-terms the people decide that if there’s a choice between the fake Republicans called Democrats and the real Republicans called Republicans, why buy a fake when the real thing’s better and costs less? They vote for the real thing.
  9.  After the mid-term shellacking, the Democrats conclude (Again!) that they didn’t act like Republicans enough, so they bring in (((fakester))) Republicans pretending to Democrats like (((Tricky Dicky Morris))), triangulate away trying to split the difference between good and evil by acting evil half the time (!), thereby making their own people hate their guts, while the Republicans just keep hating them anyway.
  10.  The Republicans see how the Democrats nicened up some awful Republican idea and complain about policy plagiarism, then, because they must always be to the right of the Democrats, move the Overton Window to the right again. The things that were so horrible one could not speak of them in public before are now normalized, we’ve left Reality and entered the Matrix again. Insanity and evil become normalized and we think they’re sane and good. We tell ourselves we were being gaslit before and we came to our senses.
  11. Rinse. Repeat. Steal another election. Rinse. Repeat. Have another drink. Etc.

 

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

Alt Left: Massive Red Shift Again in the Latest Presidential Election

Background info from Jonathan Simon, the one man team who has done more to publicize this, one of the biggest stories of the new century, than anyone else. Here is an interview with him on Kevin Barrett’s radio show about this latest election, the figures of which I lay out below.

Here is Simon’s webpage. Highly recommended.

Here is his Twitter feed. Also very highly recommended.

Presidential Election Red Shift 2020. From Jonathan Simon’s spreadsheets on the 2020 election.

If you click this, it will ask you to save it as a pdf. I had it as an image file, but it was very hard to read, so I saved it as a pdf. This way you can save it as a pdf, open it in Adobe Acrobat and then zoom the size up to where it is much more readable.

I have some finals for you from exit polls.

39 red shifts.
2 blue shifts.
9+ clean elections

39 red shifts

Arizona: Biden +5.6, final hacked down to Biden +.5 5.1 points stolen by Trump.
Connecticut*: Biden +24, hacked down to Biden +20. 4 points stolen by Trump.
Delaware*: Biden +26, hacked down to Biden +19. 7 points stolen by Trump.
Georgia: Biden +2.8, final hacked down to Biden +.3. 2.5 points stolen by Trump.
Hawaii*: Biden +40, hacked down to Biden +29. 11 points stolen by Trump.
Illinois*: Biden +18, hacked down to Biden +14. 4 points stolen by Trump.
Iowa: Biden .9, final hacked down to Trump +8.2. 7.3 points stolen by Trump. Possible Biden win.
Maine: Biden +13, hacked down to Biden +9. 4 points stolen by Trump.
Maryland*: Biden +31, hacked down to Biden +28. 3 points stolen by Trump.
Michigan: Biden +9.2, final hacked down to Biden +2.7. 6.5 points stolen by Trump.
Nevada: Biden +6.2, final Biden +2.7. 3.5 points stolen by Trump.
New Hampshire: Biden +10, hacked down to Biden +7. 3 points stolen by Trump.
New York: Biden +27, hacked down to Biden +13. 14 points stolen by Trump.
North Carolina: Biden +.9, final Trump +1.4. 2.5 points stolen by Trump. Possible Biden win.
Pennsylvania: Biden +3, final hacked down to Biden +.7. 2.3 points stolen by Trump.
Rhode Island*: Biden +30, hacked down to Biden +20. 10 points stolen by Trump.
Vermont*: Biden +39, hacked down to Biden +36. 3 points stolen by Trump.
Wisconsin: Biden +10.5, final hacked down to Biden +.7. 9.8 points stolen by Trump.

