The Syriza Party in Greece: Anatomy of a Sellout

Interesting abstract from Academia. All papers on Academia can be downloaded and reprinted for free. Syriza was the radial left hope for Europe in the wake of the 2008 Depression in which Greece was hit perhaps worst of all. The Right says it was because of Greece’s tax and spend policies, but Greece’s taxes are not high, nor is it’s social democracy particularly robust. The true problem is massive corruption of the political classes at all ends of the spectrum combined with an absolute failure of the wealthy classes to pay as much as one nickel in taxes. In other words, The Latin American Disease (in part) because Latin America suffers from exactly these problems more than anything else.

Syriza had a very powerful voice in opposition to the Austerity Regime demanded by the EU out of Germany (Germany basically runs the EU and lays down the law). There were two ways out of the debt crisis. Either go into crisis austerity and sell off a good portion of their public lands and enterprises, or simply default on their debt and start all over again. Perhaps both would have been equally painful, but I think default would have been best.

As is, a good portion of Greece’s public lands and public enterprises (the health care system, national parks, electric grid, hydropower, a number of actual islands of the country itself) were sold off the lowest of capitalist parasites. Anyone think the national parks, electric grid, health care system, hydropower, and even the very islands of the nation itself will be any better off now that they are in the hands of a lot of greedheads? They’re not. Nothing good ever happens with any of these sell-offs of private enterprises.

Worse, the selling off of the very partrimony of Greece itself was combined with the worst austerity, elimination of health care and all social programs for the masses combined with massive job losses so the masses of unemployed could not count on any state help now that they could not pay their bills. In other words, the Greeks got the worst of both worlds. Austerity and selloff and they gained nothing at all other than emptied pockets and rifled and ransacked goods.

No one could pay for medical care or hospital beds either. Many people were thrown out of their homes because they could not pay the rent and shantytowns of former workers and even middle class people sprung up all over Greece. Some political parties, even the far Right Golden Dawn to their credit, stepped in to try to provide the social help that the state would not.

This was followed by the election of Syriza, which campaigned on not paying the debt and opposing austerity. As soon as they got in power, they quickly changed their tune. I don’t think they sold out so much as they did not have the guts to go through with the program. No doubt there were massive pressures on them to go through the standard austerity model. At any rate, Syriza did not default on its debt like Argentina and Iceland did (to little effect on their economies), and they implemented austerity with full force. They sold out the masses completely.

As they stayed in power, they moved more and more to the right. Now that they are out of power, they have moved even further to the right. There is a new rightwing government called New Democracy in charge about which I know little, except I assume they’re not real great. Syriza is now utterly unable to offer an alternative to ND, while ND has apparently completely failed in the COVID epidemic as most rightwing governments everywhere did, no doubt leaving many corpses in its wake.

We have the standard Latin American model here where the Right (call it the Conservatives in Colombia or ARENA in El Salvador) “the right wing of the oligarchy” is absolutely toxic, but the Left (call it the Liberals in Colombia, the AD and APRA “social democratic” traitors in Venezuela and Peru), etc. are simply the “liberal wing of the oligarchy,” which in practice means virtually no change at all.

AD in Venezuela has combined with the fascist Right to overthrow the Chavistas, backing every coup attempt of various flavors against the government. For all intents and purposes, they’re not much different from Guaido. AD was always just a party to split up the loot from the oil rents from the state oil company amongst the oligarchs and the upper middle class management of the company.

This is very discouraging and it sounds like Thatcher’s TINA (There is No Alternative) response to neoliberalism. Perhaps there is no alternative to neoliberalism and austerity in the EU model, which has always been based on neoliberal orthodoxy. Note that debt cannot exceed 3% of GNP in any given year. That’s far too low an amount of public spending to run a country decently. There was no reason to put that in other than for neoliberal orthodoxy which despises all public spending for whatever rationale they have for doing that, either ideological, war of ideas, or economic.

If the situation in the EU is TINA, then Brexit is the way to go. Greece and a few others have been threatening to do that, but the NATO fascist military alliance (NATO has always been run by the US) is the imperialist glue that holds the EU economic community together. A neoliberal economic community held together by a fascist imperialist army. What else is new? Straight out of Milton Friedman (“Neoliberalism cannot be imposed democratically; it must be imposed by dictatorship”) himself. It is very hard to leave NATO. Notice even the Brits didn’t do that. NATO may be an abusive spouse for many of the nations inside the alliance, but if so, most NATO countries are Stockholmed wives.

I don’t know what to say except that this is yet another sellout of the Left.

For all of their faults, the governments of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Argentina have refused to go this route. At the moment, Peru is also challenging this model. The penalty has been repeated coup attempts in most these countries, economic wars, and sanctions, but at least they didn’t sell out. I still think this sort of resistance is the way to go, painful or not.

Our existences have dignity or they are worthless. The EU model is the death of dignity. At least with the Pink Tide, those nations can hold their heads up amidst the ruins and say

At least we are free. We may be poor but at least we are free.

You know that’s got to be worth something.

Outside of the homeland, there is nothing.

– A famous Baath Party intellectual from Iraq

Whatever beefs I had with Saddam, and I had plenty; Hell, at least he was a nationalist in a time when such patriots are scarce and viewed as traitors to the International Globalist Elite based on multinational corporate rule over the rule of actual states. Governments are increasingly irrelevant now that billionaires and corporations have more money and power than many actual countries.

SISP Conference 2021, Online, 9-11 September 2021

SYRIZA back in opposition (2019-2021): Towards a new political direction?

Grigoris Markou

Postdoctoral researcher, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Abstract

SYRIZA’s spectacular rise to power through a radical political proposal and a strong populist discourse has been the field of study of a large number of political scientists in recent years. Alexis Tsipras (Syriza’s leader) in opposition and in power expressed a strong inclusionary populist discourse, placing popular classes at a central position and opposing the political and economic establishment of the country and Europe.

SYRIZA, during its second term began to change its physiognomy, abandoning gradually its radicalism and embracing a typed of “political realism” and consensus, while it began to soften its populist intensity and passion. After the end of its rule (2019), it became clear that SYRIZA’s populism had nothing to do with the populist intensity and passion of the previous years.

SYRIZA (2019-present) continued to maintain some populist slogans and a kind of anti-elitism (e.g. “the many” against “the establishment”), but to a lesser extent.

Furthermore, a huge gap has been created between the party and the popular classes. SYRIZA can’t persuade, mobilize and lead the people against the right-wing government of New Democracy in a period of intense social discontent with the management of the pandemic and the economy by the Greek government and at a time when popular demands for democracy, justice, and labor protection are emerging.

In this presentation, I will present the main characteristics of SYRIZA’s political discourse after its defeat in the 2019 national election, attempting to find if the party continues to express a populist discourse or not through discourse analysis while underlining its new political direction. Furthermore, I will examine the reasons the rapid transformation of the party in a more mainstream and “realistic” direction.

Problems of Onomatopoeia in Historical Linguistics

The forms in the first part of this paper are from a paper by Geoffrey Kimball referenced at the end. He examined the relationship between the Muskogean languages and the isolates Tunica, Natchez, Atakapa, and Chitimacha in a proposed Amerindian family of the Southeastern US called Gulf. He concluded that although the languages were probably related, there was no way to prove it was so.

Granted, there are problems in the relationship, that’s for sure. But I went through a paper by Pam Munro looking at the relationship between Yuki-Wappo and Gulf and found the relationship convincing. The Gulf languages seemed obviously related; either that or massive borrowing had occurred.

People who oppose long-range language proposals like the above like to harp on a few caveats that get in the way of showing language relationship. For instance, they throw out all onomatopoetic words – words that are based on the sound of something. In animal names, this often refers to the sound of an animal.

Buzz for insects, slam or punch for a fist pounding, chirp for bird noises, meow for cat sounds, on and on. All of these are supposed to be rejected because people make up words based on the sound something makes. This gets in the way of proving relationship because we can always argue that these words are not cognates; instead, they are just words based on the typical sounds an animal makes.

However, I would say, “Not so fast now!” Follow me.

It’s from a scan, so it’s not letting me cut and paste but if you look at pp. 33-34, neighboring Siouan Quapaw has shikkokkoke.

Then in Gulf, we have

"Robin"

Tunica           wishkoku
Proto-Muskogean  tsiskoko/kwiskoko
Natchez          mishkokwa

Siouan           shikkokkoke

He says onomatopoeia, and then he says heavy borrowing. Also, as a birdwatcher, I am unconvinced that words for “robin” always end up looking like this due to the sound the bird makes. I don’t buy it. Our word is “robin.” That look like any of the words above.

I’m curious why any of these tribes would have to borrow a word for “robin” which has been found in their area since the tribes were founded. Animal names are usually borrowed when a group moves into a new territory with new animals with no names for them.

Onomatopoeia – fine, but why the same phoneme sequence over and over? There must be 100 onomatopoeic ways to describe this bird.

