Alt Left: Insane SJW Definition Creep and the Cultural Left’s Grotesque Abuse of Language

Both Pharos and Eidolon have become the main portals for digital public scholarship on the Internet for White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. These sites are using words taken from the Greco-Roman world.

It’s an association that Bond and other scholars say they simply cannot abide, not least because far-right extremists have committed nearly three times as many acts of fatal terrorism in the United States over the previous 15 years as Islamist terrorists.

White supremacists, misogynists, anti-Semites, ethnonationalists, and xenophobes. Let’s look at the modern definition of those terms.

White supremacists: Someone who says “It’s ok to be White”, “I like my race, my White race”, “At the moment, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks”, “Whites commit 6X less crime than Blacks”, “The reason for a lot of anti-Black racism is the outsized amount of crime that Blacks cause.”

Those are all arguably true and a couple are simply justifiable opinions. Sentences 3, 4, and 5, although being true, are not particularly very nice things to say, so most decent people don’t talk about that.

I don’t like to talk about those things too much because I don’t think there is much we can do about any of them and they’re not likely to change. All talking about that stuff does is rile up non-Blacks and bring out a lot of hidden racism in them.

Also the non-Blacks who harp on those truths over and over are not motivated by scientific inquiry. Almost all of them are motivated by deep animus towards Black people. That’s why they keep harping on negative stuff about Blacks! Facts aren’t hate, but haters and racists can definitely abuse facts as part of their racist BS. But since when did observing facts become racist!?

Misogynists: “Women aren’t perfect.” Any criticism of women in any way, shape, or form means that you hate women. Supporting men’s rights. Disliking women who hate men which is what most feminists are. Using words like bitch and whore.

Anti-Semites: “Jews have a lot of power”, “Jews have a lot of money,” Jews have a lot of money and power and like to throw their weight around”, Jews like to play hardball and fight dirty”, “Jews are a lot more aggressive than most other ethnicities”, “A lot of Jews don’t like Gentiles”, “Israel is a shitty little country”, “I hate Israel”,

“A fair percentage of Jews have a dual loyalty issue, and this has always been a problem”. “Jews lead movements, particularly movements for social change”, “Israel is a racist country”, “Israel controls the entire US government when it comes to US Middle East foreign policy. It does this via massive campaign donations by US Jews to Congressional candidates”.

“Jews have a lot of power and control in Hollywood”, “Jews have a lot of power and control in the media.” And on and on.

Ethnonationalists: People who wish for the US to retain a White majority, as is their complete right. Furthermore, it is a legitimate political position, and it is not necessarily racist at all. While I don’t necessarily support this position, as I don’t care that the US is becoming increasingly non-White or even regard it as as good thing, it’s certainly not racist per se to have that view.

Your nation is like your home. You decide what the interior of your nation or home looks like, and you decide who gets to come into your nation or home to visit or stay.

Granted most folks with this position are openly and extremely racist, but you don’t have to be a racist to have this view. Just saying.

Oh by the way, Jews get to have an ethnonationalist state, and you’re an anti-Semite for objecting, but Whites can’t have a similar state that ensures a White majority? Israelis and White nationalists both want the same thing. They are both ethnic nationalists who wish to live in ethnonationalist states that guarantee a majority for a certain ethnicity.

By the way, I am not keen on ethnonationalism. It’s pretty horrible everywhere it rears its grotesque head, it seems to be invariably intertwined with some pretty serious racism, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to disentangle the hardcore racism from the ethnonationalism. The racism is a feature, not a bug.

Xenophobes: Anyone who wants any sort of immigration controls at our border at all, thinks illegal immigrants should be deported, believes in a points scheme for legal immigration, or thinks legal immigration is too high and wants to lower it.

Now I am not real wild about xenophobia, and true xenophobes tend to act pretty horrible towards anyone who’s not one of “the people”, but I don’t believe that merely wanting some immigration restrictions and opposing de facto Open Borders makes one a xenophobe.

I support all of the immigration restrictions listed above and I’m not xenophobe. Considering that I interact with non-Whites all day long every single day where I live, my life would be pretty unpleasant if I hadn’t made some sort of peace with non-White people.

I’m also okay with  legal immigrants. If you have a green card, good for you. If you are a naturalized citizen born overseas, good for you. I have known many good people in both categories recently.

What we see the SJW’s doing here is what I call the abuse of language. The Cultural Left has become expert at this and the correlating definition creep. For instance the definition of rape used to be fairly clear (“use of force of the threat of force” as my Mom used to sternly remind me).

Now the definition of rape expands by the day to the point where now it’s about as big as the Atlantic Ocean. You almost need to get updates on a daily basis to see how much the definition of rape expanded yesterday.

Rape is a serious matter. The feminized weaponization of the term as a nuclear weapon to shoot at the men they hate so much along with their concomitant trivialization of the term is grotesque in the former and profoundly unfair to the victims of the real deal rape in the latter, such real thing rape being unfortunately not rare.

The modern feminist definition of rape appears to be “any time a woman has sex when she doesn’t want to.”

This was precisely the definition of rape given by one of the doyens of modern feminism, Katharine McKinnon, the ultra-prude and manhater extreme who invented the concept of sexual harassment with her aider and abettor Andrea Dworkin, a hideous monstrous slug of a woman and one of the worst manhating feminist dykes that ever slithered upon the Earth and befouled its surface with her slime.

Racism in Latin America, with an Emphasis on Anti-Black Racism

Tulio: It seems the Latin America right is mostly dominated by whites. I yet to see many dark brown Amerindian leaders of right wing movements in Latin America. They seem to be all people of European descent.

Yep. White people act pretty horrific down there.
I know you don’t like Chavez, but he is the hero of the Blacks and Browns down there. The opposition is mostly White and light-skinned. During the recent rioting, the opposition attacked some Black Venezuelans on the assumption that they were Chavez supporters and set them on fire in the streets.
The Opposition habitually called Chavez a mono or a monkey. He was a zambo, a mixture of Black, White, Indian. This mixture is pretty common in Venezuela, Colombia and Panama. I have read interviews with members of the opposition. One was an unmarried White upper class man in his late 20’s who lived at home. He said he felt so insulted every time he saw Chavez because it was like his people (upper middle class Whites) were being ruled by their maids and gardeners. The idea that this proud White man should be ruled by his inferiors was infuriating.
Peru is an extremely racist society. Now it’s mostly against the Indians, it’s true. They hardly have any Blacks. There was recently a case of a beautiful Black woman who tried to get into an exclusive nightclub in the wealthy Miramar District of Lima and she was turned away at the door. I guess they had a “No Blacks” policy.
Chile is incredibly racist against Indians, and they are supposedly one of the most progressive countries down there. I had a friend whose father had worked in Allende’s administration. He was a sociology major and he was doing some work with the Mapuche Indians who  live in the South. But his racism against those Indians was off the charts. Chileans are extremely racist Peruvians, and most of it is wrapped around the idea that Peruvians have much more Indian blood than the Chileans do, though the average White Chilean is ~25% Indian.
I’m not sure how racist things are in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia or Brazil. Some people say that Colombian Whites are extremely racist against Blacks, but others said it’s not the case.
Actually in Latin America there is the phenomenon of social race. A wealthy Latin American told me that even Black Latin Americans can be completely accepted in wealthy White circles if they only have enough money.
This phenomenon is called social race. It is especially prominent in places like Brazil. So a wealthy Black Brazilian can be effectively “White” and a poor White in a favela (there are many Whites in favelas) is effectively Black or mixed race (a wigger).
Racism is forbidden by law in Brazil but it still exists. I think there was a case recently where a White woman was in an elevator and she would not let a Black person in the elevator with her. It generated a lot of controversy. Nevertheless, there is a racial hierarchy. White women are regarded as wives and mothers but not so much as sex objects. In fact, they are too pure for that. Black women are regarded as unattractive. Their only use is maybe to be your maid. However, mixed race mulatta women are the most highly prized of all, and even White men see them as the sexiest women of all. They are sexualized as sex objects.
I had a White Brazilian woman who was my friend for a while. She mostly spoke Portuguese so it was hard to talk to her. I told her, “You try not to be racist against Blacks here, but it’s hard.” She agreed with me, and said, “Yes, I agree, we try not to be racist too, but it’s hard. We Whites have a saying here in Brazil, ‘If a Black doesn’t steal from you when he’s coming, he steals from you when he’s going.” In other words, if he doesn’t steal from you when he’s walking in the door, he will definitely steal from you when he is walking out the door. So even down there Blacks are regarded as thieves.
There’s not a lot of racism in the Caribbean because there are almost no Whites. However, the mulattos in Dominican Republic are extremely racist against the Blacks in Haiti. They still enslave them, for Chrissake.
Mexico, I am not sure, but in barrio culture here, low class Hispanics are much more racist against “mayate” Blacks than Whites are. The mestizos are openly racist, much more so than the Whites who probably think open racism is uncouth as Mexican Whites are very into being proper, mannered people. In there is open racism against Blacks in Mexico at least in the media. Further, the Mexican media is ~100% White. I have told Mexican-Americans that they are 4% Black and they don’t believe me. They also act a bit insulted. But it’s true. Every regular mestizo Mexican you meet is ~4% Black. The population just bred in with the Blacks and practically wiped them out except for a few around Veracruz. They simply bred them out of existence and everyone ended up with a bit of Black in them.

Anti-Black Racism Limits the Freedom of Black People by Holding Them to a Different Standard Than Whites

Christopher Donnellan: No, you’re wrong. ‘Racists’ see that that patterns of behavior or traits tend to predominate within certain groups. Such behavior is the result of many factors, including genetics, which you seem to play down or disregard. As with humans, there are always individual exceptions to such factors, but its important to keep such things in proper perspective.

There’s no good reason to put it in quotes. The term exists although it is horribly abused. I assure you that there are definitely still humans here in the US who more or less out and out hate Black people. That means they are racists, not “racists.” Now you can argue about whether or not their racism is a valid belief. Believe it or not that’s what I am trying to do here.
The behaviors don’t predominate in Blacks. None of them do. They’re much more common, but they don’t predominate.
And the exceptions are more than individual. In the case of Blacks, most of the behaviors we really dislike are probably displayed for the most part only by a minority of the group.
Sometimes I think that it is even a minority of low class ghetto type Blacks who act bad. We have some around here and while they are caught up in that culture, I can’t say that they are bad people at all. They don’t engage in any of that frightful rudeness, manipulative, using, callous or inconsiderable behavior that so infuriates me. I am friends with some of them, and I struggle to see how there’s anything terrible about them. Now granted these are all Black women, and most are young Black women.
I am getting my information on anti-Black racists and what motivates their hatred from Black humor sites like Chimpmania and Niggermania. Those are not White nationalists. Those are everyday folks who hate Blacks, and I mean hate them. I especially look at the Introductions pages and the unfortunately named Coontacts, in which members discuss recent encounters with Blacks and why they were horrible or evidence of reasons why Blacks should be hated.
I don’t want to read the other sections although I have to admit that those people are pretty damn funny sometimes. I went there the other day with this notion of, “Ew yuck! These people are horrible, nasty evil racists! I’ll have to take a shower after I leave this site!” That should inoculate me against the jokes, but even that didn’t work. I still found myself laughing even though I didn’t want to.
Fair’s fair. I would say that if Black people set up a White-bashing site to make fun of us, I might go to it. It might be painful to read, but funny is funny. Paul Mooney rips White people a hundred ways from Sunday, and I can’t stop laughing at his shtick. One some level, funny’s funny.
It’s important to read sections like that on those sites because those people are flat out stating why they hate Black people. Shouldn’t Black people know what motivates racists? The argument is no, racists are crazy and evil, why do I care about why they hate me? But does that argument really make sense? And if antiracists get the reasons why racists hate Blacks completely wrong, how can they possibly due battle against something they completely misunderstand?
Those people are not flat out evil like Stormfront and Daily Stormer, and that’s part of the problem. They’re not filled with hate like those people. You read their introductions and most are just like the regular people I grew up with. And they’re not all White. Quite a few are South Indians, Hispanics, and Asians.
It’s rather sad that Black people are hated pretty consistently across the board by quite a few people of a number of races. That’s also alarming. If it was just one race, you could say there’s something wrong with that group of people. But when you see all sorts of races and nationalities disliking them, you can’t say that anymore. The reasons the different races give for disliking Blacks are all pretty much the same.
Most have little to do with the way Black people look or certainly the color of their skin. I have seen Blacks say that they are hated because of the color of their skin. That’s not really true. That White person is not saying

Ew your Black skin is ugly. I am going to throw a bottle at you because your skin color is so ugly.