Alabama: Trump +14.5, hacked up to Trump +26. 11 points stolen by Trump.
Alaska*: Trump +8, hacked up to Trump +28, however, only 58% of results are in. 20 points stolen by Trump.
Arkansas*: Trump +23, hacked up to Trump +28. 5 points stolen by Trump.
Florida: Trump .4, final hacked up to Trump +3.3. 2.9 points stolen by Trump.
Idaho*: Trump +23, hacked up to Trump +32. 9 points stolen by Trump.
Indiana*: Trump +11, hacked up to Trump +17. 6 points stolen by Trump.
Kentucky: Trump +17, hacked up to Trump +27. 10 points stolen by Trump.
Mississippi*: Trump +14, hacked up to Trump +20. 6 points stolen by Trump.
Missouri*: Trump +10. final hacked up to Trump +16. 6 points stolen by Trump.
Montana: Trump +8, hacked up to Trump +16. 8 points stolen by Trump.
Nebraska*: Trump +10, hacked up to Trump +20. 10 points stolen by Trump.
North Dakota*: Trump +22, hacked up to Trump +26. 4 points stolen by Trump.
Ohio: Trump +2.3, final hacked up to Trump +8. 6.2 points stolen by Trump.
Oklahoma*: Trump +23, hacked up to Trump +33. 10 points stolen by Trump.
South Carolina: Trump +6, hacked up to Trump +12. 6 points stolen by Trump.
South Dakota*: Trump +17, hacked up to Trump +26. 9 points stolen by Trump.
Tennessee*: Trump +14, hacked up to Trump +23. 9 points stolen by Trump.
Texas: Trump +3.6, final hacked up to Trump +5.9. 2.3 points stolen by Trump.
Utah*: Trump +10, hacked up to Trump +23. 13 points stolen by Trump.
West Virginia*: Trump +31, hacked up to Trump +39. 9 points stolen by Trump.
Wyoming*: Trump +34, hacked up Trump to +43. 9 points stolen by Trump.

Blue shifts

California: Biden +25, final Biden +32. 7 point blue shift.
Washington: Biden +17, final Biden +22. 5 point blue shift.

Two blue shifts out of 50 elections is probably not outside of the margin of error. In a typical election with 50 states anywhere from 1-2 elections for each side might be expected to go off, or 2-4 shifts should occur, ~1-2 red shifts and ~1-2 blue shifts.

*From pre-election polls, not exit polls.

Biden may have won Iowa and North Carolina, but neither are proven. Both were hacked, but the Biden wins are within the exit polls’ Margin of Error. Biden might have lost anyway and the hacks just padded Trump’s win.

Looks like most of the hacks failed. They must necessarily go in before the election, as they are in the programming, and you can’t change the programming in the middle of the election. But the Electoral College totals at the end are about right. North Carolina and Iowa would have added 21 electoral votes, but we’re not sure Biden won there. So we can’t prove that Trump stole even a single state! All that hacking may not have done a damned thing at the end of the day in terms of the outcome of the election. Biden won and he would have won were there no hacking. He may or may not have lost two states to hacking.

All the hacking did was make a number of races a lot closer than they should have been, padded a lot of Trump victories, and subtracted points away from a lot of Biden wins. The hacking went in before the election because you can’t hack a vote in the middle of an election, so they had to guess how many points they would need to steal in certain states in order to win. It looks like they tried to steal Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia and failed in every case. They also tried to steal Iowa and North Carolina and may well have succeeded.

In each case above except Iowa, an attempt was made based on pre-election polls to give Trump a very slight win. But all of these attempts failed except possibly North Carolina. The won only a propaganda victory – “No blue wave…Trumpism is still very popular…very close election, etc.” that they are somehow trying to play up into a win. Nevertheless this was the most egregious and blatant hacking we have ever seen in a US election. The number of points hacked off the totals exceed anything previously seen.

I think that what really happened here is that a Democratic wave election or landslide was averted. And that was good enough for Rove et al, who are the folks fixing these election thefts. A Democratic landslide or wave election would have made the Republicans look very bad. Two Senate seats may have been stolen. I have no data on House seats. I also have no data on state races, which may well have been hacked too. The Democrats did poorly in state races in what was a Democratic wave election of 8.5 points, which seems odd.

I’ll do the Senate next but it’s a similar story there.

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

Alt Left: And People Keep Incredulously Wondering Why I’m a Socialist and Why I Hate Rightwing and Libertarian Economics

Here.