Kimball says this term is obviously widely borrowed.

More likely: A Gulf term, widely disseminated in Gulf and even reconstructed all the way back to Proto-Muskogean. That’s an old word! Remnants remain in Tunica and Natchez Gulf languages. Quite possibly borrowed by the Siouan Quapaw, who were migrants to the area. In this case, it would have been borrowed into Quapaw from Tunica because they neighbored each other.

It’s found in a number of Gulf languages and only in one Siouan language. They all could have borrowed the Siouan word for “robin.” Also, the Siouans were migrants from themselves, from Ohio. The Gulf languages probably came from Mexico, but robins winter there. Why would all of those Gulf languages independently borrow a Siouan word? Majority rules. If a form is widespread in one family and only present in one language of a neighboring family, the form was borrowed by the single language from the widespread form in the other family.

Also notice that this word in all of these languages has the same set of phonemes. Why would this set of phonemes be necessary to describe this bird? Our word robin doesn’t sound like any of those words. I am a birdwatcher but I’m not aware that that word represents the sound of a robin. The word has the same set of phonemes in different languages because it’s not onomatopoetic, that’s why! So it’s either genetic or widely borrowed.

Granted, maybe it was borrowed around in Gulf, but maybe not. I don’t know how to tease that apart.

Next we have two “woodpecker” words:

"Pileated woodpecker"

Tunica           pahpahka-na 
Proto-Muskogean  kwakakwa
Natchez          papaku-shil

"Redheaded woodpecker"
   
Tunica           chuchuhi-na
Proto-Muskogean  chaxchah-ka
Natchez          tsawtsa  

Once again, oddly enough, this word is ancient, going all the way back to Proto-Muskogean. Once again, it shows up in both Tunica and Natchez. How odd that these three same languages always get affected by these words.

Why would these three languages be more likely to borrow words from each other than any of the other languages?

Onomatopoeia is brought up again, but why would the two woodpeckers have phonemes that are exactly alike for each separate one? Woodpeckers don’t sound all that different. I’m a birdwatcher.

Tunica and Natchez were not adjacent, so it’s hard to see how there could be borrowing between them. Also, Proto-Muskogean was spoken in Mexico! The Proto-Muskogeans moved from Mexico to an area around Tennessee. We don’t know where the homeland of the Gulf languages was. It was possibly in Mexico too. Possibly Proto-Gulf was spoken in Mexico, and it migrated to the Southeastern US. Neither of these woodpeckers is found in Mexico, so both would have been new to the Gulf migrants.

If the entire Gulf family moved into Southeastern Louisiana, the two woodpeckers above might have been new to them. Proto-Gulf could very well have coined those two terms for the different woodpeckers because they had never seen them before. The words then filtered down through the years into the present-day languages.

The conclusion here is that the feint to onomatopoeia by anti-long rangers is a potential dodge, and just because a disseminated word is onomatopoetic, that doesn’t mean that all of those languages made it up based on the sound of the object. If the words for an animal always take the same phonemic shape, this tends to argue against onomatopoeia because you would think different groups would make up different words for objects that make the same sound. Why would they all make up the exact same word with the exact same phonemes? It doesn’t fly.

As an example, see this segment copied from an article by John Bengtson (an acquaintance) in Mother Tongue November-December 1989.

 

J.D. Bengtson

Soon after I began actively comparing the languages of the world some three decades ago I noticed a recurring phonetic pattern in word for ‘butterfly’ all around the world. They all involved syllables with a labial (usually /p/) followed by a vowel and a liquid resonant (usually /r/ or /l/). The syllables were often repeated or reduplicated with partial or full reduplication. The collection of these words grew until they make up what is now Table 1.

Table 1: Words for ‘butterfly’ containing labials and liquids

Indo-European: *pXpili- ~ *pòpili- >
Italic: Latin pXpilie (pXpilion-) ‘butterfly’ > French papillon, papillot ‘butterfly, leaflet’, pavillon ‘’tent, pavilion’ (> Engl. pavilion), Venetian paveğa, Tyrolian pavel, Friulian paveye, Provençal pabalho, Catalan papalhó, Calabrian parpaggyune, etc.
Germanic: Old High German fîfaltra (> German falter, [dial. fifalter, pfeipfalter, etc.] Yiddish flaterl); Old Saxon vîvoldara, Dutch vlinder; Old English fòfealde; Icelandic fifrildi ~ fijrildi, Norwegian fivreld(e), Swedish fjäril (dial. fjörald, fervel, fjärafalla, etc.) ‘butterfly’, etc. [Italian farfalla < Germanic: cf. Swed. dial. fjärafalla]

Afro-Asiatic:
Semitic: Hebrew parpXr, Aramaic furfr- ‘butterfly’

Kartvelian: Georgian p’ep’el-, Mingrelian parpal(ia)-, papralia, Laz parpal-, Svan p’ärp’old, p’ärp’and  ‘butterfly’

Euskaro-Caucasian:
Basque: pinpirin ~ pinpilin ‘butterfly’
Caucasian: Udi päpäläk ~ Udi (Nidzh) pampaluk Andi pirinpa ‘butterfly’; Abkhaz a-parpal’  ‘moth’;

Dravidian: Kui pipili ‘moth’ Kodagu pa:pÈli  ‘butterfly, moth’; Kurukh paplX  Naiki pipuli, Parji pilpili, Gondi pòplò, pòprò, Kuwi pubuli ‘butterfly’

Austronesian: Tagalog papaló ~ paparó ~ parú-paró ‘butterfly’

Indo-Pacific:
Trans-New Guinea: Kare purupuru, Bunabun piropir ‘butterfly’
Andamanese: Önge bebele, Aka-Bale pomÃlÃ, Aka-Bea pQmilÃ-dÃ, Aka-Puchikwar and Aka-Bo bQmilÃ-dÃ, Aka-Kol bÃmilà ‘’butterfly

Amerind:
Hokan: Tequistlatec pápalo ‘butterfly’
Uto-Aztecan: Aztec: Zacapoaxtla paapaaloo-t, Tetelcingo pöpölu-tl; Hopi pó:voli ‘butterfly’
Andean: Quechuan *pimpilitu, *pil¨pintu ‘butterfly’

It should immediately be noted that the words in Table 1 are not necessarily all the words of this type in all the world’s languages, only those that have come to my attention since I began collecting them some thirty years ago. What are we to make of these very similar words for ‘butterfly’, found in diverse areas of the world? Most historical linguists would probably dismiss the similarities, attributing them to independent and recent origins.

For example, R.L. Trask (1997: 296), remarking on the Basque word pimpirina ‘butterfly’ and others: “This impressive collection of regional terms can hardly represent anything of any great antiquity; most of these terms appear to be strongly phonaesthetic in motivation.” (Italics added.) Trask (1997: 258) defines a phonaesthetic word as “one which has apparently been coined out of thin air purely because of its appealing sound.”

While such words as referred to by Trask may exist, “coining out of thin air” can hardly be applied to the words for ‘butterfly’ listed above. Why indeed would Europeans, Asians, Pacific peoples, and Native Americans independently arrive at almost the same shapes for these words? With further analysis, we find these words can be subdivided into the following types:

Table 2: Simple reduplication:

Hebrew  p  a  r  p  X     r 
Tagalog p  a  r  ú  p  a  r  ó 
Kare    p  u  r  u  p  u  r  u 
Bunabun p  i  r  o  p  i  r

Here the syllable type PVR(V) is simply reduplicated. This syllable closely resembles the form of a global etymology meaning ‘to fly’, which Merritt Ruhlen and I gave the approximate phonetic shape of PAR (Bengtson & Ruhlen 1994, pp. 317-318).

Table 3: Reduplication with apophony or dissimilation:

Basque      p  i  n  p  i  r - in 
Udi (Nidzh) p  a  m  p  a  l - uk 
Abkhaz     -p  a  r  p  a  l - ‘ 
Quechua     p  i  m  p  i  l - itu ~ 
            p  i  l¨ p  i  n - tu

In these words simple reduplication (as in Table 2) has been altered either by apophony1 (alternation of r ~ l ~ n), or dissimilation substitution of similar sounds, here other resonants r ~ l ~ n > m, as in English “pilgrim”, ultimately from Latin peregrinus). Note, for example, the similar results in widely separated Basque and Quechua.

Table 4: Partial reduplication (type PùPVLV):

Latin    p  X  p  i  l  i - ion-
Georgian p’ e  p’ e  l-
Udi      p  ä  p  ä  l  ä - k
Kodagu   p  a: p  È  l  i
Tagalog  p  a  p  a  l  ó
Önge     b  e  b  e  l  e
Hopi     p  ó: v  o  l  i

1 For more on apophony (consonantal ablaut) see Wescott (1974, 1998), Bengtson (1998). In these examples, which I find the most interesting of all, we find the common elements of:

  • initial labial stop [p], voiced [b] in Andamanese;
  • first vowel, sometimes stressed and/or long [X, a:, ó:];
  • medial labial stop [p] (the Hopi change of *p > v is parallel to the change from Latin pXpilion- > French pavillon); [b] in Andamanese
  • a second vowel (with some variation [i ~ È ~ e ~ o];
  • a third consonant – always lateral [l];
  • the original final (thematic) vowel, in three of the languages [i].