I mean maybe a few think that but not most. Instead they are probably thinking

I have had a lot of contacts with people of this skin color (who are part of a certain race). These contacts were not pleasant and I thought these people acted pretty bad. Here you are, and your skin shows you are part of that group I had unpleasant interactions with. I assume that you act bad just like they do.

But notice that that Black guy you are throwing a bottle at – you haven’t even met him! You don’t have the faintest idea of what sort of a person he is. Sure you the bottle thrower are making up a fake theory about the whole race being bad, so that means this guy you heave a bottle at is bad too because that’s the only way you can justify throwing that damned bottle. But as I have pointed out, that theory is completely erroneous. We can shoot it down right at the hypothesis stage. We don’t even have to bother to test it out.
As I pointed out in another post, this is a cognitive error because even if you can produce evidence that a lot of Blacks act bad, it’s not all of them, and I don’t even think it’s most of them. It’s a minority, but it’s a large majority, and their bad behavior tends to be worse than the bad behavior of other races. I once said that Blacks have six times more bad actors than Whites and the bad actors tend to act six times worse than White bad actors. I don’t know if it’s true, but that’s my impression. Still it’s wrong to hate the whole group because of the behaviors of a minority. It’s irrational and according to Moral Philosophy, it’s a moral error – it’s immoral. So it’s both crazy and wrong. 
Thing is no one wants to say, “I hate Black people because 40% of them act bad.”
That starts to twist your mind in a lot of weird ways and causes a lot of cognitive conflict.
On those Black humor sites, all of them say that all Blacks are bad. Even they can figure out that a lot of Blacks are not obviously bad and seem just like anyone else, so this belief is automatically in jeopardy. So they come up with the Magic Negro Theory to explain how these seemingly good ones are really just niggers deep down inside too, one blowup away from having their niggertude manifested by some TNB.
This is of course wrong. Even if there are genetic links to Black pathologies, it’s not going to affect all of them because Black genes are extremely variable.
If you plot these behaviors on a graph, it will look like a scatterplot. If you plot Whites doing these behaviors on a graph, you will get another scatterplot.
I’ve never done this, but I assure for any “Black” behavior, you are going to get all sorts of overlap. First, not all will display it or to the same degree. Also there will be a lot of overlap and quite a few Whites will display this “Black” behavior.
If you look at the White graph, it will be skewed towards the better behavior, but even here you will have a vast number of Blacks, perhaps the majority, over there in the White plot acting more or less fine, just like White folks. So there is no “Black” behavior. There is no “White” behavior. There’s simply human behavior, some of which we label good and other of which we label bad, with plenty of folks in either race in both the good and bad sides of the plot. If there is no “Black” behavior, then there is no “inner nigger” waiting to manifest itself. There is no “Black essence” of Black people other than rather obvious things about skin color and whatnot.
One more thing about the Magic Negro Theory is confirmation bias. What does this inner nigger behavior look like? No one knows as it is undefinable.
So Tulio and Greg pretty much can’t have a temper tantrum, can’t blow up, scream, yell and throw stuff around. I have no idea if they do that, but I doubt if they act perfect all the time. The problem is that I do things like that too, to this very day even. Every single White person I know throws wild tantrums which the racists call chimpouts. But see, when I throw my tantrum, I’m just Bob, a White guy who’s lamentably losing it for a moment, though it’s probably for a good reason because I know Bob and he doesn’t blow up lightly. No one would say I am accessing some inferior inner core when I do that. If asked, a racist would just say,  “No, Bob’s not chimping out. He’s just throwing a tantrum. Humans do that, you know.”
But see, people like Alpha and Malik are actually limited in their behaviors. I can throw tantrums and probably do all sorts of stupid shit without it being a manifestation of my inferiority. People will just say I am acting human, and humans sometimes act bad.
But the Blacks on my site don’t have that freedom. If Phil blows up exactly like I did, even copying my behaviors to a T, he’s not just acting like a human, and hey, humans do that. What’s happening when Phil does that is that even though Phil acts great most of the time, this tantrum is an example of his “inner nigger” essence manifesting itself. So Phil’s a Magic Negro and he’s really just a nigger like all the rest of them after all. He just hides it well. But you still can’t trust being around him because you never know when that inner nigger is going to come out. Better play it safe and only hang with Whites.
Alpha has told me that she deliberately monitors her behavior due to anti-Black racism. She deliberately tries to keep her anger toned down. I know her and she’s not a very angry human anyway, especially for a Black person, as they do tend to be angrier. I’m probably angrier than she is. She told me once that when she blows up and loses it, it’s a lot more problematic for her than it is for me. She told me that if she blows up, people will look at her and say, “Well she’s just a nigger anyway.”
Now it’s good if anyone acts better for any reason, and if this racist bullshit makes Alpha act less angry, I  suppose that’s good. But she’s also less free. She’s being held to another standard. I can blow up and be human, but if Alpha blows up, it’s proof she’s a nigger.
Just look at that theory for a second. I don’t even have to test it out to see that it’s wrong. When Alpha blows up, if she does, the truth is she’s just being human, just like me. For a human, she’s rather calm anyway, even compared to most Whites. There is no inner nigger. There are no Magic Negroes whose good behavior is only covering for their inner nigger hiding down inside. It’s bullshit.
But it’s interesting that the racists are bothered by hating an entire race if only 30% of 40% act pretty bad. Their mind is saying, “What about the other 70%?!” This upsets their conscience so much that they decide against all evidence that 90% of Blacks act bad. They need to say this in order to hate the whole group!
But it’s interesting that this still nags at their consciences and this is a reason why I say most racists are not stone evil psychopaths. Instead they are more or less good, decent people with morals, guilt and consciences, who unfortunately have taken a stroll down an immoral path. As I said earlier, stone evil psychopaths don’t have consciences, guilt, and morals.
Antiracists portray all anti-Black racists as stone evil literal psychopaths, literally Hitler if you will. Not only is it not true but it’s bad politics. Call someone evil and they will get their back up. Call a basically good person evil, and he will really get his back up. Call a racist evil, and this lie will make his back rise, and he will probably react by doubling down on his racism.
The way to reduce racism is to appeal to the humanity and basic decency of racists. It starts by saying they are not the evil people, and we are not the good people. They’re people just like us, with morals, guilt, consciences, the whole nine yards. They’ve gotten off on a crazy and immoral racist mindset, yes, but nobody’s perfect, and the fact that they still have morals, guilt and consciences means that you can theoretically pull them out of it.
Furthermore, there’s nothing to be gained by saying your enemies are something they are not. I remember a famous general in a war had photos of the general on the other side all over his desk, staring at him every day.  People asked him why he did that, and he said he wanted to know his enemy.
People asked him if he hated the other general and he said, oh no, he had tremendous respect for him. He was just another man just like me, the general said. He simply had the misfortune of being on the other side. It’s hard to defeat an enemy if you don’t even understand them at a basic level. It’s even harder to deal with enemies if you don’t have the faintest reason why they hate you or if you have the reasons why they hate you entirely wrong. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer is the dictum.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist: The "Magic Negro" Theory

A lot of them do admit that some Black people seem good. They call these the magic niggers or magic Negroes. It’s 10%. The good Blacks on this site like Tulio would be called magic niggers because he appears like a good guy. But then would say that Tulio is still a nigger deep down inside, and sooner or later something will happen, and his lousy inner nigger will come out. I don’t believe that Tulio or the other Blacks on here have some lousy nigger inside of them. They’re just people like or me. There is no lousy “nigger essence” inside of every Black person. It’s nonsense, and even worse, it’s immoral nonsense.
But you see even these racists can figure out that some Blacks (they underestimate 10%) act good. This shows that not only are they moral, but they are also sane. To look at all Black people and decide they are all lousy stretches the credulity of the sane mind. This violates their theory so they have to explain it. They come up with the Magic Nigger Theory. This states that no matter how good they seem, magic niggers still have that awful Black nigger essence inside of them like all of their race, and sooner or later it will come out.
The Magic Nigger Theory allows them to accommodate the fact that even they, since they are basically sane, can see that millions of Blacks seem to be just fine, while still allowing them to hate the whole race. If millions were just fine, then it would be a moral quandary to hate the whole race. What about the magic ones? Do you hate them too? Well, why? How can you?
They can’t, and they are decent enough to recognize this. So to assuage their guilty consciences, they come up with the Magic Nigger Theory that says that even the ones that act good are really just lousy niggers deep down inside, and sooner or later their lousy inner nigger nature will come out. The theory’s completely false, but it shows the lengths these people will go to try to mollify their obviously guilty consciences.
As long as we see racists are pure evil sociopaths and not simply regular moral people like you and me that have gone astray on some immoral belief system, we will never understand these people. Racists feel guilty about strolling down this immoral path as as they properly should, so they devise all sorts of fancy cognitive strategies to deal with their guilt.
And it’s important to note that if anti-Black racists were truly evil, they wouldn’t have any guilt in the first place. The fact that they feel guilty at all shows us that we are dealing with good folks who went astray rather than pure evil sociopaths.
If you want to fight racism, at first you need to understand your enemy. Anti-racists fail on this front by not even bothering to understand why racists feel the way they do and what sort of people racists are in the first place. The first dictum is always To know thine own self is the rule, but the second dictum ought to be about how important it is to know your enemies.

A Look at the Mind of the Anti-Black Racist

They have bad experiences with quite a few people of the race and then they just decide to hate the whole race. Anti-Black racists make a deliberate cognitive error. They say that all Blacks suck. They have to say this because when you are that racist, saying that 40% or even 90% of them suck and therefore you hate the whole group seems morally wrong. But if the whole groups sucks then even I would agree that you should hate all of them.
These people still have consciences. It would bother their consciences to hate the whole group if only 40% were bad. In order to clear their conscience, they say the whole group is bad, and now they can hate the group in good conscience.
Seeing racists as evil is an error. Most are not evil. If they were evil, they would not have guilty consciences. They are moral people with consciences like you and me, but they have taken on an immoral view, so they have to justify this to their own guilty consciences, and they jump through some moral hoops to do so.

Alt Left: Black People and Anti-Racists in General Will Never Understand Anti-Black Racism