When I say socialism, I’m not necessarily talking about the state running the whole economy. We have plenty of good evidence of the limitations of that model.

Read in that article where it says that $2.5 trillion has been stolen from the bottom 90% of earners by the top 10% of earners every year for the last 45 years. The top 10% of our country is now effectively an oligarchy. And an increasingly violent and undemocratic one, as all oligarchies are under a severe threat from the Left. You see where it says that if all that money being siphoned away from the 90% by the top 10% was instead given to the bottom 90%, your average American family would have an income of $100,000 and not $50,000?

That’s all we “evil socialists” and “evil Leftists” want. We want you, the bottom 90%, to get that money above as you did from 1945-1975 before the Theft of the Century began. We could give that $2.5 trillion to the top 10%, to the rich. Or we could instead not give it to those rich fucks and instead give it all you guys, everyone in the lower 90% of the tax bracket. We’re not even just for the poor. We are for all of the victims of the Class War of the Rich.

What in the Hell is wrong with that?

Why On Earth Are You Supporting Neoliberalism?

This is what rightwing economics is. Rightwing economics says take $2.5 trillion from the bottom 90% every year and give it to the top 10%. That’s all it’s for. That’s all it’s ever been for. Surely if you run a corporation, this economics is in your interest, but it’s not in the interest of your workers, consumers, investors, or the society at whole. It’s you and your corporation against everyone else in society.

It’s for the top 10% tax earners. Which is whom? People making over $100,000/year. So if you make over $100,000/yr or run a corporation, sure, neoliberalism or rightwing economics is in your interest.

What is the economics that the World Bank and the IMF forces on every nation in the South? Neoliberalism, the theft of money from the bottom 90% to give to the top 10%.

What is the economics of every social democracy in Europe? In terms of their  foreign policy, it’s the maintenance of neoliberalism, which is the theft of income of the bottom 90% overseas to give to the top 10% in their own European country. So all European social democrats are really just working for the top 10% in their own and especially in other countries.

A Bigoted Socialist Beats a Woke Neoliberal Any Day of the Week

No wonder everyone’s given up on them in favor of the populist Right. At least the populist Right speaks to the concerns of the ordinary people, the workers. And the populist Right in Europe is very socialist. The party of Marie Le Pen is one of the most socialist parties in France. They’re far more socialist than the fake socialist Social Democrats.

I don’t particularly care if they’re not nice to immigrants, Muslims, and Arabs. So what? I’d rather have racist socialists who support the workers than of antiracist neoliberals. I can’t eat a BLM flag. I can’t pay my rent with a critical race theory lecture. I can’t fix my car by tearing down a stupid statue. Throwing shit at cops for no good reason won’t help me pay my bills. SJWism offers me, a straight White man, just about nothing at all, other than designating me as Enemy #1.

The Democratic Party: The Worst of the Right Combined with the Worst of the Left

There’s an ideology pushed by woke SJW neoliberal entities in the form of individuals like (((Soros))) and (((Bloomberg))) and corporations like the Tech Giants. Woke SJWism + neoliberalism is literally the worst of the Right combined with the worst of the Left. What do you get when you combined the worst of the Left with the worst of the Right? The Democratic Party! The party of Woke SJW Corporate Neoliberal Democrats.

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

Alt Left: Why Identity Politics Is Alive, Has an Individual Ego, Does Not Wish to Die, and Is Essentially Fascistic at Its Core

Polar Bear: The Social Left is more loony and emotional than ever. “Whites need to be silent but we also need to end White silence.”

Sure, I work in mental health, and I assure you that the Social Left is essentially mental disorder spread out over an entire movement. People don’t understand. They think only individuals get mentally ill. It’s not so.

Entire groups of people get mentally ill at once. We call it a shared disorder. Entire ethnic groups or societies can become mentally ill, and the disorder looks exactly like it does in an individual. In that sense, groups themselves actually have egos, psyches, etc.

What is an individual? An ego. What is a group of individuals? A mass of egos all together. As an individual can become egotistical, paranoid, projecting, etc., so can a group. In that case the amassing of individual egos creates something like a “group ego.”