In the face of these closely parallel common elements, I find independent coinage extremely unlikely, borrowing between these diverse languages just as unlikely, so we are left with one viable explanation: a very ancient common origin of these words for ‘butterfly’.

But if so, how do we account for the amazing similarity after what could be 50,000 years or more? I propose that the reason they have been preserved almost intact in widely separated areas is due to the preservative effect of phonosymbolism. Phonosymbolism, which symbolizes an action or state of being, is not the same as onomatopoeia, which imitates it.

As explained by Frederic G. Cassidy (1985):

One may guess that to keep the ‘same’ bases from spreading apart phonologically (as speakers spread apart geographically) to the point where all plausible or obvious similarity is lost, there must be some restraining forces at work – and one of these would be phonosymbolism. … So, phonosymbolism would perhaps exert a centripetal force holding basic forms together despite their having lost geographic contact.

We actually have historic documentation of this preservative effect in the case of the French doublets papillon ‘butterfly’ and pavillon ‘tent’ (both from Latin pXpilion-). In the former case phonosymbolism (PVPVL symbolizing the silent flapping of wings) has acted to preserve the medial [p], contrary to regular sound change, while the latter word (pavillon), with the secondary meaning of tent, has evaded the preservative effect and changed [p] to [v] in the regular manner (cf. savon ‘soap’ < Lat. sapone-, etc.).

But phonosymbolism did not manage to keep all the eventual words similar: we saw in Hopi pó:voli that the regular sound change (intervocalic *p > v) was not impeded by phonosymbolism. And note that many other radical phonetic changes have taken place, especially in Germanic!

In conclusion, I propose that all or most of the words for ‘butterfly’ listed in Table 1 are extremely ancient, and most likely traceable to Proto-Human. Also present in Proto-Human were at least two mechanisms for the creation of phonosymolic words:

(a) simple reduplication of the type PVR(V)PVR(V), as shown in Table 2, from which the variants in Table 3 can be derived; and

(b) partial reduplication of the type PùPVLV (with r ~ l apophony: see Bengtson 1998), as shown in Table 4. Subsequent to the initial creation of these words, phonosymbolism continued to exert a centripetal or preservative force, keeping the words similar after geographic dispersal.

References

Bengtson, John D. 1998. “Consonantal Ablaut (Apophony) in Proto-Human.” Mother Tongue 4: 138-140.

Bengtson, John D., and Merritt Ruhlen. 1994. “Global Etymologies.” In M. Ruhlen, On the Origin of Languages, by, pp. 277-336. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Cassidy, Frederic G. 1985. Letter to John D. Bengtson, dated 23 November 1985.

Trask, R.L. 1997. The History of Basque. London, New York: Routledge.

Wescott, Roger Williams. 1974. “Types of Apophony in Proto-Speech.” In Language Origins, ed. by R.W. Wescott, Silver Spring, Md.: Linstok Press.

Wescott, Roger Williams. 1998. “Consonantal Apophony in Indo-European Animal Names.” Mother Tongue 4: 126-137.

 

******

References

Bengtson, John. 1989. “Letter from John D. Bengtson Responding to Hal Fleming’s Editorial Essay.” Mother Tongue. November December 1989, pp. 7-10.

Kimball, Geoffrey. 1994. “Comparative Difficulties of the “Gulf” Languages.” In Langdon, Margaret (ed.), Proceedings of the Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous languages of the Americas July 2–4, 1993 and the Hokan-Penutian Workshop July 3, 1993 (both held at the 1993 Linguistic Institute at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio). Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report 8. Berkeley: University of California.

The Catholic Church in Latin America

Do you think churches, private schools should pay property taxes? In Latin America, the Catholic Church probably doesn’t pay property taxes and usually supports the Far right conservatives that you and me greatly despise. I think the Catholic Church plays a big role in upholding the oligarchy land power in Latin America do you agree?

Um I’m not sure to what extent that is true. There’s also a lot of Liberation Theology being preached all over Latin America. Keep that in mind. The Vatican used to look dimly at it, but it’s very common at the parish and lay worker level. In Latin America you have murals of leftwing guerrillas waging battle led by Jesus Christ holding an automatic weapon. The mural will have leftwing slogans written all over it. There is a strain of Liberation Theology that can be seen as “Jesus Christ with a machine gun leading a guerrilla column into a war against the rich.”

The Sandinistas had a lot of church people on their side. One of their leaders was a former priest.

In Colombia, the priests helped the leftwing guerrillas. The ELN guerrillas were founded by Camilo Torres, a priest preaching Liberation Theology, the original “priest with an automatic weapon.” The ELN still has deep roots in the church. A lot of the churches in FARC territory support the FARC.

An Irish priest from the US led a guerrilla column in Honduras in 1983 until he was killed.

Same in El Salvador. The Salvadoran guerrillas had deep roots in the church. Remember when the death squads assassinated the five top priests in the country in 1989 for being “the brains behind the guerillas?” Remember when Bishop Romero was assassinated in 1980 for preaching Liberation Theology? The FMLN Leftist guerrillas in El Salvador were practicing Catholics.

The Chavistas in Venezuela are Catholics and Chavez was a practicing Catholic.

Towards the end of his life, Fidel Castro said he was a “cultural Catholic.” There is a lot of “Catholic Communist” thinking coming out of Cuba these days and now many Communist Party members are believers who attend mass. There were also many “Communist Catholics” in the Czech Republic.

Aristide of Haiti was a priest.

The Leftist leader of Paraguay was a former priest.

In Peru, a lot of priests at the parish level even supported the Shining Path!

Remember Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker newspaper? In the US, the Church has often been quite liberal.

It all depends on the country.

Yes, the church hierarchy traditionally supported the elites in part of a deal to let the elites take power and lay off the church, but this all changed with the advent of Gustavo Gutierrez “Theology of Liberation” published in 1965 advocating “the preferential option of the poor.”

A lot of the militarizes down there back in the 1980’s used to have this attitude of the Church as being a hotbed of Communist subversion.

Catholicism lends itself to both rightwing and leftwing thinking due to the nature of the Church. Church doctrine can be interpreted either towards the Right or Left depending on which type of thinking you wish to emphasize.

Protestantism tends to have a rightwing bias pretty much baked into it.

Alt Left: The People Choose Democracy over Aristocratic Rule in Latin America

Down in Latin America, once the Left takes over the state, they prove to be so popular with the poor majority that the oligarchic parties of authoritarian Right shrink to ~27% support on average. The Venezuelan and Nicaraguan opposition parties routinely poll ~25-30%.

The Right literally cannot win in places that have tasted socialism like Nicaragua and Venezuela. The only way they win is by cheating, election fraud/rigging, and coups of various kinds – electoral, lockout, economic, legislative, judicial, and military. Or they run as Leftists and then turn hard right the minute they get in like Lenin Moreno in Ecuador.

In other places, people seem to be rejecting aristocratic rule.

A majority in Colombia seems poised to elect a fairly leftwing politician.

A literal Marxist, a Palestinian Chilean, has been leading polls in Chile for some time now.

A Marxist just barely won the Presidency in Peru.

The rightwing coup in Bolivia was overthrown, and the Left won handily again.

Argentina has been electing the leftwing Peronist Fernandez dynasty for some time now. The only way the Right won last time was because rightwing banksters on Wall Street deliberately crashed the economy so the Right got in on the protest vote.

In Paraguay, the last democratic election elected a Leftist, a former priest. He was overthrown in a legislative coup, and it’s been a rightwing dictatorship ever since.

Honduras elected a leftwinger, and a moderate one at that, in its last democratic election. The US immediately sponsored a coup, and it has been a rightwing military dictatorship ever since.

The Left has been winning in various Caribbean islands for some time.

Haiti has been under one form or another of rightwing dictatorship ever since US Special Forces removed President Aristide at gunpoint in a military coup. Aristide’s party, Lavalas, was extremely popular and got 92% of the vote in the last election. The only way the Right has stayed in power since then is by outlawing the Lavalas Party and banning Aristide from returning.

The fascist Bolsonaro is now unpopular, and the moderately leftwing Workers Party is now ahead in the polls. The PT was removed in a judicial coup via lawfare with the help of the US FBI (I knew there was a reason I hated feds). The President and Vice President were literally put in prison on completely fake charges. This is the only Bolsonaro got in. However, Brazil definitely has a significant base for fascism as in Colombia for whatever reason.