I said in an old post that Blacks and antiracists in general should go to racist sites like Stormfront or racist humor sites like Chimpout or Niggermania to see why people really hate Black people. Actually, Stormfront would be a bad choice because they’re not very rational. The people at the other two sites make a lot more sense. Look through the Introductions section on those sites where new members introduce themselves and tell, well, tell why they hate Black people so much.
Blacks and anti-racists in general think the dislike, wariness, or out and out hatred of Black people is the height or irrationality. It’s crazy and it’s evil.
Now I would argue that if you are a Black person who acts just fine and you are still a victim of racism, this is serious moral error. I have some great Black folks on my site. I don’t personally know Alpha, Tulio, Greg, Phil or the  other Blacks on my site, but what I’ve learned about them is that they all seem like great people. In particular, they behave quite well. When I think that these people, my Black friends, will suffer racism, prejudice, unfairness and hate because of things that other people did, it almost makes my blood boil. It’s so wrong.
Specifically, you are being held responsible for the behavior of the other members of your race when you have done absolutely nothing wrong at all. It’s basically collective punishment. Why should that Black person over there, who acts as decently as any other citizen, be subjected to racist hatred because a lot of his racial brethren act terrible?
That’s immoral on a deep and powerful level, but it’s also understandable. The problem with Moral Philosophy is that a lot of immoral behavior is understandable. Humans are not wild, slavering, drooling, crazed beasts of the field. Even people who act bad often have some pretty sensible reasons for doing so. The problem is that behavior that is sensible (not irrational) and understandable is often nevertheless morally wrong.
Black people and antiracists just don’t get it. Racists don’t hate Black people for no reason.
Few people hate Black people “because of the color of their skin.” Actually, if they did, it would make it a lot easier for people to hate anti-Black racists because hating someone due to the color of their skin is pretty awful.
Few people hate Black people because of how they look. Asians look pretty funny too to us Whites, and it doesn’t seem to bother anyone. If Blacks acted like Norwegians or Japanese, I think anti-Black racism would be at a  pretty low level.
Which brings us to the cause of almost all anti-Black racism: It’s the behavior of Black people. Period. If you go to the sites I listed above, you will notice that almost immediately. On the Introductions section, over and over, you will see almost everyone there say that they hate Black people because of the way they act. Then they will list a lot of very negative experiences they had with Black people.
And in a way, you can’t blame them. It’s wrong to go so racist due to these types of experiences, but I see why people do it. I’ve had many of the same negative experiences with Black people, and it is only with conscious effort that I have kept myself from falling into the racism hole. Not because it’s wrong, although it is. Mostly because it’s a hole that I don’t want to fall down into. And it is wrong to hate well-behaved Blacks because so many of their tribe act terrible. To me, that’s a moral error on a very serious scale. It would be hard to live with myself if I felt that way.
Blacks and antiracists simply refuse to believe that this is the reason why Blacks are disliked. They get very agitated and angry if you so much as mention it. According to them, Black people don’t act bad at all. They act just fine. Except anyone who has spent a lot of time around Blacks knows that’s just not true. Yet Blacks keep insisting that Black people act just fine. People say Blacks act bad, and Blacks say well White people act bad too. Yes…but…the difference is the numbers.
Compared to Blacks, the number of White people who act bad is quite low, and the degree to which they act bad is on a much lower level. Looking out at a population level, there’s much less bad behavior, and what bad behavior there is is typically at a lower level. Now you go over to a Black area and the bad behavior is everywhere. There are far more folks acting bad, and they are acting bad in a far worse way than Whites do.
Actually there are behaviors that low class Blacks engage in routinely that you will almost never see a White person engage in, simply because in White culture, that behavior is regarded as unspeakably low. Even poor and working class Whites often have strong moral and behavioral codes and stringent rules of behavior. I don’t think these Whites act better because of their genes. It’s probably culture. But there is something in even pretty low White culture that is above even average level behavior of low class Blacks. So when Whites see Blacks routinely doing things that are absolutely outrageously rude and disgusting beyond all comprehension, we are outraged. We are outraged on a moral level. We are morally offended at what to us is outrageously bad behavior.
Black people won’t have any of this. They jump up and down and yell, “Why do you care? Why do you think about us anyway?” It’s simple.
These Blacks have never studied Moral Philosophy. Behavior that is so outrageously bad that it is almost never seen in one’s culture because it’s universally regarded as the lowest of the low outrages people on a moral level.
People who get outraged on a moral level are often not bad people. At worst they might be too good – i.e., prigs like my late father. But Black people get furious at good people who are morally outraged by people acting awful and say that these outraged folks are bad people. No they’re not. If they were bad people, they wouldn’t be so outraged by terrible behavior. Only good people get outraged by people who act awful.
Good people have relatively high morals, and when they see lowly behavior, it sets off a sense of moral outrage in them. Black people say that these people are evil for having high morals and a sense of moral outrage for despicable and low behavior. This is so wrong. No one is evil for having high morals and a sense of outrage over anti-civilizational behavior. It’s never evil to come from a place of elevated morals.
The problem is that Black people will simply never admit that Black people tend to act worse, a Hell of a lot worse, than other races, such as White people. They’ll go to their graves insisting that this is not true. Yes, there are people in every race that act bad, of course there are.
But humans are smarter than that. Humans are intelligent enough to play the odds game.
In my youth, I had many encounters with my fellow Whites whom I lived with.  Of course these were a mixed bag, but I had many good encounters, and I was able to make many good friendships. Sure, I ran into some bad White people who harmed me, but their numbers were not large. In general, you could make friends with a White person and be pretty well assured that they would treat you right.
My very first encounter with Black people – on the street outside my father’s school in Watts at age 12 – was terrible. My father was inside working in  his classroom and he had foolishly left us outside. Two very young and very feral Black boys asked us to play some game with them – I forget which – and very quickly they were trying to steal from us and there was a wild fistfight in the streets. My little six year old brother took on both of those little ratfucks. This sort of thing would almost never happen with the White boys our age, and we had dealt with some pretty bad White bullies. But even the worst White bullies weren’t that bad.
My next encounter was with JD, one of the few Black guys at my school. He was friends with my group of friends so I became a sort of friend of his, although he was always a bit of an ass. One night he left me in a park for 45 minutes for absolutely no reason at all, just for a joke. Somehow he came back around later and my friends in the car with him saw me and picked me up. My other friends were all laughing but none of them would have done that to me. In fact, very few Whites I knew at that time would do that to me. JD simply thought that was a hilarious joke.
JD had a brother named MD. He was a former football player, and I rather liked him. He had parties at his house, and the 14-16 year old high school kids in my crowd would hang out there, drinking cheap wine and smoking weed. He was a good jolly fellow, but he was later arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.
There was a Black man named Mr. Matthews at my school. He was the only Black teacher. He was also a jolly good-natured Black man. While I was there, he was arrested for having sex with a 15 year old White girl student. People said it was racism, but I doubt it. I think he did it.
Ok, now I am in high school, and I’ve met a whole five Black people.

  • Two tried to steal from me and then picked a fight with me.
  • One left me in a park for 45 minutes as a joke.
  • Two were grown men who got arrested for having sex with teenage White girls.

5-5.
At least two of them were in jail and another two should have been.
All five acted pretty damn bad. Their rate of bad behavior was far higher and an order of magnitude greater than the Whites I knew.
The statistics prove that Black people as a race act pretty damned horribly no matter how you slice the cake. Line up any number of statistics on any number of behavioral variables, and there are the Blacks, leading the charge in the bad behavior brigade.
Why do we care? Because morals are important to us. Because we have deeply held moral belief,s and people who violate our morals in an outrageous way offend us to an incredible degree. Moral outrage is a thing. It’s a normal thing. A rational thing. A morally outraged person is not usually a bad person.
Black people can huff and puff all they want to about how evil Whites are for feeling morally outraged. “Well, don’t think about us then!” That’s not helpful. It’s Blacks who are acting awful. The solution to people acting awful isn’t to call the people who are offended by them evil and order the offended to look the other way and mind their own business.
The problem that keeps circling back around itself is that Blacks refuse to believe that Black people act bad. You can throw anecdotes at them, and they will cry, “Anecdotes!” You can throw impressions and intuition at them, and they will cry “Impressionistic!” and “Unscientific!” and demand scientific studies. Then you throw scientific studies at them, and they order you to shut up and take down the damned studies, and then they yell that the studies are wrong.
The Emperor’s walking naked down the street and everyone is looking at him and laughing, and Black people are jumping up and down and screaming that he has clothes on and screaming that the people who see that he’s naked are evil. That never works very long. You can scream at people all you want that their eyes aren’t seeing what they see, that their ears aren’t hearing what they hear, that their very senses aren’t sensing what they sense. People will get confused for a bit and believe you and think maybe they are hallucinating after all, but then they will revert right back to sense and reason.
And this is the saddest part of all. As long as Black people keep acting so terrible, anti-Black racism will never go away. The antiracist project will be forever doomed. This is heartrendingly sad to me because at its root base, at its core, the antiracist project is a noble one. Wouldn’t a society with a diminished degree of racism be a wonderful thing? It would for me. It would be like a dream.
But the antiracist project will keep crashing back on itself because anti-Black racism is driven overwhelmingly, especially at this late date, by bad Black behavior and little else. This is very depressing, and I don’t know what to say about it, but hollering that Black people act just fine isn’t going to cut it. People will believe a lie only so long until reality keeps coming back and smashing them in the face and wakening them from their socially drugged slumber.

India as the True Home of White Supremacism

Another great comment by Francis Miville:

If that is your opinion, first give up your Sanskrit name, a language elaborated by Whiter than Whites and used by White supremacists. These people are far Off Whiteness, though many of them are actually off-Whites. Off-Whites as they are generally called are the real center of gravity of all White Supremacism, as they depict their Gods rather than themselves as the perfect White ones that should prevail.
The genocide most needed to end White Supremacism has to take place where it came first from, that is to say among off-Whites, starting with the Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the doctrine best suited to perform it is Cultural Revolution style Maoism as it is still believed in by the Indian Naxalites, not Brown Nationalism. When the issue of money is not tackled in top priority as is the case with nationalism, Brown Nationalism always end up taken over by millionaires who will buy White slave girls to breed with, as Whiteness is valued as movable property even by those who dehumanize it most.
Even the fiercest traditional German Nazi White Supremacists themselves consider their Indian counterparts as purer than themselves, endowed with more desirable features, despite their skin being somewhat darker due to the sun. However darkish you may seem, you are the dirt the plant of White Supremacism keeps on sprouting from. You are the clay the statues of White idols are made from. Whites come from Northern lands such as Russia and Scandinavia, but White Supremacism originally came from India to be taught to the former, not the other way round.

When the Group in Power Starts Claiming Victimhood and Agitating for More Rights, Duck and Cover and then Get Out

Whites just can’t get together and organize for White interests without turning into complete racist shits. I think it is because we are the majority. When the majority who has most of the power starts demanding more rights, that’s a good clue that it’s going to be bigoted, nasty, and ugly.
Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, even Muslims they can all organize for their rights without being racist shitwads. For some reason, Whites can’t do that.
Maybe if we were a minority like them, it might be different. I imagine Whites in South Africa have a reasonable cause.
Maybe only minorities or truly oppressed or underrepresented people can organize without turning into bigoted fucks.
Why would a majority group that already has outsized power and money, that is more oppressive than oppressed, and that is overrepresented rather than underrepresented, agitate for rights?
When people on top running things start screaming about discrimination and needing more rights, watch out.
Jews in Israel, Hindus in Kashmir, Chinese in Xinjiang, Turks in Turkey, Arabs in the Arab World, Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Brahmins in India, Muslims in various Muslim lands, Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Burmese in Myanmar, Indonesians in Timor and Irian Jaya, Sunnis in Sunni states…it’s never a pretty picture.
Usually there is a genocide of one type or another, lots of ethnic cleansing, onset of fascism, lots of the weaker group getting slaughtered by the stronger group…It doesn’t work. The group on top doesn’t need more rights and when they get pissed and start yelling for more rights than they already have, typically a lot of people get killed.

Why Trump Is a Disaster: Principled Liberals, Progressives and Leftists Never Vote for the Right, Period, for any Reason, Ever

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

I am a man of the Left. I always have been and always will be. I never vote conservative or reactionary ever for any reason. I am practically a Marxist. I would rather eat a bullet than vote for the Right. They are my class enemies. I vote my class interests. I vote populist. I vote for the people, for the workers. The rich can go walk off a cliff. The corporations are the enemy, and they need to drop dead.
The Democrats are incredibly better on most of these things.
I don’t care about my cultural heritage and my biology. Why is muh cultural heritage important? It’s silly and it means nothing. Why is muh biology important? That’s nonsense too.
See, this support for Trump is all flowing from race or maybe racism stuff. I said earlier than everyone who gets on this race train will vote Republican for the rest of their lives.

Why Trump Is a Disaster: On Civil Rights, It Is Back to the 1960's; Trump's Administration Is the Most Openly Racist Administration Since the 1950's

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.
Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

Civil Rights? I am a supporter of civil rights and the Congressional Black Caucus. Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is an open and virulent anti-Black racist who is committed to dismantling civil rights as much as he can and harming Blacks to the greatest extent possible. Trump’s trying to stop Black and Brown people from voting! Outrageous. Trump ended the mandate of HUD to not discriminate in housing. That’s a direct attack on the Housing Rights Act. Trump’s saying that landlords can discriminate against Blacks or anyone else in housing all they want to!
This is the most racist government we have had since the 1960’s.
It’s appalling.

A Fake Charge: George Orwell Was an Anti-Semite

Here.
 