So we can see entire ethnic groups and nation states as having “individual” egos, defense mechanisms, projections, psyches, and mental disorders. Every part of an individual’s psyche can probably become part of the group psyche. In this sense, entire ethnic groups and even nations are like “people” or can be constructed as a person, the way turn of the century cartoons had avatars that represented entire countries, for instance, France represented as Beatrice.

And this is why nationalism  is so dangerous. All Identity Politics is just nationalism and suffers from all of the problems(and I would argue mentally disordered thinking) that goes along with nationalism. For Identity Politics is just the “nationalism” of whoever your identity nation is.

Normal nationalists may be Syrians, Turks, Russians, Chinese, or whatever, but in IdPol, people are members of the Female Nation, the Gay Nation, the Black Nation, the Jewish nation (although this blurs with actual nationalism), the Woke Nation, and even, yes, the White Nation because White nationalism is just as insipid and mentally disordered as any other IdPol, except it’s probably worse because the hatred is so severe, on the surface, and often acted out with violence.

Politics can become nations. Communists are often members of the “Communist nation,” being all Communists. Antifa adherents are members of the Antifa Nation, to the extent such a thing can exist at all with anarchists. Even politics now, ordinary Left and Right, seems like forms of nationalism. Democrats are members of the Liberal Nation or Democratic Nation. Republicans are members of the Conservative Nation or Republican Nation.

What is interesting is that all of these IdPol groups will behave precisely like the nationalisms of ethnic groups or nation-states. Look at how nationalists act, especially ultranationalists, which is another word for fascists. Look at the similarities with IdPol.

This is how IdPol in its extremes seems fascistic.

Feminazis anyone? But feminazis often call themselves socialists. Ever heard of Gay Nazis? Black and Hispanic nationalists can seem fascistic, though they often call themselves Communists. Look at Farrakhan (a “Black Nazi”) and the Azteca Movement (“Hispanic Nazis”). Both look surprisingly fascistic, all the way down to the typical antisemitism of so many fascist movements.

In this way, a lot of “Communists” in the imperial core are actually fascists. Any “Communist” who supports separatisms such as female or lesbian separatism, Black separatism with a Black state in the South, or Hispanic separatism with an Aztlan state in the West is really just a fascist. If you were a real Communist, you wouldn’t be shutting the door to other workers just because they’re White or men or whatever.

Communism and Left Populism tends to be inclusive and led by the oppressed or underdogs.

Fascism and Right Populism tends to be exclusive and led by privileged or ruling groups who bizarrely say they are being discriminated against by their own minorities! Mostly they are afraid of losing their power due to some economic, political or demographic threat.

Hence, “Communism” in the imperial core, with its support for the various mental disorders known as Black, Hispanic, female, and lesbian separatism, has always been more fascist than Communist. This is probably one reason why it has failed so badly. It demonizes far too many proletarians for having the wrong skin color or genitals.

White nationalists of course have always been true fascists and often more or less Nazis in one way or another.

Although they really aren’t, conservatives call Antifa fascists. They’re more Communists but you can see above how these fascist movements often cloak themselves in the colors of socialism and Communism because they see themselves as oppressed.

Antifa is exclusive as it deliberately excludes and discriminates against Whites in some places like the Autonomous Zone in Seattle, and their “fascism of the oppressed; i.e. Western Leftism” is really not a whole lot different from the true fascism of a ruling group threatened with the loss of its power either politically, economically, or demographically. For an example, see American White nationalists. They’re coming from completely different places, and they typically want to murder each other, but really they’re more alike than different.

Zionazis? Ever heard of people calling Israelis fascists? Israel is indeed a fascist country, especially now under Netanyahu, a classic fascist on the model of the fascism of the 1920’s, which is he reduplicating via his heir Jabotinsky. See The Iron Wall by Jabotinsky, 1921. Not only does Jabotinsky express admiration for existing fascists, he lays the blueprint for a Jewish fascist state. And the project in the book looks like a printout of the Likud Party’s positions.