Lopez Obrador or AMLO for short won the recent election in Mexico, a country long marred by extreme election fraud. He’s the most leftwing president in some time. However, he has governed from the Center. Nevertheless, the Mexican oligarchy (with deep ties to the Catholic Church) nevertheless has been threatening a coup ever since he took office.

The Right only won in Ecuador last time around because Lenin Moreno banned the leftwing party and exiled its leader, Correa. The government has stated that he will be jailed if he returns. The charges are faked. The Right only won last time around because the election was grossly unfair. There was no actual election fraud in terms of altering the vote, but the campaigning leading up to the election was grotesquely unfair.

Alt Left: Shut Up, Virginia Giuffre

Serial liar, faker, and professional victim Virginia Giuffre has filed a fake lawsuit against Prince Andrew, lying like a bitch that Andrew raped and sexually abused her repeatedly when she was underage at 17 years old.

Problem? Nobody raped anyone and Virginia (The Liar) Giuffre never got raped one time.

I suppose you could argue that Andrew may have committed statutory rape, but that’s not rape at all. Instead it’s simply illegal intercourse.

Second problem? Virginia Giuffre is a whore. A lowdown, lying, scamming prostitute of the lowest variety, lower even than most disgusting whores, and that’s pretty low.

What happened?

Giuffre decided at age 17 that her goal in life was to be a whore! That’s right, a prostitute. Such a noble calling. She somehow got in with Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail ring and she was basically offered a job working as a little teenie whore for Epstein’s Mossad spying blackmail ring. Of course, since her life dream was to be a lowly prostitute, she jumped at the chance.

Epstein et al were soon pimping her out to famous people, except it’s hard to call it pimping because they let her keep all the money.

The one famous incident with Prince Andrew occurred in the Virgin Islands. Giuffre was paid a measly $15,000 to have sex (excuse me, to get raaaaaaped) by Andrew. She reportedly had lots of fun screwing the guy, since by all accounts she was a little teen nympho slut.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was not underage! She was legal in the Virgin Islands, perfectly legal fresh teen pussy.

Now we move on to the other fake charges.

Turns out she had sex with Andrew several more times in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the UK.

Problem? 17 year old Virginia was perfectly legal teen snatch in New York, New Mexico and the UK. No rape. No statutory rape. No any kind of rape, except in her ditzy teen whore brain.

Now, moving on to Florida, we do have another matter. If she had sex with Andrew in Florida, she would have been underage, because the Age of Consent there is 18. But notice she was legal and of age in four different states or countries and illegal and underage in only one state? Big deal! That’s barely even a crime.

Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl is a garbage crime anyway. 17 year old girls are perfectly legal to fuck by any adult, even a 90 year old man, in most of the world. They’re only illegal in a few backwards places like Florida.

It’s perfectly reasonable to set an AOC at 16 or 17. Most of the world has it at ~16. Most of Europe has it at 15! There have been absolutely zero problems reported in any of these places by setting the AOC at 15-17.

Now setting an AOC at 15 is sketchy in the US because we are too backwards, puritanical, and weird to handle that low of an AOC. Europeans, being civilized, can cope with it but Americans are uncivilized backwards boors and sex-hating super-prudes, so we can’t deal.

However, there is an argument for making a Romeo and Juliet clause for 15 year old girls. In many states they are legal for men up to 18 or 19. Colorado is particularly reasonable in this regard, as 15 year old girls are legal for men up to age 24. I dated a lot of 15 year old girls as a boy and for few years into adulthood. They’re horny as Hell and from the point of view of a young man 18-21, they seem quite mature, about as mature as you are.

Now the problem is that wherever you put that AOC, men are going to start fucking those girls. Put it at 17? Men will fuck 17 year old girls. Put it at 16? Men will screw 16 year old girls. Put it at 15? Men will gleefully bonk 15 year old girls.

And if you put it at 13 or 14, men will jump on 13 and 14 year old girls. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, though sex with 14 year old girls and 18-21 year old men doesn’t bother me. The thing about this sort of sex is it seems a lot more ok when the man is very young because after all, college boys and young men have been screwing high school girls forever. It’s so natural it’s almost set in stone. But as the man gets older than, say, 25, a lot of people start getting a lot less comfortable with it for all sorts of reasons. And as he gets older and older, it gets less and less ok. This is fine with me and I understand people’s distaste for this sort of thing.

I’d like to keep the 13 and 14 year old girls illegal for most adults, though we definitely need a Romeo and Juliet clause for both of them. I’m not sure where to put the limits though.

I met some 14 year old girls at the store a while back. They were fooling around like teenagers. I looked at them real close and I thought, “You know what? These girls need to be protected from us men. And even more so, we men need to be protected from those girls!” We both need to be protected from each other. A good way to do that is with an AOC law because most men beyond age ~21 will start to seriously think twice about underage girls and men significantly older than that will avoid them as if they’re radioactive. Which they are, in a sense. Teenage girls are dangerous!

I think 13-15 year old girls ought to be legal for boys 13-17 though at the very least. We really need to stop putting kids in jail and on sex offender lists for having sex with each other. Guess what? Teenagers have a sex drive, often a raging one. And many, many of them engage in sexual behaviors and even have intercourse before age 18. It’s as common as dirt.

Now we do run into problems with Andrew and Giuffre due to the fact that Giuffre was more than just a teen slut. In fact, she was an out an out real thing teenage prostitute! What a noble, morally elevated female!

Now the problem is that in most of the US at least, it was perfectly legal to screw Giuffre for free, but automagically, one you pay her for screwing you, you’ve committed a crime. You can screw them all you want, but you just can’t pay them for it! I sort of like this law. We should extend to all women, not just the teenies. It sure would save us men an awful lot of money!

Now, buying a teenage prostitute under age 18 is illegal in the US. It doesn’t strike me as much of a crime because there are many enthusiastic schoolgirl prostitutes. But I don’t see how you make it legal either. Make it a misdemeanor. Instead, it’s a serious crime and worse that, it’s somehow or other sex trafficking!

Now sex trafficking is a completely abused term once the US Justice Department got a hold of it after Congress made a retarded law in the midst of a Sex Panic. Sex trafficking used to be pretty serious. It meant more or less sex slaves. These women are out and out sex slaves, being imprisoned or locked into service by evil pimps, mostly men. A lot are literally locked in and can’t escape while they are ordered to have sex with man after man.

It’s really gross and it’s a very serious crime. And the truth is that most pimping probably is trafficking. If the prostitutes are free to leave the pimp, it’s not, but when are they ever free to leave? Not real often. Pimps threaten to harm, hurt, or kill any prostitute who leaves their harem, so most prostitutes with pimps feel locked into them. Obviously, pimps are one of the dirtiest aspects of this dirty business.

However! The Justice Department decided to somehow include all underage teen prostitutes under the rubric of “trafficking,” which is quite dubious. I don’t mind a crime called Prostituting a Minor, but it sure as hell isn’t “trafficking.” Even worse, any man who patronizes an underage teen prostitute is himself somehow guilty of trafficking! You paid this 17 year old whore for sex, did the deed, and walked out. Turns out you just committed an act of sex trafficking! That’s absolutely ridiculous, but that’s the crazy new law.

As expected, the feminists took the ball, ran away with it, and were never seen again. The feminists have somehow decided that not only are sex slaves and teeny prostitutes being “trafficked,” but in fact, every single woman who is engaged in prostitution is engaged in sex trafficking! More properly, since feminists insist that women have agency, they are “being trafficked (by others, basically men).”

Notice how when feminists talk, women never have any agency? That means that they’re basically children and not responsible for any of their actions. Women never do anything. Everything that happens to a woman is not because she did it because I guess she can’t do anything, but instead it got done to her by someone else (typically an evil man).

I would say that according to this silly logic, prostitutes in business for themselves, which is lots of them, are apparently trafficking themselves! But feminists logically say this is not possible, and I agree. Instead they are argue that prostitutes in business for themselves are being trafficked by the male customers who purchase their services! So every time a man buys a whore, he’s “trafficking” her. Ridiculous, huh?

So it appears that the morally upright Ms. Giuffre, now older, wiser, and probably a lot less horny, was never raped even one time, ever. Statutory rape doesn’t count. It’s a bit hard to argue that she was being trafficked, but Maxwell and Epstein caught her trying to leave them a couple of times and brought her back and threatened her. Ok, now they’re trafficking her, so she was trafficked some of the time.

Giuffre was working very profitably for as a prostitute for the rich and famous from ages 17-23. So for most of her career, from ages 18-23, she was an adult, a grown woman. Giuffre claims that during this entire time, she was being “sexually abused” or “abused.” She never had real sex the whole time. Instead she had some weird abuse masquerading as sex. Are you sure you didn’t like it, Ms. Giuffre? A lot of women like that sort of thing, you know.