Orwell has long been charged as an anti-Semite. I accepted it at face value like the charges against T. S. Eliot and others. But I just read an article in the Israeli paper Haaretz charging Orwell with antisemitism. I was surprised that there was little there. In some of his books, notably Down and Out in Paris and London, he runs across several quite unpleasant, rude or uncivilized people. They happen to be Jewish. He notes this. In fact, he regularly notes a person’s Jewishness. Supposedly this is anti-Semitism right there. If I write about my life and point out that various people in my life were Jewish, I’m an anti-Semite! Because it’s anti-Semitic to even notice such things.
I disagree with the charge. The people he meets are simply rude, unpleasant, uncivilized individual humans who just so happen to be Jewish. Nowhere does Orwell attempt to say that all or most Jews act that way.
Around 1941, Orwell pointed out that many Jews worked at British media outlets and that others outright controlled a number of British newspapers. Supposedly this is anti-Semitic. Except that it’s not. If Jews are 2% of your population and far more than that among journalists or media titans, it’s surely not anti-Semitic to point that out!
Around the same time, Orwell heard that a lot of the people sleeping in the London subway area were Jewish. He resolved to go find out. He went there and while everyone there was not Jewish, there were quite a few Jews sheltering there. He notes that Jews tend to stand out wherever they are. Supposedly this is more anti-Semitism. I can’t see it. He hears that a lot of Jews are sleeping in the underground subway area. He goes to check it out. Sure enough there are quite a few Jews there. He notes that they somehow tend to stick out and distinguish themselves from non-Jews. This is anti-Semitism?
Orwell also wrote many times opposing anti-Semitism. Apparently this is not enough to absolve him of the charge. Instead it just makes him complicated. Or, I would argue, human, as we are all complicated, complex and even ambivalent about most things.
Let me tell you something. I have never once heard of one single anti-Semite who wrote works attacking anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites don’t do that. If you do that you are de facto not an anti-Semite. Period.
Orwell also had many Jewish friends. In fact, people were shocked by how many Jews came to his funeral. Do you think Jews would flock to the funeral of an anti-Semite? Why would they? Did Jews flock to Wagner’s funeral? Hell, some Jews still walk out of the room if you put him on the turntable, and that was over 100 years ago.
No.
Jews do not flock to the funerals of anti-Semites. You think they are stupid. Not all people Jews call anti-Semites are actual Jew-haters. Many are innocent. But on the other hand, most if not all actual anti-Semites are pegged properly as enemies by the Jews. The Jews definitely know who their enemies are. The only problem is they exaggerate their number. But this is one good thing about paranoia. The paranoid is very unlikely to be blind to any actual enemies in his life. He’ll spot them out before anyone.
Orwell also had many Jewish friends. Jews and Blacks and anti-racist idiots love the old chestnut “A lot of my friends are…” as a defense against racism. It is true that some mild racists have friends of the group they dislike. Their argument, appropriately enough, is that the friend is not like the rest of them. If the friend is just fine though, one wonders how racist the person really is as racists usually condemn the whole group.
Let me tell you something. I have known some real anti-Semites. I mean real hardcore Jew-haters. They came from different backgrounds but they all had one thing in common – not one of them had a single Jewish friend.
It’s the same with Blacks. People who truly hate Blacks don’t associate with any of them. I knew a racist who used to gather signatures for petitions as his job. He hated Blacks so much that if a Black man came up to sign the petition, he would not let him sign. Instead he would walk away, tell him to get lost, something like that. That’s not an unusual reaction. A lot of hardcore racists are exactly like that. An ex-wife of my cousin was from Southern Illinois. When the ex-wife was born, her father hated Blacks so much that he sent the wife to another hospital rather than have a Black physician deliver the baby.
So next time you hear some anti-racist scream, “Yeah, we know, a lot of your friends are _______. Sorry, that’s an old one. You’re still a racist!”
Think again. If you really do have one or God forbid quite a few friends of the hated group, you probably don’t really hate them that much.

Whites Are Only Decent and Progressive When They Are a Majority

Answered on Quora.

Jason: Anyway, what I meant to say is that SA whites being richer were jerks out of fear of safety – and also the richer behave that way everywhere else – regardless of whatever race they’re in.
But South African whites, to be honest, got on the bad side of the liberal community – especially, cause their social system was race based. In other words, they could have done the same thing by just hiding into rich neighborhoods, like California people do now. In other words, California is just as racist as South Africa – in a sense – cause the poor are kept out of richer areas “unofficially” via crime laws.

I agree with you that the middle classes and rich act like shits pretty much everywhere on Earth, but here in California, we do have some decent middle class and rich people, at least in some areas, particularly on the coast. I am thinking of the Bay Area in particular. Those are probably some of the best-behaved middle and upper class Whites outside of Europe.
Also rich and middle class Whites act pretty good in all of Europe (except the UK), Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
The problem is that in most places on Earth where Whites become a minority, they turn into the worst fascist fucks on Earth. A process that is presently unfolding here in the US.
Face facts. White people only act decent when they are in the majority. When they are a minority, get ready for fascism, genocide, death squads, etc.
Show me anywhere on Earth where a White minority acts decently at all, except California and Hawaii.
Honestly though, the Chinese do not act much differently. Chinese in China and Taiwan act pretty good, but the Chinese minorities in the Philippines and Indonesia are complete monsters, especially the ones in the Philippines.

Are Whites in California Just as Racist as Whites in South Africa?

Answered on Quora.

Jason: Anyway, what I meant to say is that SA whites being richer were jerks out of fear of safety – and also the richer behave that way everywhere else – regardless of whatever race they’re in.
But South African whites, to be honest, got on the bad side of the liberal community – especially, cause their social system was race based. In other words, they could have done the same thing by just hiding into rich neighborhoods, like California people do now. In other words, California is just as racist as South Africa – in a sense – cause the poor are kept out of richer areas “unofficially” via crime laws.

Can you show me how the Whites in California are just as racist as South African Whites? Can you show me how Whites in California keep Blacks and Browns, or poor people in general, out of White areas?

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn't Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.
It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!
Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.
Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.
Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!
So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.
You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.
A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.
In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.
Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.
Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.
To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.
Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.
This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Sewer, "2154"


Supposedly this is the most pure evil and Satanic music being made today. Well they have a lot of competition. It is described as Blackened Metal Terror Goregrind. This album is called “the most haunting Terrorgore album in existence.”
Blackened Metal is absolutely a subgroup of Black Metal, which itself is quite evil and Satanic. In fact, Satanic is the very definition of Black Metal. Goregrind is also a genre of metal. This is hardcore heavy metal grind music set to gory themes. Never heard of Terror Goregrind or Terrorgore before.
This band claims to be part of a subgenre called Sewer Metal, which is supposedly the most evil Black Metal of all.
A number of Black Metal bands have come out and stated that they are racists, particularly White Supremacists. The band that nearly started the trend is a band out of Norway, a member of which blew his brains out with a shotgun. Another band member supposedly came to the crime scene and ate some of his brains. There was also a homicide associated with this band. There have been a number of other deaths associated with the genre, mostly suicides but a few homicides. Quite a few band members are described as deeply, nihilistically depressed. The music is very angry, and anger + suidicality is a very bad thing.
I don’t think too much of true evil or Satanists, but I very much enjoy this music. As an added bonus, these guys can really play. That guitarist is too much.

Is it Possible for a Black Person to be Alt-Right?

There are no Black Alt-Rightists, and there will never be any Black Alt-Rightists because if the Alt Right is united on anything, it is hostility to Blacks. Keep in mind that the Alt Right in general is White racialist all the way to White nationalist and White racist. Not a lot of the Alt Right is actually White Supremacist because it is common knowledge on the Alt Right that NE Asians are equal or even superior to Whites.
There are some White Supremacists on there though who even dislike Asians. Stormfronters would fall into this category. However, even on Stormfront, Latin American Whites are allowed to have up to 25% Amerindian or possibly even Black blood and still be members and part of the community.
But the community is united on Blacks. No Blacks are OK and in general, no significant amount of Black blood is acceptable. They act like Blacks and Black genes are poisonous.
That’s not to say that there are not Blacks who want to joint the racist Alt Right. I recall some 50 years ago, a Black man tried to join the KKK. They asked him why he wanted to join, and he said, “I don’t like niggers either!”
On the milder end of the Alt Right such as American Renaissance, Thomas Sowell, a Black scholar, has a number of supporters.
Some of the worst Alt Right out and out Nazis have Asian girlfriends, date Asian women or say they would be open to the idea. I am talking Daily Stormer types.
It is very annoying to call White racists who think Asians are equal or superior to Whites White Supremacists! Just because you are a White racist does not mean you are a White Supremacist.
There are some Black HBD’ers though, and some say the HBDsphere is part of the Alt Right.
There are absolutely groups of “Redpilled Blacks.” A friend of mine is a member of one of these groups. The Redpill movement are part of the Manosphere, so the Redpilled Black groups are made of mostly young Black men. MGTOW and Incel groups in the Manosphere also have many Black men. But unlike the rest of the Alt Right, they hate Trump, and they despise the racist Alt Right.
There has been a lot of talk about the Alt Right bailing on Trump lately, but I see no signs of this. I know some people on the Left of the Alt Right (an Alt Left faction) who say they renounced support for Trump, but they all seem to be still supporting him. These are the people who feel embarrassed to admit they are support Trump.
There is indeed an actual Alt Left, but it is quite small. It started out as a leftwing split from the Alt Right. There are already many wings on the heavily splintered Alt Left. There are some Blacks on the Alt Left. In fact, a Black man is a leader of the larger Alt Left groups on Facebook.
As far as the Alt Light exemplified by Trump supporters and the Breitbart website, there are indeed a few Blacks on there. Check out rapper Kanye.