The group is alive. All groups are alive. As individuals don’t want to die, groups often don’t want to die either. That’s why movements like feminism and gay rights won’t just disband and take off already even though they’ve gotten most of what they want.

“Feminism” is like an individual person; the movement itself is “alive” like a person is alive. In addition, many mentally disordered people (this is especially prominent in feminism where almost all of the women are disordered) gain a sense of identity or even have their entire identity tied up in the movement.

Furthermore, the movement, while being an extension of their own disorder, also needs to stick around in order to keep the disorder going. Typically the disorders in movements like these are characterological, and at any rate, they are very ego-syntonic. No woman is wailing about how some part of her is forcing her to become a feminist against her wishes. That would be a neurosis or ego-dystonic anxiety disorder.

Without the movement, these people tend to flounder. They are quite characterologically disordered, so this gets in the way of a lot of real relationships in actual Meatspace, itself being different from the “space” inhabited by the movement. They get quite lost and typically start looking around for another movement to attach themselves to gain a sense of purpose in what is now a purposeless life.

They  often grab the nearest movement that comes along, even one in complete contradiction to their previous one, to attach to like a remora onto a shark. This is why you see people flipping from fascist to communist and vice versa (the turn from Far Left in university to Far Right at 40 is typical of many upper class Latin Americans). You see feminists becoming radical anti-feminists. You see far Leftists like David Horowitz and many other neocons doing complete flips and becoming raving reactionaries, albeit with a Wilsonian window dressing to cover their “humanitarian massacres.”

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

Alt Left: The Republicans Fear Their Base, but the Democrats Hate Their Base

Remember Rahm Emanuel in his conversation with Obama about the base: “Those fucking hippies!” That’s what they think of us. The only difference is the Republicans say we have no right to eat, while the Democrats toss a few slices of bread out of the limousines they tool around in. Emanuel himself, net worth $13 billion, takes a limo everywhere. See that $billion sign next to Emanuel’s name? That’s who the Democratic Party really represents. Just a different, more culturally liberal, group of billionaires.

The Democratic Party base has a seat at the table now, which is both good and bad. The DNC types like Biden go full left on cultural BS, while making only some tinkering around the edges incremental changes on economics and foreign policy, the true red meat issues.

By the way, Kamala Harris was known as “the Senator from Wall Street.”

Joe Biden has long been “The Senator of the Credit Card Companies.” Notice all those banksters hightailed it to Delaware? That’s because Delaware put in the most lax regulations in the land that lets the banksters fleece their customers and investors.

No one in the base of the Democratic Party thinks Biden is anywhere on the Left, except maybe on cultural nonsense. Almost all true progressives really dislike him and say he’s just another Republican. Harris is somewhat better, but the base isn’t wild about her either. The base doesn’t elect the Democratic candidate for president, though. That’s done by the corporate Democrats in the smoke-filled rooms of the DNC.

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

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

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

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

This is so sad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are your personal views about social matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most People Are Simply Incapable of Arguing Fairly or Using Logic in Argumentation

Let me tell you something. Most people don’t believe in fair argumentation. It’s just too male, and humans are too insecure to engage in pure male thinking. Nietzsche was onto this. In fact his strong man was not a fascist but someone strong enough use cold hard logic and live with the results without dissolving in emotional insecurity like a little bitch. In other words, an ubermensch.

So most people argue in a very dirty way. Everyone I argue with takes the black and white position. My guys/my side 100% good, 0% evil. They won’t admit to one bad thing about their side. The other side 100% evil, 0% good. You can say anything good about the other side. If you say 99 bad things about them and one good thing, you have gone over to the enemy.

Sometimes I will praise Trump. Of course I hate him as much as any Trump hater, but now and then, he does the right thing, especially on foreign policy, where he is actually halfway different from the usual bloodthirsty imperialist maniac US president. But whenever I point out that I support some one thing Trump did, my idiot Democrat friends smile and say, “You going to vote for him?” Other times they will positively scream at me, “Don’t praise him! Don’t say anything good about him!”