“Sexual abuse” is a term that has been tortured, raped, and murdered by sex-panicked morons for a very long time now. It used to refer to child molestation, which involves adults and children under 13. From 13-17, depending on the laws, there is no sexual abuse. There’s just statutory rape or illegal intercourse. It’s not possibly to sexually abuse a teenage girl and you certainly cannot abuse a grown woman because no matter how infantile her silly little brain is, she’s still an adult, at least chronologically. Sexual abuse literally means child molestation and I don’t mind referring to child molestation and sexual abuse. It’s a logical way to see it.

Somehow now teenage girls with ravenous, nymphomaniacal sex drives get “sexually abused” a good part of the time when they have sex, even when it’s consensual. In other words, the term for child molesting got inflated by dumbshits all the way to teenage girls and from there all the way to so-called adult women, assuming there even are in an emotional sense.

It’s bullshit. It’s nonsense.

Poor Virginia suffered through the horrific ordeal of getting paid $15,000 to fuck a hot, sexy older man. It boggles the mind. No doubt this indignity was inflicted on the poor virginal Virginia endless times. How did she ever recover from getting paid $15K to get laid by some hot dude? Obviously, she’s a survivor. How she survived such a horror is simply beyond me.

Poor girl! Girls are crying! Poor Virginia! Virginia is crying! Poor women! Women are crying!

She never got sexually abused even one time except in her tiny little pea brain. And of course she never got raped even one time except her the fever dreams of her mind. Now she may well have been trafficked.

Virginia, I will take time out for abusing your sorry ass here to tell you that I am very sorry that these low lifes basically imprisoned you as a sex slave. I really am truly sorry.

And I hope whatever damage this may have caused you – and it may well have done so – you are able to get over it and move it. I’m sorry you got taken back and threatened when you tried to run away. At that point, Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking you. That’s a serious crime, and I hope you can make peace with it, and I mean that with all my heart, dear.

Now that I am done addressing Ms. Giuffre, back to the story.

95% of Virginian Giuffre’s story is a pathetic joke. It’s not even true. She’s just another silly bitch trying to milk us men for everything we’ve got like so many of her sisters. I hope she decides to do something more productive and dignified with her life than act like a baby, be a permanent victim, and make a living scamming men.

Want to See the Future of America? Look at Latin America

White nationalists are constantly fearmongering that the future of the US is South Africa.

Let’s look at some statistics:

Percentage          Whites   Blacks  Other

US                      62         13       25

South Africa        9           88       3

Tell you what. When the Black population of the US nears 88%, come talk to me about how we are turning into South Africa. Until then, it’s just more White nationalist lunacy and idiocy and even, I might add, mental disorder (paranoia).

Instead, look south. Yes, yes, yes look to Latin America. A 100X yes! However, I cannot find a Latin American country which will resemble the US in the future. Look at California. Our state is probably the future of the country. Liberal Democrats, basically, and trending left. We’re almost going social democrat here; we’re hardly even liberals anymore!

Other than that, a number of our cities have degraded somewhat because as a city goes from White to Hispanic, there is a decline, though not a great one. It becomes a fairly upgraded version of Mexico. But crime is pretty low and behavior is pretty civilized. Be careful who you make friends with because a lot of Hispanics are not ok. They don’t bother strangers. The gang feuds are often not major problems, and they leave Whites out of it, as we are not in their wars.

Most Hispanics IMHO consider themselves honorary Whites or almost Whites. They don’t look at us as aliens. They all came from countries were Whites are just another meaningless ethnic group. Most don’t hate Whites at all.

Where a city goes full Mexican, it essentially collapses and turns into Mexico. As long as there is a base of at least 10% Whites to keep the lights on, collapse is averted. Hispanics need Whites. They can’t really cut it without us.

Other than that, there is a sense of alienation in Hispanic cities as if one is living in a foreign country in your own land, along with foreign mariachi music and a fairly foreign and quite socially conservative culture. The men are very macho so if you act masculine, you’re one of them. It’s a patriarchal society, so if you’re a man, you’re now part of the ruling group.

Spanish is spoken everywhere, so you might want to learn a phrase or two. You speak two sentences of their language, and they treat you like family and almost try to hug you. I speak Spanish fairly well so they love me.

Plus I don’t hate Hispanics. I’ve almost become an honorary Mexican myself. Mexican after all is not a racial group. Most of them are pretty nice people, especially the recent immigrants who hardly speak a word of English. I speak Spanish to them so they treat me like a hero.

There’s little feminism because most Hispanics hate feminism (social conservatives). Gays are very toned town too if they exist at all because the culture doesn’t like it. Young Hispanic gays in cities like mine usually just take off for some gay Mecca. Homosexual behavior in straight men, common among Whites if not hip, is extremely frowned upon. You call a man a fag here, and you will get hit! However, among 2nd and especially 3rd generation young Hispanics, all of this is changing, and there is a lot of SJWism, BLM support, and acceptance of sexual weirdness.

Overall, Hispanics are not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you can live with them, or at least I can. I will not live with Blacks, that is, cities with large Black populations. Get out of here with that noise.

Cuba, A Failed State?

President Biden insists that Cuba is a failed state.

Nope.

They have the best education system in Latin America.

The highest rate of physicians to population on Earth.

A medical system so good that extremely rightwing anti-Communist fanatics all over Latin America gave been flying there for years. A lot of people now fly there for medical tourism, but the state charges them.

Cuba is a world leader in the medical technology field, and it competes well against capitalist corporations.

They still make the best cigars on Earth.

A very high % of the people have university degrees and advanced degrees.

This tiny island with noting under a total blockade just marketed an excellent Coronavirus vaccine, and it has four more in the pipeline.

Its COVID rate and death rate is the lowest in Latin America.

It has the highest number of agronomists per capita on Earth.

Some people are making good money with their small restaurants, especially the ones they set up in their homes or as bed and breakfasts. There are parts that are so prosperous you would think you were in Europe.

They’ve eliminated rural poverty.

And best of all, Cuba is beating the US in life expectancy and infant mortality! Pathetic! Cubans live longer and have less important mortality than we do, a country that is nine times wealthier!

Tell me again how great US capitalism is. We are an order of magnitude wealthier, and they’re beating us in essential health figures. US capitalism is pathetic! We’re getting our butt kicked by some tiny, impoverished, blockaded island! If our system is so great, why can’t we beat Cuba?

Alt Left: Fascist States around the World in the Past Century

I will be leaving World War 2, where many such regimes were created in  Europe, out of this discussion because I don’t understand it well.

A discussion of fascism is very important because the Republican Party is already a fascist political party in the sense of a rightwing authoritarian party along Latin American oligarchy lines.

The Type of State the Republicans Are Aiming At

Similar regimes were installed in Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Iran, Turkey (a Mussolinist + Nazi extrerminationist model), Greece, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Zaire, Kenya, Liberia, Indonesia (a classic Mussolinist model), Philippines, South Korea, Brunei, Taiwan, South Vietnam, Thailand, Nepal, Gabon, Angola, and South Africa, not to mention the many such regimes installed in Latin America, where the rightwing authoritarian or dictatorship regime has become a classic model. Many of these had a fake democratic facade over what was basically a dictatorship.

Nazi extreminationism with an ethnic component has been installed in Turkey and possibly Azerbaijan. Those models are governing to this day in the fake Croatian and Serbian states inside Bosnia. The present Croatian and Serbian regimes have overtones of WW2 like fascism, as does Hungary under Orban. Nazi-style exterminationist regimes, albeit with Communists and leftwingers substituted for Jews, have been installed in Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan in the past.

One could argue that Israel is now a Mussolinist style fascist government, albeit with a facade of democracy in which various fascist parties compete to rule the fascist state.

Rightwing Authoritarian Models in Latin America in the Last Century

It’s not so much the Nazi, National Socialist or classic fascist models of World War 2, although Trump and Berlusconi do resemble Mussolini, and Berlusconi created a classic Mussolinist fascist state in Brazil along the lines of the previous years of Operation Condor in Pinochet’s Chile, Velasco’s Argentina, the generals’ Brazil, Salazar’s Paraguay, the Uruguayan dictatorship, and Banzer’s Bolivia.

Somewhat different but similar “kill the Communists” regimes were created in Ecuador in the 1980’s, Fujimora and Belaunde’s Peru, Venezuela in the late 80’s, Uribe and many others’ Colombia (where it has become the only form of the state and Uribismo is almost a classic fascist Mussolinist model), Somoza’s Nicaragua, Bautista’s Cuba, Trujillo’s Dominican Republican, Rios Montt’s Guatemala, and ARENA, D’Aubisson, and Duarte’s El Salvador, Haiti under the Duvaliers, where it became a model followed to this day, and the present government of the generals in Honduras.

The model has not yet been installed in much of the Caribbean, Belize, Costa Rica, Panama, Mexico, and the Guyanas, but it’s been generalized as the classic model in Latin America in general for over a century now. There are rumblings now to create another rightwing authoritarian regime in Peru and Mexico.