The Strange Links Between Antisemites and Rightwing Zionists

Israel actually gets a lot of support from out and out fascists, including some anti-Semites and people with Nazi links. I know that Richard Spencer has praised Israel as a model for the racist Whites-only state he wants to create. Kevin MacDonald has also written a nice article on Israel as a model. Israel is indeed a model for anyone wanting to create a racist ethnic nationalist state. There’s not a lot of difference between a racist Jews-only state and a racist Whites-only state.
In this fascinating piece Judith Mirville discovers many more fascinating links between these two most unlikely allies.
I will tell you why fanatical antisemites and Protocol-centric conspiracy theorists love Trump, the arch-neocon, the Jewiest among the Noahides: there is no incompatibility at all between being a Nazi White Aryan supremacist and an ultra-Zionist, no matter if you are a Likud car-carrying member Jew or a Jew-outjewing gentile neocon.
You must first realize that first White supremacist theories sold to the Western World, especially most of the Anglo-Saxon ones, were pro-Jewish and justified themselves of Biblical Jewish origin: the most fanatical branch even claimed of descending, as all true White Anglo-Saxons, from the Biblical tribes of Judah and Israel. That form of racism which is responsible for the dehumanization of Irish, then of Negroes, then of Amerindians, then of East Indians, existed long before the more publicized one born in Central Europe and Germanic countries justifying itself of the Vedas, of the recent discovery of Sanskrit, and of the Aryan invasion theory of India and of Europe.
British Anglo-Saxons in India snub natives and see themselves as Jews or would-be Jews having conquered yet another non-Biblical people – they would dominate it as true Veda-perfect Aryans of the kind there no longer was in India due to caste miscegenation only later on, and even then this was only ideological enrichment, not reconversion: most of the first White Indo-Aryan supremacy theorists postulated that the authors of the Vedas and of the Jewish sacred scriptures were the same people as they pushed for invasion of heathen lands. O
ne very popular exponent of such a synthesis was Edouard Schuré, in his 1900-published semi-doc book The Great Initiates. The over the top rabid antisemitism of the Nazi party was a departure from, not a continuation of, the racist mainstream; actually it is rather the result of a late hurried electorally-tailored compromise of that ultra-right-wing party with the Austrian antisemitism of leaders such as Lueger who were clearly of the non-Marxist Left, not of the racist right, witness the fact the latter (and not the Marxist) had pushed for the most advanced social measures that were still being passed at municipal level in Vienna and around.
Rabid antisemitism was the original Left ingredient put in the Nazi witches’ pot so as to seduce working masses into fighting with their own bosses against the Reds (and their own interests), and most bourgeois German Jews laughed of such a feat of cunning on Hitler’s part. To get an idea of that little-mentioned fact, read the book or view the film The Serpent’s Egg.
Antisemitism has always been recuperated, not begotten, by the economic Right: I wouldn’t go as far as to say that antisemitism is a left-wing position, but it is not one of the Right neither, it is one that positions on the third axis of multi-factor analysis of the political spectrum.
The first factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is always, be the right-left one, i.e. whether you identify with the common man and with the victims or with the privileged and the conquerors to define yourself, and whether you identify with more general or particular interests — even most of the American Left actually classifies as more right-wing than the rest according to that definition with all shades of pink in between.
The second is authoritarian versus freedom-loving — the term Libertarian is now unusable for that meaning since most American so-called Libertarians are authoritarian personalities among other detestable traits. The third factor in factorial explanation power as an eigenvalue is localist (not nationalistic – it can be village-centred Sicilian Mafia or Basque anarchistic) versus globalist (not necessarily present-day globalist ideology, it can also be Marxist International or in favour of big social nation-states aiming at global reach) with all intermediate shades: Jews are globalist on that axis as we may expect, but nothing prevents a globalist from having right-wing egotistical and authoritarian personality.
There is even less incompatibility between a Nazi-like antisemite and a perfect Adelson twin brother neocon like Trump in that most Nazi-like antisemites in the US exist thanks to the Zionist establishment as a social management tool, not as an indigenous formation. The KKK, despite a few lone wolves like D Duke, has always been pro-Jewish in theory and favoured by Southern Jews against the Blacks, as has always been the Southern antebellum paradigm, not counting the fact it is anti-Catholic and anti-Irish Presbyterian Scottish by mystical reference and therefore Biblical-Zionist as regards magical rituals.
They are traditionally and most spectacularly used for Jewish-solidarity enhancing false flags, and they are also used by Jewish bosses to destroy worker solidarity so as to turn workers’ interest issues into racial ones.
The Great Divide in the US, apart from the class and left-right divide which has always been the first in importance everywhere except in the virtual media world of a few very maligned countries, has always been White (or better said general privileged newcomer)/Amerindian/Black, since the country was founded by the act of killing Indians to make room for Negro or Irish slave plantations. There are the conquering ones (the Whites), the ones targeted for elimination (the Indians), and the imported slaves (the Blacks), or if you will the superiors, the rebellious inferiors (the Indians), and the exploitable inferiors (the Blacks).
The superiors in America by tradition either are Jews, as was the case with the Southern plantation system where they were both the international traders in cotton and the educated professional elite, or fancy themselves as Biblical Jews of a more perfected kind. Antisemitism in the US only aims at renegade Jews, particularly those who harbour universalistic ideas or tendencies, which good Jews should never entertain under the pain of losing their status as such.
All antisemites in the US go to great lengths to explain that the only Jews they inveigh against are false Jews like Eastern European Khazarians. This is a very stupid position, by the way, as the most rabidly supremacist Jews are traditionally the Sephardics and Mizrachis ones, especially those of recent North African origin. Contrary to East European ones, they were never subject to left-wing ideas, and they were always proud to be concentrated in parasitical, predatory sectors of activity and of having participated in various slave trades.
On their own side, Jews have been most of the times White or pro-White racists of the grandest kind. Some say that Talmud-based Orthodox Judaism postulates that only Jews are actual real humans. That is not accurate or rather true by odor only.
The traditional (and most widespread among North African Orthodox Jews (whom I know well) position is that most bipeds now peopling Earth not being humans but animals or rather natural-born biological robots in apparent human form, only a minority of those bipeds being descendants of Biblical Adam and deserving the title of human.
There had been humanoids for hundreds of centuries before as modern archeology indicates, but humans as such existed only from the date Biblical fundamentalists agree upon to have been the beginning of the Jewish era. That is the way these Jews have always managed to conciliate Biblical literalism and archeological data.
Sub-Saharan Blacks are clearly non-humans according to their view – they are not even simian but reptilian by nature, and their erstwhile most cunning leader was none other than the great Tempter of Eve mentioned in Genesis. Not all humans are Jews according to that view, but the first human, Adam, was intended to be a Jew and to breed the rest of humanity as a Jews.
Non-Jewish humans, who would spontaneously serve the Jews by their own nature, were to be sired by Jewish lovers of non-human females, hence the fact that having a Jewish mother, not merely a father, makes one a Jew by default (a non-Jew can also desire to be a Jew or have a Jewish soul giving all the powers of a Jew).
A Jew is defined as some human having been promised by his creator the reversal of the one big punishment for the Fall which was the loss of the power of human speech to force obedience upon all animals, non-human humanoids, and even inert mineral beings and elements such as wind and clouds as by robots. By obeying the Law in a letter-perfect way, a Jew is supposed to recover the dictatorial power of his word over everybody and everything else. That is the only point for those North Africans in being Jewish.
Manifestly obeying the Law doesn’t make most of these Ultra-Orthodox Jews into people capable of granting all their wishes by merely uttering orders to every non-Jew and non-human being around. Many nevertheless try as if the thing were just normal. Don’t be surprised when so many of them speak to you as if you were their butler. They conclude that something is missing in their obedience to the Law that is the aspect of the Law for initiates only, that deals with magic: the Kabbalah.
North-African Jews believe in Judaism as being ideally the supreme form of witchcraft – their thing is not a religion in the common sense. The North African Jews believe they are the only true Whites. Adam was the first White who appeared; other humanoids were coloured of various hues. The ancient Jews were nearly as white as milk, the other peoples of the Earth are White inasmuch as there is a greater percentage of Jewish blood running in their veins, that is to say a greater percentage of Jewish males having originally sired them.
The reason why nowadays the best Jews are not so white is of course the partial degeneracy caused by their disobedience and lack of hard work in recuperating their magical powers as described by the Kabbalah. In addition, many North African Jewish groups and tribes are originally converts, not Hebrews, who are growing Whiter and Whiter with the generations passing as they manifest their virtues and powers.
People who betray their Jewishness or Whiteness cease to be Jews and Whites, and sometimes their skin darkens pretty fast, as is said was the case with Ham, the father of Ethiopians (not all Blacks – most of them not being human at all), but in general that result is achieved by encouraging those fallen ex-Whites or ex-Jews to breed with darker non-humans.
I for one see no incompatibility between Nazi-like antisemitism and Jewish supremacism, they actually strive to promote exactly the same people as they define them and to discriminate against the same people. It is two darshanas, two side-views of a same doctrine, and both fit in marvellously in greater caste-extolling Hinduism.

The Real Story of Zimbabwe: I Would Rather Starve on My Feet Than Feast on My Knees

RL: Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”
Jason Y: Yeah, but didn’t you say Zimbabwe was a justified state. Aren’t you a fan?

I wrote some long posts on what happened.
2,000 White farmers from the UK owned half of all the land and about all of the decent arable land. The crops were all grown for export, and most of the Blacks were starving and malnourished. The Blacks were forced onto marginal lands which they farmed. However, yields were poor, and most importantly, the land was eroding away due to its poor nature for farming. So this situation was not working out.
Mugabe came in and said we have to deal with this land situation. He offered to buy out the White farmers, and then the state was going to deal with the land with state farms, leasing it out to small Black farmers or whatever.
However, no matter how much money he offered, the UK kept saying they were going to pay and then never paid, and the negotiations went on forever. The truth was the UK never intended to allow the farmers to be bought out ever, and they wanted to drag this out until the end of time. The US was helping the UK in this disgusting racist charade. This went on for a long time, and nothing happened, and people started getting mad. The US and UK started slapping all these sanctions on Zimbabwe for no good reason, and the economy started going down the tubes.
Meanwhile, Mugabe’s base were the war veterans. There had been a revolutionary war that ousted the White racist regime, and Mugabe had led the war, so he was a revolutionary war hero. He was also a Black power guy along the lines of Mandela.
The war veterans wanted land, and Mugabe kept saying it was coming. But the US and UK kept putting more and more sanctions on. Mugabe kept telling them that if they did not let him buy out those farmers, he could not hold his supporters back forever, and at some point, they would just go grab the land themselves. Mugabe kept urging peace with his supporters.
Well, at some point the war veterans had enough and they invaded all of the White farms. Nothing much happened. The Whites mostly took off and only 8% of Whites were latifundista farm owners anyway. But if you include their families, maybe it was 1/3 of the Whites. There was no genocide of Whites. It was a very ugly situation, very aggressive and menacing and some violent stuff happened. But all the Whites left. Seven whole Whites were killed in the “White genocide.” Like 1 in every 3,500 Whites got killed. It’s said when anyone is killed, but there was no genocide.
The Blacks were fine at small farming, but they could not run big farms. So like complete idiots, they simply dismantled the White farms and took everything they could. So the farms were left nonoperational, stripped of equipment, and the Blacks could not run the farms. So now there were food problems.
Mugabe knew that the Blacks could not run those large farms, and he always wanted to do this in an orderly way. He saw the whole mess as catastrophic and stupid. But it was his supporters who raided the farms, so he felt that he had to cheer them on, which is what he did, though he didn’t really want to do that. The project was more to have the state take over the farms in some way because it was assumed that the state could figure out how to run them, or even hire the Whites back to run farms for the people.
The White farmers never got paid off. A lot of the Whites stayed, and nothing happened to them. Now a lot of the Whites are coming back because Mugabe says you can farm your own lands, but we own them now, and you have to lease the land from the state. I think you have to grow food for the people too. And I think a lot of the Blacks are small farmers now. The situation is fixing itself. The government is socialist and dedicated to helping the people, which is the main reason we in the West hate them.
Mugabe has not been nice to the opposition, but they are in bed with the US, UK and the West. Their project is neoliberalism. They lack majority support because nobody wants this crap, and the Opposition basically fronts for the US and the UK. Most people see them as traitors and carpetbaggers. Mugabe is still a patriotic hero. The opposition has maybe 30% support, and no matter how bad things got, people would still not support them. They stuck with Mugabe through thick and thin. Yes elections were not fair, but Mugabe would have won a fair election anyway. The Opposition offered nothing but surrender to the nation’s worst enemies, selling out the country to the same enemies, and frankly treason and being puppets for the hated West. Their economic project was privatization and selling the whole place off to Western money.
There was a big deal about Mugabe tearing down some neighborhoods where a lot of Opposition supporters lived. He called it Operation Tear Down Trash. It was not handled well. The West lied, went crazy and said that Mugabe was tearing down all the homes of the Opposition people, leaving them homeless. But this was not true. The operation was done in a mean way, but their homes were shantytowns, and Mugabe tore down their shantytowns and built a lot of much better, decent modern state housing. Then he invited the former residents, many Opposition people, to come live in the new houses.
People stuck with Mugabe all the way. The sanctions ruined the economy because they were locked out of the world banking system. This was all done for some racist bullshit that the UK wanted to let 2,000 White farmers continue to monopolize the land and create a system of gross injustice. The British acted very bad in this case, and their behavior was quite racist. We shamefully went along with them.
The US and UK media wrote the situation up in a disgusting racist way which basically said that the Blacks destroyed the White farms and were now hungry because niggers are so dumb they can’t even grow food and they need superior White people to even grow food for them so they don’t starve. Yep that’s how dumb niggers are. That was the actual subtext of the West’s reporting on this case, and the openly racist tone was disgusting for the supposedly nonracist Western media.
Anyway it’s not true that niggers are so stupid they can’t even grow food. Blacks have been growing food in Africa forever, and they even started plantation agriculture in East Africa 900 years ago. They also excelled at animal husbandry for thousands of years. Granted Blacks mostly ran small farms, but they were generally able to grow enough food to survive. How hard is it to grow food? The Papuans grow yams and raise pigs. It’s not real hard to do. You don’t have to be a genius to do it. Any human can do this.
However, Blacks never got good at running large modern farms which are run more like a good-sized business. You need higher education, accounting skills and a lot of others smart brain skills to run large farms. It’s almost like running a big factory, or harder.
There are still Whites in Zimbabwe. I watched a video recently of downtown Harare. Crowded parking lot, lot of Blacks but some Whites, everyone dressed nicely, nice cars. They went into a nice restaurant where there were Blacks and Whites both in there, and everything was cool. Apparently a number of Blacks have some money, and there are still moneyed Whites there. If you have some money, it does looks like a nice place to live. You go to downtown Harare on a weekday afternoon, and there are workers in office clothes eating lunch in the park. There’s a brand new fancy radiology center that Mugabe built. Most people are pretty chill and laid back.
You can go to the slums which are not great, but I would say that Harare has the least bad slums in all of Africa. The slums are state housing, and the state spends a lot of money on the people.
This just goes to show you that people would rather stand in misery than die on their knees in comfort. It was very bad under Mugabe due to sanctions, but he represented African pride and self-determination against the predatory West that was trying to screw them over.
It was like the Blacks not wanting to live under White rule in South Africa or the Palestinians not wanting to live under Israeli rule. People have pride, and idiots who think humans are only about money are wrong. Not all people are capitalist hogs who worship money. A lot of people will take poverty with pride over more stuff and living in indignity under people who think you are inferior. The West can’t seem to figure out that humans have pride and don’t want to be lorded over by those who act superior to them. You can’t even buy people off to live under supremacist rule as inferiors. The West doesn’t get it because our only value is money, and we can’t see how many humans will gladly trade money for pride and prefer poverty over being ruled by condescending supremacists.