Well, I hate Trump 98%. A few times he’s right. Because I think he’s right 2% of the  time, that means I’m going to vote for him! Because if you don’t oppose someone 100% (99% is never good enough) that means you support them!

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

Alt Left: Rightwingers Are Wrong: COVID Deaths Are Not Being Artificially Inflated

Claudius: I don’t know what the true fatal rate is. It doesn’t seem to be 7x greater than the flu at all because the numbers from democrat cities are probably bogus. The majority of Covid-19 fatalities have come from Democrat states. So either Democrats are incompetent when it cums to public health or they are liars. Probably the latter.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/

The figures from Democratic states are just fine.

Let’s say they were amping up the COVID deaths. Let’s say Democratic states had 50,000 COVID deaths, but it’s really 45,000 due to messing with the statistics. Even taking that into account, the death rate is 30% above normal, all probably due to COVID and related issues. So the real number of deaths in Democratic states is 65,000 no matter what they say the COVID deaths are. COVID deaths are being universally underestimated, not overestimated, and any cheating doesn’t really matter. Plus there’s little if any cheating going on anyway.

Actually a lot of doctors wanted to list COVID as cause of death but were not allowed to by supervisors.

EMTs went out to many obvious COVID deaths every day, but they were not allowed to list even one of them because they weren’t able to test for the virus.

In Republican states, many COVID cases are not being counted.

Meatpacking plant figures are not being counted in some Republican states.

Florida, a Republican state, is accused of their own COVID statisticians of low-balling the deaths.

In a number of states, deaths in nursing homes or at home were not listed. Only deaths in hospitals were listed. Many COVID patients were sent home prematurely and ended up dying at home. Those deaths were not listed as COVID deaths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Correct, but I am seeing little evidence of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make of this what you will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no solution to this problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s fine.

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

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

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

I don’t understand any of this.

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

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

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

Alt Left: A Rundown of the “Conservative Left”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Wallace supporters – left populism marred by racism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: Blacks Are Survivors, Have Common Sense, and Look Out for Their Own Self-Interest, Unlike Whites

Polar Bear: Blacks are big on their own survival. Look at Black African leaders living like rap stars while their people suffer/starve. The same mentality exists with a lot of Blacks abroad. If you watch prank shows, Blacks will often run away. Even the muscle-bound Jimmys will run if it gets too out of the ordinary. They will look out for #1 and survive.

Yes, they are survivors. They survived in Africa over 200,000 years and before that as relict hominids.

I think after a nuclear war, the only things left alive will be cockroaches, Keith Richards, and a maybe more than a few Black people.

Whites strike me as suicidal. It’s like the Suicide Race. Look at how many Whites keep blindly pursuing an ideology that isn’t working, isn’t in their best interests, or is even harming or killing them. Lots! Look at how many are supporting this Trump rolling clown car. This epidemic response has been a huge clusterfuck, the laughingstock of the world, but the White guy keeps supporting it because muh ideology even though it just killed Grandpa and his own damn wife.

See, Blacks don’t do that stuff! Look at Black people’s politics. Say what you want about it, but Black politics clearly serve the best interests of Blacks. Blacks don’t care about ideology. They say, “Screw ideology. I want to know what’s best for me and mine. That’s called ‘the ideology that I support’.”

Blacks know who their enemies are and who their friends are. That’s why ~90% of them vote Democrat. Democrats are pro-Black. Republicans? LOL don’t think so.

That’s smarter than White people. White people can’t even figure out who their friends and enemies are. They oppose their friends and support their enemies, and they’re so stupid, they think they are pursuing their self-interest by doing so. And they vote on stupid stuff like racism. “I’m voting Republican because I hate niggers even though that is bad for me and mine!”

Blacks aren’t that dumb. If you had a politician promoting Black racism against Whites who was at the same time opposed to the interests of most Black people, Blacks would see right through him. They’d chuckle, “I ain’t falling for that!”

The Republicans tried to pitch Colon Bowel or whatever his name was to the Blacks. “Look! Vote Republican! Vote for Colon!” Black people gave that a sidelong glance, thought about it, and said, “I don’t think so!” He never had more than 30% support among Blacks. They knew that Bowel was not good for Blacks.