Counterrevolution is ongoing in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela and has succeeded recently in Ecuador, Paraguay, Brazil, Bolivia, and Haiti. There were recent rumblings in Argentina, where the large landowners (who were never broken up as there was no land reform)  were making threats of a coup if their riches were touched. There were failed attempts recently in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Another attempt is ongoing in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Alt Left: Malcolm X on Gusanos (Worms) or Anti-Castro Cubans

I have to say that in a lot of ways, Malcolm really as a great man. Notice to the gusanos rioting now in Cuba. The people are not with them at all, trust me. Only 10,000 demonstrated all over the island. Most of them were young people, often teenagers, and some were marginal elements, often lumpens, typically criminals or those who refuse to work. There were some bourgeois elements in Havana.

In the town where the demonstrations originated, even there, they were not the majority. Much larger pro-government groups went out to confront he vendepatrias (countrysellers) at every demonstration. In the town where they claimed to take over the Young Communists headquarters, even there, their crowd of 200 was outnumbered by a crowd of 400.

There are very serious problems in Cuba, but 100% of them have to do with the blockade. The things that the contras want will not solve any problems and their heroes in the US and in the Latin American Right are the ones who caused all these problems in the first place. Cuba’s income has collapsed by 80% due to COVID. They have a very hard time importing much of anything due to the embargo and anything they do import has to go through third parties, etc. and the markups end up being considerable.

So Cuba is not able to engage with the world on a free trade basis at all. For instance, the electricity plants have not been maintained since 2014 because the embargo prevents the importation of spare parts. Cuba could not import any ventilators for COVID due to the blockade which covers all medicines and medical supplies and most foods, so they had to build their own.

This tiny country, blockaded by the whole world, was able to build their own ventilators. Cuba’s rate of saving hospitalized COVID patients is very high despite a serious shortage of drugs. The country has made five different COVID vaccines. The first, with an efficacy rate of 93%, has just been released for emergency use. Nevertheless, the epidemic is hitting them very hard and they have had to expand medical facilities because existing ones were not adequate to cover the problem.

But the new facilities and the overwhelming of the hospitals due to COVID overwhelmed the electricity system. The heat added to the strain. Workers came from all over the country and worked all week to get one substation running, but the temporary fixes usually only last for a month.

Food and medicine has collapsed because of the economic collapse and the embargo preventing Cuba from buying these things on the open market. You have to stand in line for hours for basic necessities. Furthermore, an opening of the economy to market conditions has resulted in a lifting of price controls. The result has been that prices have risen 3X. So you can see that moving towards capitalism caused inflation to skyrocket in Cuba.

Furthermore, most goods are now available only at special currency stores, but most people do not have access to that special currency. The regular currency stores are empty. The result has been that huge mafias have developed who buy things wholesale from the special currency stores and then resell them in the regular currency, but they are marked up by up to 3X. However, there are up to 500,000 of these criminals in Cuba now and there doesn’t seem to be much to do about them. The cops don’t even really try to stop them.

The truth is that since most people only have access to regular currency, the existence of these resellers and mafias seems to be inevitable as that is the only way that ordinary people can buy what they want. There are a lot of complaints about these special stores and the state currency manipulations that they are a result of, but the currency decisions seem to be based on sound, if rather capitalist, economics. I don’t know what can be done about the problem of these stores.

I really don’t know what the Cuban government could do to make any of the problems of the country go away. Can someone please tell me what the government should do to go about making even one of these problems they have better?

Most Cubans know capitalism up front, and they explicitly dislike the very idea of it. They don’t even like the US model. And the Latin American models of capitalism don’t like very enticing compared to what Cubans already have. Even the Dominican Republic, Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, and even Uruguay seem pretty awful compared to Cuba.

For one thing, there is almost no crime in Cuba and the drug use and sales rate is very low. There is almost no drug smuggling. There are no street gangs to speak of, nor are there any beggars in the streets.

During the decade when Nicaragua switched to capitalism, the roads were full of potholes and were nearly undriveable, children carried their chairs to school every day because the school had no chairs for the students, the streets were lined with dirty, hungry children and the first word out of their mouths was to ask you for a coin. Now that Ortega and the Sandinistas are back, all of that is gone. Nicaraguans have lived under both the Sandinistas and their capitalist rightwing enemies and they majority do not want the Right to come back into power any time soon. They have seen how the Right acts when they are in power.

If they let them back in, they will do the same thing all over again. The Venezuelans are the same way. The Right has only ever espoused dismantling every since achievement of the Chavistas. However, 70% of the population support the Chavista project and describe themselves as Chavistas. With a population of 70% Chavistas and an opposition that has pledged to dismantle the entire project, is there any wonder that the Chavistas win by ~70% every time? Why wouldn’t they?

And Nicaragua is sending very few immigrants to the US. The Central American immigrants flooding “the misery, crime, violence, and poverty” of the region are all coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They are not coming from Nicaragua. There’s a reason for that. Also, Nicaragua has had very low rates of COVID cases and deaths, while at least Guatemala was utterly devastated by the disease.

It is true that there are contras in Cuba. It’s certainly not illegal to be a contra and they are quite easy to find. Contras represent ~14% of the population because that is how many people voted agains the last Constitution. The contras calling for a US fake humanitarian intervention and invasion are certainly much less than that.

Guaido, the Venezuelan contra, had 4% support last I heard. His project of sanctions and US invasion has 12% support. Sanctions themselves have only 18% support. The general opposition has ~27% support.

The Right has ruled Haiti since 1994 when Lavalas was overthrown by the US and Aristide was forced into exile. Aristide won 92% of the vote the last time he ran. That’s how many Haitians supported and support Lavalas. All of the US-installed regimes ever since have had the support of ~8% of the population.

The opposition in Nicaragua also has ~25%. The last poll had them at 23%. However, the position of the contras who tried to overthrow the government with a violent coup in 2018 has only 15% support. The latest poll shows Ortega winning 77%-23% against the opposition.

It is not true that the opposition is being forbidden from running. Some people who took money from the US to stage a violent attempt to overthrow the government have been arrested. Others have had their political privileges revoked for life. This is exactly what should happen to all of the Venezuelan coup-mongers, and some are already under house arrest or have been banned from politics for 15 years. None of these Nicaraguan coup plotters were candidates for any political party.

The US has been trying to insert these traitors in the political parties since 2018, but no party will take them. These are not politicians. They are not even associated with any political party. In fact, there are 17 different political parties running against the Sandinistas in the upcoming election. It’s perfectly legal to be in the opposition in Nicaragua. You only must follow the laws. As in Venezuela, the Nicaraguan contras are only ~25% of the population and they can never win at the ballot box, so they try to overthrow the government by force again.

The thing is that the contras in Cuba are all reactionaries. They wave American flags and they all want to go to neoliberalism. They are rioting because COVID is peaking in Cuba, but even there, Florida, a very wealthy capitalist state in the US, has had twice as many cases per capita and five times as many deaths per capita. In the Latin American countries that the US-flag waving mercenaries emulate, COVID death rates are 10, 20, and 50X higher than in the US.

Even in the “successful” Latin American countries like Chile, COVID has been disastrous. By the way, Chile is hardly a model for Latin America. The place is a disaster.

It’s not some groovy West European social democracy. There are no groovy West European social democracies in Latin America. The people who are trying to emulate just that are Maduro, Ortega, Correa, Fernandez, Lula, Morales, and the recent winner in Peru, Castillo – the ones who are being called Communist Pink Tide countries. An actual Communist is ahead in the polls in Chile and a moderate Leftist appears poised to win even in Colombia, the last holdout of the populist Right.

All of these people who have already served in power have either all been overthrown by the US or there have been attempts to overthrow them.

The US only tolerates hard Right regimes in Latin America. This has always been the case. Part of the problem is that Latin America never had Social Contracts as Europe did. The oligarchs and the Right have always been reactionary and fascist and are to this day.

In contrast, in Europe, the true reactionaries and fascists are all but defeated, and social democracy rules the day. Latin American style Rightists do not exist in Europe. The only thing close to that economically was in Eastern Europe in the Baltics, and these places failed horrifically with the 2008 Depression. Even Poland and the Czech Republic are not so rightwing as everyone thinks.

The most rightwing government in Europe is in the UK, and they are to the Left of the Democratic Party.

Republican Party-Latin American Right economics is unpopular all over the world.

I will grant that it is popular in a few places. It retains majority support in Colombia, but with the recent riots and the genocidal response of the regime to them, this seems to be ending. In Hong Kong and Singapore, two very wealthy more or less “fake states” – fake because these states cannot be replicated elsewhere – rightwing economics remains popular. However, the working classes in Hong Kong mostly support China and hate the rightwing government, and in Singapore, the main opposition party has Marxist roots.