Fabricio Orjeda, Presente!

In support of one of my newest heroes, Fabricio Orjeda, leader of the FALN of Venezuela from 1962-1966. I also like this group, which I just learned about. They hardly killed a soul. Kidnapped a few people for ransom, including a US military colonel! Cool! That’s some real style. I like that! Back in those days, a lot of these groups kidnapped people and even robbed banks to get money for revolution. There were a number of groups in El Salvador in the 1970’s that did this quite a bit.
Hey come on. A revolution needs money. Get real. How you going to have a revolution without money?

_mg_7626
This photo makes it clear that Chavismo really is a racial movement. Note how dark most of the Chavistas are. There look to be maybe two fairly White looking people in that crowd. In contrast, the opposition is overwhelmingly White and light-skinned. Of course, Whites at 22% are the minority in Venezuela. Most of the rest are a mixture of Black, Indian and White for which is there is no name. Indian-White mixes are mestizos. White-Black mixes are mulattoes. Black-Indian mixes are called Zambos. Bet you never heard that one before. There is no word for White-Indian-Black mixes, unless you just want to call them “Brazilians.” White nationalist phrases like mystery meat are a bit cruel for my tastes, sorry. Haven’t you clowns heard of hybrid vigor? It’s not really anti-White. Nobody thinks that way in Latin America. It’s just that the Whites and lighter people have all the money, and for centuries, they monopolized the whole economy, stealing every nickel in the place without leaving  the vast majority even a pot to piss in. Everyone screams about the “evil Chavismo” and the “failed Venezuela.” Don’t these idiots realize that Venezuelan capitalism failed from 1823-1989, when Chavez came in? In 1990, in an oil rich country, 91% of the population lived in poverty and 89% could afford only one meal a day,  while 10% of the population luxuriated in unheard of riches. Think about it. Even if all the rich were White, this model was still failing over half the Whites in Venezuela. 60% of Venezuelan Whites were living in poverty when the Opposition ruled Venezuela. So much for the White rich paradise. Alt right White nationalists cheering for the ancien regime in Venezuela don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. There’s no future in White workers making alliance with their deadliest of class enemies, the White Rich. And whatever you think of non-Whites, I think any sane and intelligent White nationalist would have to realize that the worst enemies of White workers are the White Rich. Blacks and Hispanics are quite a ways down the list. Only a fool makes alliance with his class enemies!

There was a march and a ceremony in Caracas recently honoring this great man. They reburied his remains in the National Pantheon, where he belongs.

Coalburners and Oildrillers

Coalburners and oildrillers. Haha.
Those names crack me up. I don’t think they are all that mean really. They pretty much describe what’s going on. She’s burning coal in her furnace lol. He’s using his white drilling rig to drill for black gold in the tar sands lol. Oil drills even look like they are fucking the black earth lol. I love those damn machines. One of the few machines that that actually looks like it’s fucking.
Mudshark is a bit mean. Coalburners isn’t really mean. It’s more funny than anything else.
Did you know what White women who love Black cock call themselves snowbunnies? They also call getting fucked by Black guys “getting Blacked.”
There are quite a few White women into screwing Black guys. Some won’t even touch a White man. It’s Black men or nothing.
WTH.

73% of Venezuelans Continue to Support Chavismo

Tulio: Robert, I have two friends from Venezuela, a married couple, the female is white, the male is dark brown. I assure you they are not racist, they have never called me “mono” and they have been completely and 100% kind to me as long as I’ve known them. I have even visited them and stayed in their home, and they have visited me and stayed in mine. Never seen their bank account but I’m pretty sure they are not rich.
They are probably middle class by Venezuelan definition. They are 100% opposed to Chavismo. I don’t even know where they fall on the left-right continuum per se. They really don’t even talk much politics with me outside of opposing the condition their country is in. They are now living in Santiago, Chile where they worked and resided since the rise of Chavez, but frequently go to Venezuela to see family. I’m not an expert of Venezuelan internal affairs by any means. I’ve gotten a lot of my info directly from them.
Neither of them seem “right wing” to me in any sense that I understand the term. They seem to want nothing more than a stable, functional and non-authoritarian government. I also see massive marches in Caracas. I can’t believe all those tens of thousands of people are rich, right wingers. When I see close up photos of the crowd, they look like just ordinary Venezuelans to me. You seem to be painting a broad brush here and assuming anyone against Chavismo is a hard right-winger

Any Venezuelan who has the money to travel out of the country to the US or back and forth to Chile all the time, all by plane, is by definition not middle class. I would call those people upper middle class.
There will never be a government like they want in there as long as Chavismo is in because the Opposition will always be rioting in the streets and tearing stuff up like they have been doing ever since he got in. These people say they want a non-authoritarian government, but they supported the coup against Chavez. The first things the putschists did was to dissolve Congress, the National Assembly and Courts and put in martial law. They put a dictatorship in as soon as the coup took power.
The poster’s friends say they want a non-authoritarian state, but they support the extreme dictatorship that took power in the coup. The Opposition riots in the streets and calls for a coup every time they lose an election. This is because every time they lose an election, they insist against all evidence that it was stolen from them. Their calculus is that the only legitimate elections are the ones that they win. If the other side wins, it’s automatically stolen due to fraud, and we need to have a military coup to put “democracy” back in power. That ideology does not sound very democratic to me.  To the Opposition,  the definition of democracy is “when we win.” The definition of dictatorship is “when the other side wins.” Sound like a democratic project?

streambe_701e8e79-0687-3fce-8148-a667ce920929--1399436008
A decptively large Opposition crowd in Venezuela. You will not find one working class, low income or poor person in that crowd. Everyone is middle class to rich. And no matter how big that crowd is, the Chavista march will always be a lot bigger. That crowd represents 27% of the population. That’s called a minority movement.

They lack majority support. That crowd is the upper class, the upper middle class and unfortunately a lot of the middle class. There are a lot of middle class people in those crowds.
This is where the poster is getting his ideology from. Them and their lies. The Venezuelan Opposition is out of their minds. They are not rational and they are not honest. They lie constantly. They are as bad as Trump and the Trumpster Republicans, and in fact, both movements are very similar.
The project of the Opposition is extreme rightwing. I told you that they regularly call Chavez mono and that they removed Bolivar’s portrait because he was a bit too swarthy and not White enough and replaced it with a more proper Nordic one. The poster’s friends may not be racist reactionaries, but a lot of the people in the Opposition are very racist, and the poster’s friends are not denouncing that. I guess they are OK with it.
The project of the Opposition is to dismantle all of Chavismo and to go back to the way it was.
They are going to take it all down – the free health care, the free education, the neighborhood councils and circles, the public housing, the redistribution of oil income to the people, the cheap government-subsidized food and household goods to the people, the free houses given to the people, the public spending on infrastructure, the whole nine yards. Before Chavez came in, you never went to the doctor, the dentist or the eye doctor because you could not afford it. You either got over the medical issue or you died. Raw sewage ran down the streets of the shantytowns on the hills. In 1989, 91% of the people could afford only one meal a day and that was the same percentage of people in poverty. Venezuela had always been like this since Independence. The oligarchy had always been in charge and had never lifted one damn finger for the people.
All of the opposition politicians want to go back to that. All of them. The poster’s friends may not realize this, or perhaps they do not care. The Latin American middle class has always lined up with the Extreme Right project of the rich and the oligarchs, much to their detriment. This is because they consider the opposition to that  project to be Communists, and they think that is worse.
In Latin America, it’s Commies or Fascists. That’s your choice. Pick your poison. That’s because moderation or a Centrist project never works down there. The problems are too severe, and Centrist projects never touch the power of the oligarchs, so nothing ever changes.
Venezuela has never been more democratic than under Chavez. Venezuela has the freest press in Latin America. The authoritarian dictatorship crap is another big fat lie the Opposition made up.
73% of the Venezuelan people continue to support the Chavista Project because it’s the only one that’s for the people. The Opposition has no numbers. Those people you see marching above are part of the 27% opposition, and that is why they never win. I would also point out that pro-government marches happen at the same time as those Opposition marches, and they are almost always much bigger. You just never read about them in the Western media.
Those 73% are not stupid. They remember life back when the oligarchy ruled. They know that the Opposition wants to go directly back to that and not change one thing. This has been their project from Day One. Yes, it is a very far right, reactionary project. Compared to what the Opposition wants, most of the people want to stay with Chavismo.

WB Jim Crow, LTNS

Here.
Thank you, Donald Trump. Thanks for this. I had nearly forgotten what it was like back in the good old days of Bull Conner, etc. Appreciate the reminder, Donald.
It’s not back to the future. More like back to the 1950’s. Here we are in the pre-Civil Rights Era again. How long before the Supreme Court guts the Housing Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act the same way they gutted the Voting Rights Act? Anyone taking bets?
Boy, when we White people think our backs are against the wall, we sure turn into vicious racist shits, don’t we?
God forbid when we turn into a minority. When Whites are a minority, it’s time for Apartheid, fascist dictatorships, vast, fetid Brown and Black slums on the mountains with raw sewage running down the streets, and of course don’t forget the death squads. Logically, the reaction is an armed Left. What sort of reaction would you expect?
White civilization, White decency, White manners, and stable and prosperous White societies are largely illusory. Whites only play that game when they’re a big majority and the non-Whites are a small minority. 
White people really can’t get along with other races, nor can we live in peace with them. We can only be decent to non-Whites if they are small minorities. Whites can only be decent at all when they are a majority and a solid one at that. Barring that, we are basically a race of ratfucks.
The Chinese are mostly the same. Chinese people are only decent at all when they  are in a majority Chinese country like Taiwan or China. When Chinese are a tiny minority as in Malaysia, Indonesia and especially the Philippines, they turn into a race of monsters.
There must be some larger pattern here. High achieving races can only act decent when they are the vast majority of the population. As minorities, they are thorough scumbags.
This is so constant that it must nearly be a rule of Sociology and Political Economics.

Venezuela: The Lies Never Stop

Tulio: Left wing economics aren’t working out in Latin America either. Let’s face it, Latin America is dysfunctional whether it’s run by the left or right. I know Robert is a Chavista and all but the results speak for itself. They are probably a few clicks away from outright civil war.

The poster’s problem is that he gets all his Venezuela news from the Western media. You will not read one true thing about that country in the Western media. It is an all out propaganda war from Day One. If you want to read the truth about Venezuela, go to Venezuelanalysis. It’s all straight up 100% facts there, no spin. And many articles are quite critical of the government.
Yes, it is a civil war because the Right is running through the streets rioting, killing people, burning down buildings, buses and police cars. Let me ask you something. Suppose when Obama was in, Republicans went on a rampage all over the US, rioting, burning stuff down, killing people, firing guns, setting up snipers, setting off bombs, throwing grenades, killing lots of cops. Would you blame Obama for that? Because that is exactly what the commenter is doing.
This is part of the Right’s project down there. They lost the election, so they are trying to overthrow the government by force. What exactly is the state supposedly do about what is in effect a rightwing insurgency?
What they are trying to do is to create so much chaos that the military steps in and does a rightwing coup. Barring that, they are creating so much chaos and disorder that the US steps in with the military, invades and overthrows the Chavistas in the name of humanitarian intervention. It’s the exact same scheme we pulled in Syria when we turned ISIS and Al Qaeda loose on secular regime.
The US government’s official policy in Venezuela now is regime change. Mattis himself said so. The riots, destruction, arson, murders and political assassinations are all being coordinated with the US. We are the cause of all that violence down there.
There are no poor results of Chavismo. Things were booming along for many years. The rightwing has been sabotaging and boycotting the economy since Day One.
Norway is far more socialist than Venezuela. China is orders of magnitude more socialist than Venezuela. There’s nothing socialist at all about Venezuela. The economy is 100% capitalist controlled.
All Chavismo did was take a lot of that oil revenue and spend it on the people. If you think that’s a failed model, I do not know what to say to you.
After the oil price crashed, the government could no longer cover up for the business sector’s sabotage of the economy.
There are shortages? How can there be shortages in a 100% capitalist controlled economy? Answer me that. There cannot be. If there are shortages, why don’t they import some food? Why don’t they make some stuff that is in shortage?
The business sector is refusing to import products, and they are refusing to make products in short supply.
You need to go study how Kissinger and Nixon blew up the Chilean economy. They did the exact same thing, down to the letter. This is the Chilean Model down to the letter.