They didn’t care if he was Black. If you said to a Black person, “But he’s Black like you! You should support him!” a Black person would look at you like, “Yeah right! What do I care if that silly Tom- house Negro is Black! Lots of idiots are Black. I ain’t supporting someone just because he’s the same race as me!” They’re too smart to fall for that.

The Ghetto

You could argue that Black people have gotten themselves into self-defeating situations via behaviors that they continue to perpetuate. Fair enough. But Whites revel in their self-defeating behavior and think Lose means Win somehow.

Blacks aren’t that dumb. Blacks look at that that ghetto mess and aren’t deluded into supporting it! That’s what a White person would do. Support the very thing that’s dragging him down and jump up and cheer about it.

Black people look at that ghetto mess, and a lot of them, if they can put aside their useless pride BS for a while, say, “Well, yeah, that’s a total clusterfuck. I don’t care if it’s our fault or not, all I know is it’s a mess, and I don’t want any part of that. That’s definitely against my self-interest. I’m moving out, sorry. I ain’t stupid!”

Furthermore, they can see that it’s obviously a Fail and not a Win. And a lot of Blacks do blame their own kind or at least a certain type of their own kind for that mess. They are smart enough to figure out that, “We (our race) are fucking up in those ghettos,” doesn’t necessarily mean “I (myself, a member of our race) am fucking up in those ghettos.”

That’s right smart, basic, low level practical thinking. A 5th grader could probably figure that the members of her group misbehaving is not synonymous with her own self misbehaving.

The Burning House

A house is on fire. A Black guy and a White guy are inside. The White yells, “Hell yeah! This is what I voted for! Win win win! Muh ideology! Muh emotions! Muh racism!”

The Black guy looks at him and says, “Fuck this, man. I don’t care about muh emotions right now. My only emotion right now is called, ‘Get the fuck outa here!’ Last thing I need is muh racism right now. And I don’t even know what muh ideology even is, but I know it ain’t gonna do me no good right now! Hey White man, you can have all that muh stuff. Let me know if it helps you get out of the fire, ok?”

Then the Black guy thinks, “This damn house is on fire. The only thing I am thinking right now is how I am gonna get the Hell out of here. Ain’t nothing else matters now. Take your book smarts and keep em on the shelf right now. I’ma get the Hell out of this burning building and save my ass, and I don’t care about one other thing.”

He desperately runs for safety, dodging some flaming boards crashing down and trying not to get overwhelmed by the smoke. Pretty soon he’s out and barely singed. He says, “Whew! Close call! Time for a beer!”

As he walks away he looks back at the house, now collapsing even further in flaming timber. Last thing he hears before it all comes down for good is the White guy, “Win win win win! This is what I voted for! Much ideology! Muh emotions! And especially muh racism!” With that last sentence the building comes down once and for all with a deafening crash, and the White man is heard no more. The Black guy walks away shaking his head, “Damn fool White man,” he says.

Lost in the Jungle!

I’ve got this fancy gold medal White brain, but a lot of good it would do me if I were stranded in the middle of the jungle in Africa! I’d be dead awful quick. My souped up brain would be absolutely worthless.

Anyway, I’m lost in the jungle like a fool, about ready to keel over, and I spot a Black African dude over there in the jungle. “Hey man! Come rescue me!”

Lucky for me he speaks English.

“Hey man, I’m lost in this jungle, and I’m about ready to die. Help me!”

The African comes over and says, “Yeah, I’m lost too but I can show us how to survive out here a while, and in the meantime, I’ma try to find my way out of here because I know how to get to safety when I’m lost.”

Now this guy isn’t real smart. God knows what his IQ is. 75? That’s borderline or low IQ. Won’t help him much in New York City, but it doesn’t matter out here. That 75 IQ Black brain knows how to survive in the jungle and get us to safety, while this genius IQ White brain is effectively “retarded” out here because it can’t figure out how to survive or get back to civilization.