The way of the world seems to be socialism or at least some kind of socialism, at the very least some variety of social democracy. Neoliberalism is disliked or even hated on most of the planet. Bottom line is nobody likes it and nobody wants it. In places where it gets polled as in Latin America, it has the support of 8-27% of the population, with an average of 26% support for the project in general which declines to 8-18% when it comes to the coup-mongering Right that calls for sanctions, violent coups and US interventions. This is the political demographic of the oligarchs and their supporters.

It’s minority now and appears to be minority for quite some time into the future. Economic conservatism and conservatism in general believe in rule by the aristocracy or oligarchy. Liberalism by contrast means rule by democracy or rule by the people. As the aristocrats, oligarchs and their supporters are always a minority – 25-30% seems to be a good ballpark figure, they generally hate democracy and tend to rely on antidemocratic means of getting in and staying in power.

Alt Left: Why We Fight (PFLP version)

The great “Conversation between the Sword and the Neck interview with Ghassan Kanafani, the great Palestinian revolutionary of the PFLP. He was one of the founders of the organization. He was a revolutionary who never held a gun. His weapon was the pen. He was also a great poet and novelist. He was assassinated by the Zionist Entity on this day in Beirut, Jerusalem in 1972. This is a very famous interview that was done with him by some sellout Western journalist. It is so perfect.

Anyone on the Left and anyone in particular who believes in the Black freedom struggle of the Panthers, etc. against racism, etc. should support the Palestinian movement. This is a movement for liberation by a colonized people and Black and Hispanic people really should support all such movements, since in they were all colonized people at one point or another.

Everyone on the Left who wonders about the validity of this struggle, an essential struggle for basic civil rights, should pay close attention to this video. It will answer all of your basic questions about the conflict right there. Also if you have some liberal worries about the Palestinians being backwards and reactionary and the Israelis being progressive and modern, remember what Stalin said about the necessity of forming alliances with just about everyone against imperialism.

Stalin formed alliances with many backwards and socially reactionary people such as Muslims in his war against imperialism. “If they are against imperialism, then we need to ally with them,” was his mindset. Also, keep in mind that peasants and working class people all over the world are often deeply backwards and socially reactionary or even barbaric. This does not mean, as the anarchists claim, that they are fascists!

The workers must be supported in all cases. Their backwards views are unfortunate but they are for them to own and do with what they will. If the progressive forces capture a country, social revolutions can unfold in which the working people are gently brought into a more modern and less barbarous mindset. This worked very well in many places such as the USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and Venezuela. It was always a pretty easy sell to gently bring people along to the ideas that women and other oppressed peoples were in need of their basic rights.

This business of “We must support Israel because Palestinians are backwards and don’t give women basic rights” is liberal bourgeois imperialism – the “imperialism of human rights.” It is essential to the worldview of liberal Democrat “humanitarian bombers” like Joe Biden and Samantha Power. It’s just another imperialist trick! Don’t fall for it!

Alt Left: Argument: There Is No Peaceful Road to Socialism

Transformer: I saw this on Facebook with a discussion about Communism and this is a statement from a Libertarian:

The Marxist delusion of no government always leads to absolute tyranny. The anarcho-communists sweep away tolerably governments and pave the way for the Stalins, Maos, Pol Pots, Castros, Mugabes, Chavezes, etc. It’s not that they justify Stalinism, but that they justify measures that always result in Stalinism, and they still don’t have a clue as to why that keeps happening.

I disagree with his statement that the governments before these revolutions were tolerable.

The CIA supported Pol Pot.

Yes, the US supported Pol Pot the whole time they were in and for many years afterwards as guerrillas.

You are certainly free as a liberal to Leftist to oppose Marxism. A lot of people on the Left, especially liberals, are against Marxist dictatorships. There’s a good argument against them. They’re not exactly democratic.

Chavez was not a dictator at all. Venezuela under Chavez was one of the most democratic countries on Earth. Mugabe wasn’t really a dictator. The opposition always ran in every election, and Mugabe always got the most votes not counting fraud. Same thing in Russia. Putin always gets the most votes whether he steals a few or not. Same thing in Belarus. The opposition runs every time and Lukashenko always gets 75-80% of the actual counted votes. There was no fraud in the last election.

There’s never been any serious electoral fraud in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Haiti, Iran, Syria, or Peru or most places the US has alleged that massive electoral fraud allowed the Left to win. I can’t recall the last time the Left anywhere on Earth had to steal an election to win. It’s usually the Right who does that.

Anarcoms have never completed a successful revolution. The no government thing is supposed to be way off in the future and it’s never happened anywhere. The “Stalinism” is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s part of Marxist theory. It’s not an aberration or anything. Look at Honduras, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Bolivia, Guyana, Peru, Mexico, Italy, Ecuador, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Iran, etc.

There’s no peaceful way to put the Left in power. Anytime a Left government comes in, there’s this nonstop war to overthrow it, usually culminating in a rightwing fascist coup. They always ruin the economy, first and foremost. This is why orthodox Marxists regard the peaceful road to socialism as either a sick joke or a great idea that is not possible in the real world. Lenin called advocates of the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.”

Alt Left: Rural Land Reforms: An Overview

What’s odd is that imperialism went along with land reforms in a lot of other places such as Europe and the Middle East. All of the Middle East has done a land reform.

That was one thing the wave of Arab nationalist leaders who came to power in 1950-1970 did right away, including the Baath in Iraq and Syria, Yemen, Nasser in Egypt, the FLN in Algeria, Tunisia, and Qaddafi in Libya.

I believe there was some type of land reform done in Palestine too. If you read Ghassan Kanafani, the Palestinian Leftist, in the 1930’s, he talked about how terribly exploited the Arab fellahin or peasants were in Palestine.

If you went to Yemen in the 1960’s, there was a portrait of Nasser in every house.

I’m not sure if a land reform was ever done in Morocco. It’s been ruled by a fairly rightwing king for a long time.

A land reform was probably done in Lebanon, but I don’t have details. Likewise with Jordan.

Nothing grows in the Gulf anyway, so there’s no need for a reform.

I’m not sure about Sudan or Mauritania, but I doubt much grows in Mauritania except date palms.

In all of these places, land reform was a very easy sell for whatever reason, probably because neoliberal capitalism seems to be antithetical to Islam itself. The feudal lords of the former Ottoman Empire had tried to justify feudalism on the basis that in the Koran it says something like, “Some are rich and some are poor, and this is a natural thing” but that never went over too well.

The idea that in an Islamic country, the rich Muslims were viciously exploit the poor Muslims is nearly haram on its face. You just can’t do that. All Muslims are part of the ummah. All the Muslim men are your brothers and all the Muslim women are your sisters. Also individualism never made it to any part of the Muslim World other than the Hindu variety in Pakistan and Bangladesh, but that’s not really the same radical individualism that we have in the West. It’s just an ancient caste based system.

The first thing the Communists did in Eastern Europe was to do a land reform. You will never hear it here in the West, but until 1960, the Communist regimes in the East were very popular with industrial workers and also with the peasants.

In most of the world, peasants and rural dwellers are leftwingers. This is even the case in Western Europe in France.

The US is odd in that it’s farmers are so reactionary. That goes against the usual trend.

Yes, farmers are said to be conservatives, but that usually just means social conservatism. In most of the world, peasants are literally Alt Left: left on economics and right on social and cultural issues.

A land reform was definitely done in Iran.

Obviously one was done in the USSR, and the large landowners have not yet consolidated themselves in the former USSR, mostly because everybody hates them. Large landowners have taken over some of the state farms in Russia, but for whatever reason, they are not very productive. In fact, many of the state farms are still in existence. I am not sure what sort of arrangement they have now.

50% of the food in the Russia comes from small farms, typically grown on dachas. Dachas were vacation homes that were given to all Soviet workers. They were also given a bit of land, enough to grow some crops on. After 1991, all workers were allowed to keep their dachas and small plots. This was a great idea because most of the produce in Russia is coming right off of these farms.

After World War 2, the US supported land reforms in some places as a way of heading off a Communist threat. This is one great thing about the Communists. So many great steps of social progress were only done out of fear or terror that if these were not done, the Communists would take over. Now that that threat is gone, one wonders what motivation the oligarchs have to give up anything.

In particular, land reforms were done in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They went over very easily. And in fact, the subsequent economic growth occurred right on the back of these reforms. There is a good argument that you can never develop a proper economy without first doing a land reform.

First of all, you need to get rid of the problem of rural poverty.

Second of all, you need to feed your own people. Large landowners in these countries typically grow food for export or simply fallow the land and keep it as an income base or a source of wealth.

When crops are grown for export, there is a problem in that the nation does not grow enough food to feed its people. This is a problem in Cuba and Venezuela right now, and it should not be. These are very fertile countries and there is no need to import food, but they have gotten hooked on some sort of “crack” of importing their food for whatever reason, possibly because most of their farmland was being used to grow crops for export.