“We will make the Chilean economy scream.
–  Henry Kissinger.

Every week they seize huge warehouses full of products that are being hoarded by the capitalists in order to create artificial shortages. You heard of a shortage of syringes? A warehouse full of 21 million syringes was recently seized. If you read the Venezuelan papers, these seizures happen all the time, maybe every other day.
Why is there inflation? The capitalists have caused artificial shortages by hoarding stuff, refusing to produce stuff and refusing to import stuff. These artificial shortages of course caused inflation.
This economic sabotage has been going on from Day One, but when the oil prices were high, the government could cover up for the Economic War by importing their own products and selling them to people for cheap. Hence the state covered up all the artificial shortages caused by the refusal to import and manufacture products. When the oil price crashed, the state no longer had the money to import goods to cover up for the shortages, and furthermore, the Economic War went into high gear.
Furthermore, since Maduro has come in, he has made a hard turn to the Right from Chavez. His administration of full of rightwingers and representatives of the business sector. He caves to opposition demands over and over. They are always demanding hikes in the controlled prices, and he keeps raising them. No matter how much they raise the prices, the capitalists do not produce one more item. It’s all a scam.
Keep in mind that the economic crash has occurred against the background of a hard right turn in the government under a government that is now about 50% rightwingers and people from the business community. They can’t get a handle on things either. Did you hear what I said?
The economy crashed as the government turned Right and filled the executive with people from the business sector. According to the poster’s logic, rightwing economics is responsible for the crash.
That’s not really true either. Neither Right nor Left economics is responsible for the crash. The ministers from the business community can’t control the problems either. No one can.
There is a problem with currency, but that was created by the capitalists too. Currency controls were put in because the capitalists were taking all their money out of the country. No country can put up with that for long. So currency controls were put in, but that causes a black market in currency.
Price controls were put in because the capitalists staged a lockout strike that caused horrible shortages and sent prices skyrocketing.
Incidentally, despite currency controls, the business community still takes $50 billion out of the country every year. Do you know how much more they would take out if the currency controls were taken off?  The system would probably collapse.
The fake excuse all along was that price controls make it so the producing the price controlled products is not worthwhile. This is their fake excuse for the shortages. Now the price controls have been almost completely lifted, and they are still refusing to make stuff or import stuff. What’s their fake excuse now?
I agree that the standard Communist model caused a lot of economic problems, but the lie is that Venezuela is a Communist country like Cuba or the USSR, and this is the cause of all the problems. It’s caused by “socialist failure.” Why isn’t socialism failing in Europe? Why isn’t it failing in China? Why isn’t it failing in most of the world that runs social democratic systems?
The Chavistas were simply trying to produce a European style social democracy in Venezuela. Even that’s too much for the Venezuelan elite.
I will have you know that the rightwing Venezuelans the poster cheers for are some of the racist people on Earth. The commenter is Black. I assure you that the people he cheers for hate him because he is Black. Their word for Chavez was Mono. That means monkey. They call him monkey because his White blood is mixed with Indian and Black.
When they came into power, the first thing they did was take down the portrait of Bolivar because they said he looked too dark. They put up a new portrait that showed him as White as a Swede. These are the racists that this Black commenter is supporting.
The government is screwing up badly by not floating the currency, but that’s not a Right versus Left thing so it’s not a fault of Left economics. It would be a very unpopular decision, and Maduro is a weak and not very good leader and he does not have the balls to put in.
Hence I agree that the problems in part are caused by failures of the regime, but those failures having nothing to do with Right or Left economics. They’re not dealing with the currency problems, and that’s a failure on their part, but it has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or any of that.
The price controls were put in to fight inflation. The Right screams about inflation and about price controls. They took all the price controls off, and the prices went way up. Now they are screaming because the prices went up. They criticize the problem, and they attack the solution to the problem.
You can’t win with these people.
I agree that the Communist model leaves a lot to be desired, and the lie is that the problems of Cuba and the USSR are being replicated in Venezuela. It’s a lie because Venezuela never even made it to social democracy. Venezuela is a capitalist country through and through.
I will ban any posters who attack Venezuela as a failure of Left economics because it’s nothing of the sort. Now if  you want to talk about problems with the Cuban model, go for it.
 

Down with Colin Flaherty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7rjekBo_ds
I did not even bother to watch much of this video because his videos and articles make me so sick. The problem is that this guy’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.
Mr. Flaherty is a journalist, and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense. 89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.
The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.
But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.
Flaherty wrote a book called, White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.
Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh what nonsense.
But if you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the outgroup, is trying to kill us, Group A.
Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.
The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.
The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.
This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”
The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off Serbian lies that, “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”
Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people.
Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust. Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?
Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?
In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter.
The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.” It was only years or even decades that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists.
Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.
It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.
I could write articles about this sort of thing too. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.
Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.
Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular. And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.
Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and  decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.
Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Phil, Tulio and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong, they all live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is just wrong.
And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.
And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

What Is White Man's Burden Racism?

Jason writes:

In order to have “true believers”, you need to recruit people into the US army who are true racists and followers of the “white man’s burden” idea. True believers would be the best soldiers as they would have no compassion for the NAM’s they are killing in the name of exploitation.

Do you know what White Man’s Burden Racism even is?
White Man’s Burden Racism isn’t even racism. It’s just made up bullshit like Rape Culture. White Man’s Burden Racism means, “Darn, these people are so lame that they can’t even run their own societies. We have a duty to help these screwups!”
That’s all it is. It’s “racism” because it insults the primitives by saying that they are too lame to run their own affairs, which is just fact anyway.
I am a strong advocate or White Man’s Burden Racism and I am very proud to be a White Man’s Burden Racist.

The Narrative Is the Answer

Kareem, a Black commenter, writes:

Ultra Cool: Why are there racially motivated  riots like these in the U.S?
Kareem: It’s all about narrative. It has become increasingly common that whenever a Black person is shot by a cop, it becomes national news. Blacks in this country, regardless of where and why, feel like they are being are treated worse in situations because they are Black. Now, this sparks a narrative that Blacks are mistreated and that there is a systemic effort to keep them down. Now, the number of Blacks killed by the police effectively supports this narrative, which confirms the belief of it.
Now that the narrative exists, it becomes hard to dispel. The people who attack it have their motivations questioned. It doesn’t matter who you are either. A White man who attacks it is a Klansman. Even a Black person who attacks is merely suffering from internalized racism.
These problems are exacerbated by the fact that the actual racists will make the same points as average people who are merely questioning the narrative, but they actually have more negative motives. For this reason, it becomes easier to ascribe these motives onto them. Because you’ll have someone will say, “Blacks aren’t killed in out of proportion numbers”, but also say, “Niggers don’t deserve any rights!” in the same breath.
At the end of the day, it is extremely difficult to dispel narratives, and there is little hope for full integration as long as the narrative exists.
It will take a long time for the Michael Brown shooting (from the facts at hand) to be seen as anything other than an extrajudicial execution in the eyes of a lot of Black people because supporting the narrative is the most important thing.
Politics. Race. Feminism. Religion. All of these things are built on narratives.

This comment is absolutely brilliant. If you want to know what is behind these police riots, race riots, cop shootings, police brutality protests, Black Lives Matter movements, etc., this is where you are going to find the answers.
Kareem’s answer is much better than the standard liberal narrative (which I must admit is idiotic and preposterous).
It is better than the stupid conservative narrative: welfare, the state, and Democratic mayors created all Black problems in the US.
And it is surely better than the racist narrative: Blacks are a bunch of violent savage niggers who are incompatible with any form of modern advanced civilization. Further, Blacks and Whites cannot live together – Lincoln was right. Race war or RAHOWA is coming soon, and the end of civilization is near.
All of these are the standard narratives that 95% of people support, and they are all pretty much bullshit in one way or another. The real answer is more in line with what Kareem wrote: narratives.
I would say Kareem’s theory is also in line with Information Theory, which I would define as “He who controls information, controls the world.” Ask the CIA, Bill Gates, Google and Rupert Murdock about that. We take media for granted, but it is so important in our modern world. We don’t live on little house in the prairie anymore. Smart cameras, street cams, security cams, dash cams, body cams and smart phones are everywhere. Facebook and social media are omnipresent. Everything is or will be televised, not just the revolution. Much of what we take as received knowledge nowadays, stuff we ignorantly think we thought up on our own, was actually filtered for us via a media narrative.

If White Boys Act Bad, Then What Right Do We Have to Complain about Black Boys?

Jason Y writes:

I don’t agree much with what said. There were some white guys like that when I was in seventh grade, throwing pencils, spitwads, calling people names. The only way to deal with them is for the school to harshly punish them.

You think that only some boys are like that? LOL. All boys act like this. If you were a boy, and you did not go through this crap, I wonder what was wrong with you. If you didn’t go through this, then you were on the other end, right?
Boyhood is bully or be bullied!
Take your pick! No fence-sitting, you need to choose sides.
We weren’t even bad, and we weren’t even all that tough. Most of my friends were not macho boys at all, and we were not macho adults either. Not really anyway. We were just normal.
The bad boys the commenter refers to were the boys who stood out from the crowd and were the worst bullies of all. Of course we had some of those, and some of them bullied me pretty badly. But it was more or less normal to get tormented by those assholes. Lots of people did. What was not acceptable was to be one of the designated victims who got nailed by everyone. Not ok!
As I said, we were not even bad. That behavior in boys isn’t even bad. It’s normal. Compared to us, the bad boys you refer to were flat out evil. They were basically scum, and a lot of them were sort of petty criminals and juvenile delinquents.

What I don’t get is people bitch about ghetto blacks, demanding segregation, criticizing them for hyper-masculine behavior, then do a 360 and praise such behavior among white people, saying it makes boys tough. Really? Well, isn’t that the point of the behavior in other races also?.

Because it’s so much worse! Sure, White boys act bad, but all boys do. If  a man didn’t act bad as a boy, I say would ask what is wrong with him? Is he ok?
Compared to the way White boys act, Black boys are flat out stone fucking evil, ok? And all of the White boys get viciously tormented by the Blacks, all of them, 100%. It doesn’t toughen them up or make men out of them or anything as far as I can tell. All it does is turn them into viciously racist White adults.
Go look in to the childhood histories of a lot of the racist White men who post on here and some of the White nationalist guys on other sites. One thing you will find in common is going to an integrated school often where Blacks were bussed in. The behavior of too many of these Black boys was flat out horrific. A lot of these Internet White racists were viciously bullied by Black boys at school or else witnessed their monstrous behavior.
White boys don’t need to get bullied by Blacks to toughen them up or make men out of them. It doesn’t do either of those things well or at all anyway. Socializing with other White boys takes care of that well enough.
Getting bullied doesn’t make you tough. What makes you tough is making through boyhood by being tough enough or masculine enough that you don’t get bullied in the first place, see? And bullying (not being bullied) toughens up boys too because the objects of their contempt are idiots, assholes, psychos, hypersensitive wusses, boys who cry all the time or even effeminate boys.
By bullying these boys, boys are taught that idiots, assholes, psychos, hypersensitive wusses, crybabies and sissy boys need to and do get their asses kicked. So you learn that if you act like that, you may well get it. So you learn that being an idiot, an asshole, a psycho, a hypersensitive wuss, a crybaby or a sissy is toxic behavior that may well cause you to get hit with good justification. So as a man you try very hard to not act this way.

Some Typical American Lies about Russia

Based on this article written by a US leftwinger here. The US Left’s discourse on Russia has been pathetic and disgusting. 100% brainwashed.

Yes, Russia lies a lot.

The US lies more.

Yes, Russia is homophobic, plutocratic, full or racists, corrupt and other bad things.

One by one.

Yes, Russia is homophobic…

Oh boo hoo. Poor gays!

Yes, Russia is plutocratic…

The US is arguably much more plutocratic than Russia and I would argue that Russia is much more socialist and pro-people than the US. The state at all levels spends an incredibly amount of money on public works, social programs and the people in general. The state plays a massive role in the economy – many of the largest firms are 50% state owned.

The Communist system in Russia was never completely dismantled and Putin is a former KGB agent who is nostalgic for the USSR, sorry that it collapsed and has a good opinion of the USSR. Furthermore, he has rehabilitated Stalin, Lenin and many other USSR heroes and put a lot of old Soviet holidays back in. Some plutocrat!