The Black dude helps us survive a few days living off the jungle, eating fruits and roots, and even catching a few animals somehow, don’t ask me how, which he cooks over a homemade caveman fire he made somehow or other, don’t ask me how he did that either.

He had no idea where in the Hell he was, but he knows how to find his way out of being lost. In several days, we’re back to civilization stuffing our faces, getting drunk on palm wine, and having the doctor look us over.

The White Supremacists yell, “Black  people! Low IQ! Low IQ! Low IQ! Inferior! Fail fail fail fail!” Then they rant on about their high IQ and about how much superior it is. Well, in this case the high Win IQ did fuck all for me would have left me to die because it doesn’t know how to survive in the wilderness. But that Low Fail IQ got both of us out of a life-threatening situation.

So in terms of sheer survival and adaptiveness, that 75 IQ might as well be Genius IQ on the “Surviving in the Jungle” scale. And that’s all that matters  here. Numbers don’t matter. Even science doesn’t matter. Facile definitions of superior and inferior don’t matter. All that matters at the end of the day is what works. If it works, it works, and numbers be damned.

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

Alt Left: Assassination of a Computer Programmer Working on Federal Voting Machines in the 2004 Election (2004)

Assassination of a Computer Programmer Working on Federal Voting Machines in the 2004 Election  (2004)

Bush stole both elections that he won, the first by fraud and other shenanigans in Florida in 2000, the second by hacking the voting machines in 2004. John Kerry’s wife, heir to the Heinz fortune, accused the Republicans of stealing the election and causing her husband to lose.

One of the main places they did this was in Ohio where the reactionary Black Secretary of State Ken Blackstone diverted ballots to a basement of a bank in Knoxville, Tennessee, where they are altered and then sent back to Ohio, allowing Bush to win Ohio. So Ken Blackstone stole Ohio that year for Bush by election fraud.

Furthermore, I am convinced that Bush and Karl Rove were in on the hacking and knew about it. Rove was involved in another hacking plot in 2008 where he once again tried to steal Ohio by hacking the voting machines. But the operation was not successful and Obama ended up winning the state.

Anyway, a computer programmer in Florida made allegations that the elections were hacked so Bush could win. Everybody blew him off as a kook, but he was right. I guess he got on Bush’s nerves though because Bush’s thugs murdered him by breaking into his hotel bathroom and killing him in his bathtub. They then made it look like a suicide.

This happens a lot in government sponsored assassinations. The government has someone murdered and then they fake the scene to make it look like he committed suicide. It’s called getting suicided.

To add insult to injury, before he was murdered, Bush’s thugs killed his dog at the motel he was staying at. I guess that was a message to shut up or else, but he kept talking, and they followed through on the obvious threatened murder plot. I can’t recall his name now, but he was fairly famous at the time.  If anyone knows his name, please give it to me.

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Assassination on US Government Soil That Changed Everything

This is the first of a series of post showing that the US Deep State can have you killed on US soil or framed for a crime you did not do. The Deep State has killed and framed a number of people from 1963 to 2004 and possibly beyond

You don’t mess with the Deep State. You might not live to tell about it.

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963)

If you do, you get the Kennedy Treatment. That was in 1963. Kennedy was murdered by “the foreign policy establishment of the United States,” according to Lyndon Johnson’s former lawyer. Incidentally, another former Johnson lawyer said that Johnson himself was in on the plot to kill Kennedy and he used some of his personal thugs to help do it.

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

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

The Assasination of Martin Luther King (1968)

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

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

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

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

Alt Left: The Assassination of Democratic Congressman Paul Wellstone (2002)

The Assassination of Democratic Congressman Paul Wellstone (2002)

Or you get Wellstoned, the treatment given to progressive Minnesota Congressman Paul Wellstone,who was murdered by during the Bush Administration by Dick Cheney’s Deep State thugs who tampered with his airplane, causing it to crash. Former California senator Barbara Boxer admitted to people privately that she thinks Cheney had Wellstone killed.

This crap goes on more often than you think. We don’t have any kind of democracy here as long as the Deep State and the Oligarchs run things.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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