Yes, Russia is full or racists…

Russians have always been racist, even back in Soviet times. Putin dislikes the White Supremacist racists and has cracked down hard on them. I have been to their webpages and they hate Putin. Ironically, most of the Russian White Supremacists now support the Ukraine as they say the Ukies are true Nazis, and many have gone off to fight for what the Russian White Supremacists say is a Nazi regime in Ukraine.

The ideology of most Russians instead could instead be called pro-Russian Empire. The Russian Empire and the USSR always contained many non-ethnic Russians. Russian nationalist groups of this type often have many non-Russians in their ranks, including many Asiatics. The only limitation some of them place is they say you must speak Russian well and you must be a Russian Orthodox Christian.

Russian “racism” is more about language, religion, culture, etc. than about race, ethnicity or genetics. If you ask the people in these Russian nationalist groups if they are White Supremacists, they get very upset, and say, “No! We are not Nazis! We are Russian nationalists! Look at this Tuvan guy in our group. He is one of us, etc.”

Yes, Russia is corrupt and other bad things…

Funny the US never cared anything about Russian corruption when they had a pro-US regime in under Yeltsin, etc. in the 1990’s who were looting the place and giving all the booty to the West (mostly bankers in London, New York and Berlin) and the Jews (mostly in Israel, also Rothschild in the UK was heavily involved in stripping Russia bare).

A Short Primer on US Party Politics of the Past 25 Years

Ronnie writes:

Ok, just another insight upon how non US people find US politics so obscure. There are the Democrats, who obviously want to instigate a democracy, hmm, that doesn’t equate they have one of those already. Oh well, then there are the Republicans, who obviously want to get rid of the Monarchy, hmm, that doesn’t work either. Ok, so is it obvious to anyone outside of the US which party is the one left of center and which is to the right of center. Well no not really.
There are the predictable arguments about specific issues which arise, and who has made the most mistakes on budget spending, but specifically what differentiates one lot from the other. Which are to the left, and which to he right? The vast majority of those outside of the US are baffled by it. What does not help the image on an international basis, is the game show host type presentation of political speeches when on election campaigns, complete with trumpet music and the like. All very, very obscure to non US people.

Well of course as a general rule, the Democrats are more to the Left and obviously the Republicans are way to the Right. That’s pretty much noncontroversial. However, the Democrats are not a very leftwing party! On a worldwide scale, probably both parties would be on the Right, and the population in general is probably one of the most rightwing populations on Earth. In fact, when people talk about what makes America so great, they usually rattle off a list of a bunch of rightwing attributes. The super patriotards are almost always rightwingers, and the America that they love is a very rightwing country. To them, that’s the real America.
There really is no large leftwing party in the US. There are the Greens, but they do not get any votes.
The base of the Democratic Party is called the left wing of the Democratic Party. These are Democratic Party liberals. This is probably one of the most leftwing groups in the US. However, even here, on a worldwide scale, they are not all that leftwing. For instance, most of these folks would not call themselves European style socialists or social democrats. The problem is that the Democrats elected to office are usually to the right of the base, because if you run on the base’s agenda, it’s often thought that you are going to lose because the base of the party is too leftwing for America as a whole.
Democrats like Obama are either in the center of the party or on the rightwing of the party. The rightwing of the party is called the DNC Democrats, or Democratic National Committee Democrats. They took over in 1990 and decided that the party is just too liberal to keep winning elections and that if the party wanted to keep on winning elections, it would have to move to the right. They also decided that it costs a lot of money to run for office these days, and the only way to get that money is to suck up to the rich and the corporations to get the money.
So the party started becoming pro-upper class and pro-corporate and moving away from supporting working class people and unions. There was also this idea that the party was “too hostile to business,” which has never been true as the party has never been anything close to even a European style socialist party. And I doubt if Democrats lose elections because they are “too anti-business.” Corporations have among the lowest favorable ratings in the US at ~22%, lower than the media or government. Nobody likes them.
The two wings of the party pretty much hate each other’s guts. The base thinks the DNC Obama Democrats are nothing but a bunch of Republicans in Democratic clothing. Any real leftwing people keep peeling off the Democratic Base to leave the party, vote Third Party or maybe quit voting. For the last 25 years, lefties have been continually leaving the party every year. This has accelerated in recent years since Obama came in. The problem is that in the US voting 3rd party is crazy because all you are doing is voting for the other side or at best throwing your vote away. Unlike in Europe, no 3rd party candidate can ever win national election.
The DNC wing is governing now under Obama. These people actually hate the base of the party as they feel that if they cater to them, they are going to lose elections. So the DNC types play to the base in elections to get their votes, and then give them the finger once they are in office. Obama and his advisors refer to the Base as “those fucking hippies,” the professional Left” and other epithets.
DNC Dems govern by now and then doing something leftwing for their base and then sticking it to the base by doing something rightwing. So the project is Feed the Base -> Feed the Right, Feed the Base -> Feed the Right, Feed the Base -> Feed the Right. This nonsense is also called triangulating. It’s a crazy way to govern, but that is how they do it. When DNC Dems are feeding the Right, they look much like Republicans. Of course the base hates this governing style because the party is pushing rightwing stuff half the time.
Anyway, this was the DNC thinking: if we don’t move to the right and fast, we are going to become a dinosaur party. So for the last 25 years, the party has been moving further to the right. The Republican Party has been doing the same thing. Ronald Reagan seems like a liberal Democrat nowadays.
Every year, the Republicans move further to the right, they move the goalposts and shift the Overton Window to the Right, and call the Democrats socialists and Communists. The Democrats are stung by being called Commies, so they follow by chasing the Republicans to the right to try not to be called Commies. Then they steal some of their rightwing ideas, water them down and pass them.
Welfare reform was a Republican idea passed by Democrats. Obamacare was a hard right health care proposal from the Heritage Foundation and the Republican National Committee in 1992. Now either the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that 1992 Republicans seem like socialists or else the Republicans hate it because the Democrats are pushing it. The Republican agenda is simply to oppose everything that the Democrats promote. So the Democrats steal a Republican idea, water it down and try to pass it, and the Republican go apoplectic and scream, “They are stealing out ideas!” and call the Democrats Communists.
The Republican Base is extremely rightwing, almost fanatically so. It is probably one of the most reactionary movements on Earth in many ways. The Tea Party is the Republican Base. The Base is very White and very much openly racist. The Republicans appeal to them with coded racist “dog whistle” stuff which is more or less a rhetoric of “stick it to the niggers” or “fuck the niggers.”
A vast number of Whites vote Republican because it’s seen as the party of the Whites, and the Democratic Party is seen as “the party of the niggers and the Mexicans,” as a friend of mine bluntly put it once. Nevertheless, the Republican Party doesn’t really benefit Whites in any way, so it’s irrational to vote Republican because it’s the White party, but that’s what people do. Once Republicans get in power, they don’t do anything for average White people except screw them over as the Republican Party is a Tory like party of the very rich and the corporations that thinks everyone else can basically go the Hell.
Recently there has been a mass rebellion as the Republican Base has flipped out and turned on the RNC group as RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only). They have tried to throw out a lot of RNC Republicans, saying they are nothing more than Democrats. Of course that is stupid, but that is how these people think.
The Republican Base represents about 20% of the population. Their politics is bizarre, irrational, fevered, conspiratorial, aristocratic, anti-democratic, anti-government, anti-liberal, militaristic, anti-environment, anti-woman, anti-gay, fundamentalist Christian, pro-traditional values, racist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant, Islamophobic, anti-social spending, anti-regulation, atomistic, radical individualist, economically Libertarian and fanatically partisan. They actually celebrate inequality as some sort of a virtue!
The RNC Republicans are not as rightwing as their base, but they do play to them, and the differences are not great. Whereas the DNC Democrats hate their base, the RNC Republicans fear their base. They are terrified of being replaced by the Base, so the RNC types are always trying to cater to the Base’s positions without having to actually vote for them. The end result of all of this is a race to see how far rightwing you can go without falling off the cliff.

Aversive Racism Versus Dehumanizing Racism

Stealth writes:

Black people closer to apes? How’s that? I All races have ape-like features. Caucasians, for instance, tend to have heavier brow ridges than other races.

Again we come to racism. As I’ve pointed out before, the word means whatever its user wants it to mean. Most of the time, “racist” is simply a term applied to people we want to discredit, and discrediting people is very important in politics and other areas. It means “bad.” It is NEVER defined in any way that would make the user him/herself look racist.

Although I think we should just scrap the word altogether for the simple fact that race is a far more complicated issue than people give it credit for, I believe there are two types of “racism.” The first kind of racism is dehumanizing. This is the racism that seems to be purely evil. They believe that blacks are scum who really don’t deserve to live except to the extent that they’re useful to white people. Although remnants of this racism live on, full blown racists of this type are limited mostly to really old people who came of age when blacks were exploited for manual labor.

The other type of racism isn’t even distantly related to the first. In a nutshell, it is the avoidance of blacks or some other racial group. I only call this racism because that’s what liberals call it. Most white people, including liberals who pat themselves on the back for embracing black people, are avoidant racists to some degree.

Avoidant racists do not believe that black people are subhuman; they just don’t desire to socialize with them or live in areas with “too many” black people. The only white people I’ve seen who are free of this particular variety of racism are the ones who were actually raised in black neighborhoods and adopted the culture, the ones that used to be called wiggers.

Conservative avoidant racists tend to be a little more open in their criticism of black people. Liberals can also be openly critical of black people, but their definitions of racism exonerate them, and they don’t bring it into the political realm.

It is called Aversive Racism, I believe. I and most other liberals are guilty of this. I am definitely an Aversive Racist, 100%, and I am very proud to be one. It’s just common sense and they can call me racist until they are blue in the face but I will continue to avoid, be wary, distrusting, on the lookout, and keep my distance.

It is way more cool here in California to be openly racist if you are a White conservative. They act like it is a sort of guilty little secret they have.

I remember once at this coffee shop I used to hang out with in this all-White town, one time at 7:30 PM shortly before closing, we were out on the sidewalk in our chairs. It was just me and this guy named Dave, this aging hippie who always votes Republican and once told me in a whisper that he supports “White rights”.

This other guy named Darrell came out there. Darrell is a “Creole” born and raised in Louisiana, a redneck and a real hardcore biker, tattoos all over himself, who spent 20 years in San Quintin for thievery back when he was a heroin addict. He is a real tough guy and you do not mess with him at all, but he is actually pretty nice and fair.

He came out, sat down with us, and quickly started telling nigger jokes in this sort of lowered voice like he was talking about something taboo. I forget the jokes or even if they were any good. Darrell and Dave started laughing their asses off with each joke, and it was like they were letting out some pent-up rage or getting something out of their system. Telling these jokes seemed to calm them down and make them feel relaxed and relieved the way a purgative might.

I started laughing, even though I could barely understand the jokes and some of them didn’t even seem like they funny, just stupid. Plus he was talking in his worst Creole, and it can be hard to understand.

In that sort of situation, a lot of liberals will just laugh and go along. It would be extremely rude to call those guys on their shit for telling nigger jokes, and plus I would probably lose my best friend Dave. Even if you don’t laugh, it is quite rude, and it would make them uncomfortable. If I don’t laugh, I am insulting them.

So really best to just go along rather than do the high and mighty PC liberal thing and get offended. Also those guys were 45-50 years old, and neither of them was going to change. Even if you told them, “Hey, nigger jokes are wrong!” it would be worthless as, they seemed to know they were wrong and were going to do it anyway like kids with a guilty secret.

Among White liberals in California, anti-Black racism is just taboo.

I remember we were having dinner with this guy and we got to talking about the Black ghetto and he said he taught for a while in Watts or Compton or some Black hellhole like that. He said they used to send the audio visual materials to the classroom and a lot of the time, it used to get stolen along the way. He was laughing as he talked about it.

Then he said, “Ah yes, the Blacks. They sure are interesting.”

Then the rest of us chimed in with lighthearted, charming, cutesy talk about really bad ghetto behavior we had witnessed. We were all talking about it in a completely non-hostile way like we were talking about going to some tropical island and describing the odd cultural habits of the people there. There was not the slightest hint of hostility, anger, hate or aggression in that talk, but we were talking about some pretty bad Black behavior.

This is a rather common way for White liberals to talk about the down side of Blacks.

That is pretty much typical for a lot of liberals.