When a nation can feed itself, this means it can feed its urban workers. This is extremely important and it is part of the reason that Stalin went at such breakneck speed in his collectivization. He had to feed his urban workers so he could industrialize because even back then, he was looking into the future and seeing that he was going to have to fight Hitler.

I’m not quite sure why, but no country seems to be able to properly industrialize and develop as long as the problem of rural poverty exists.

And once you are feeding your own people, you have solved a lot of other problems. Money that would be wasted importing inferior food from the West, especially the US, can now be spent on actual development of a national economy. The elimination of rural poverty gets rid of a constant revolutionary bur in the side of the state.

The US has always opposed land reform in Latin America because large US corporations are usually involved in growing foods for export down there. See Dole Pineapple in Guatemala. We want all of their agricultural land to go for export crops so US corporations can grow those crops or make money importing them. And we do not want them to grow their own food. That way there won’t be so much land for export crops which we need to make money off of.

Also, we want them to spend all of their food money importing lousy processed food from the US. So we make money on food both ways – importing food from crops grown for export to the US and in exporting processed food to the Latin America. This processed food is not very good for you and it is implicated in a lot of health problems in these places.

This is why the US opposes most efforts at land reform in the Americas.

An exception was made in El Salvador. After 200,000 people died, the US and the Salvadoran oligarchs were forced to the negotiating table and a land reform was one of the first things they pushed. I recall a piece written soon afterwards where the reporter went out to the rural areas and interviewed recipients of the land reform. They basically said, “Well, at least we can eat now. It wasn’t like that before.”

In semi-feudal countries, there is debt bondage whereby large landowners rent out their land to sharecroppers or peasants who never seem to get out of debt. This is a very primitive form of development.

The Philippines is notable that there has never been a land reform. And of course they have a vicious Communist insurgency.

Nor has there been one in Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Paraguay, Honduras, or Argentina. The first five countries are horribly screwed up. Colombia and Paraguay have active armed leftwing guerrillas, and Guatemala did for many years. Haiti is a disaster. Honduras has a vicious rightwing dictatorship that has murdered over 1,000 people.

Argentina is mostly urbanized, but the landed rural elite still runs the country. Any talk at all of land reform or even taxation of large estates as was done recently under Christine Fernandez, and the ruling class starts making ominous threats of a coup. I assume something similar is going on in Uruguay. Those countries are urbanized though, so large landownership is not such a problem.

I’m not sure if there has ever been a land reform in Brazil, but there is no dearth of large landowners.

The fact that Colombia, Guatemala, and Haiti are so backwards is largely because there has never been a land reform.

The land reform was incomplete in Venezuela.

It is interesting that every country that fails to do a land reform seems to end up with a Communist or Leftist insurgency at some point or another. It’s almost without fail. This goes to show you that most Communist insurgencies in the Third World are over the most basic things dating all the way back to French Revolution: land and bread (food).

As far as land reforms go, they were done in Mexico, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Peru.

I’m not sure about Uruguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Jamaica, Belize, the Guyanas, Chile, and most of the Caribbean.

And I’m not sure if one ever got done in the Dominican Republic after Bosch.

In El Salvador, 200,000 had to die in order for a land reform to take place. Roberto D’Aubission, the godfather of the Salvadoran death squads and the most favored visitor at the US Embassy, once said that “We will have to kill 200,000 people in order to prevent socialism in El Salvador.” What he meant by socialism was land reform.

It is notable that no land reform was ever done in India, nor in Pakistan or even Bangladesh. I had a friend whose parents were large feudal landowners in Pakistan who rented out land to farmers who ended up in debt peonage. In 1986, 14 million people a year were dying of starvation related diseases in the capitalist world. Most of that was in South Asia in Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. Most of these deaths were attributed to the problem of the private ownership of land.

There is a problem with the private ownership of land. In the US, we think this is sacrosanct, but on a worldwide basis, it doesn’t work very well. What do you need all that land for? What do you need more than, say, an acre and a house? Nothing, unless you are a farmer.

In China, all land is owned by the state. All homeowners lease the land, often on 100 year leases. I’m not sure how it works in the countryside.

In Mexico, much of the land is owned by the state also, a product of the land reform that occurred after the Revolution. One of the major demands of the Revolution was land reform. Pre-revolution, most peasants usually lived like serfs. The state land in Mexico is called ejidos.

If you ever can’t make it in the city, if you become unemployed or homeless, you can always go out to the countryside and take up residence in an ejido, which are something like communal lands that are formed by the group that makes up the ejido. You join this group, work the land, and get a share of the crop. At least you have enough food to eat. So in Mexico the ejidos are a stopgap measure.

In China too, if you can’t make it in the city, you can always go back to the rural areas, take up residence, and work the land. At least you will have enough to food to eat. It is illegal to be homeless in China. If you are homeless, the police pick you up and put you in shelters, which are something like college dorms. They also encourage you to go back to the countryside if you have relatives back there. In recent years, many people have moved from the countryside to the cities to make more money. Those that don’t make it can always move back to the farm.

There was debate a while back about privatizing state land, but it ran aground on the idea that the state ownership of land was necessary as a stopgap measure in the event of urban poverty. In addition, state ownership of land has prevented the development of a national oligarchy or plutocracy.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been adamant that the  development of a national oligarchy or plutocracy must be prevented at all costs. Once they develop, they are sort of like an infection in that they soon spread and take over society. The CCP has billionaire party members who are members of the People’s Assembly.

Guess what these “Communists” are advocating for? Reduction or elimination of taxes on the rich, massive reductions in social spending, state repression of labor, and the privatization of land along with most of the rest of the economy. I think this goes to show you that billionaires are the same everywhere. Whether in a Communist or capitalist country, a rightwing or leftwing country, billionaires always have precisely the same class interests that barely vary at all. It’s usually something like this:

Reduction or elimination of taxes on the rich, massive reductions in social spending, state repression of labor, and the privatization of land along with most of the rest of the economy.

This goes to show that class interests of various classes are nearly a  law in a mathematical sense and not even a theory of social science. This was what Marx was getting at when he spoke of the laws of economics. They are so predictable that we can almost class them with the laws, theorems, and corollaries of mathematics instead of the typical “true for now” theories of most of the sciences.

I have a feeling that a Hell of a lot more things are laws, too, especially in terms of basic human behavior. So many of these things seem almost unchangeable. Of course they would never apply to everyone, but it’s pretty obvious that they are general tendencies.

Alt Left: Capitalism Will Always Tend Towards Fascism: Does that Mean It Is Fatally Flawed?

DiscoCat: The Far Left has an explicit goal of ending capitalism. The Far Right does not. This is why when forced to choose between the Far Right and the Far Left, liberals, capitalists, industrialists, and plutocrats will always choose the Far Right.

It is precisely for this reason that the wealthy industrialists and plutocrats in Germany supported Hitler’s chancellorship campaign in 1931. They didn’t give a flying fuck about his nationalism, bigotry, warmongering, and antisemitism. Most of the plutocrats probably thought Hitler’s ravings were just harmless antics to galvanize his base. Whatever it takes to rile up the mindless cattle and garner their support. All they cared about is that he would let them keep their ownership of the factories and protect their interests from socialists and communists.

The plutocrats will always support fascism as a bulwark against socialism if they feel the latter’s gaining popularity among the masses. They usually don’t like fascism but they’re driven to support it by pure self-interest and pragmatism.

Thank you very much for this comment! And by the way, welcome to the site if you are new here!

I have felt this way a long time myself. I think it goes deeper than this though. Many of the leftwingers that got overthrown by fascists were just liberals who did some tinkering around the edges. Arbenz in Guatemala and many others such as Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic were overthrown for trying to do a land reform. The leader of Honduras and Aristide in Haiti were overthrown by fascists for literally raising the minimum wage! That’s all they did. And Bill Clinton helped overthrow Aristide and Hitlery Clinton herself literally overthrew the leader of Honduras and installed a fascist coup that very quickly murdered 1,000 social activists.

This has happened many times. The new Peruvian leader has promised to do only very mild reforms and he’s already being called a Communist. The mild reformer of the PT, Lula, was overthrown in a judicial coup that was assisted by the FBI! I told you Feds are crap. Feds are the worst pigs of them all.

So I disagree where the poster says all of these people go fascist for fear that the Left will end capitalism. It appears that any threat to their profits at all is enough to cause the capitalists to put in a fascist regime. So I think the comment should be amended from fear of the overthrow of capitalism to the fear of any loss of profits and income at all.

A while back, I told my mother that down in Latin America, it is routine for the Right to murder trade unionists and union leaders. She shook her head and said, “That’s because down there, if you’re in a union, they think that means you’re a Communist.” I would point out that that was all done with the help of the US, especially the CIA.

The US has been murdering union members in Latin America for 60 years now, and probably even longer if you consider the Banana Revolt in the Uraba of Colombia in 1921. And every one of our Latin American interventions from 1910-1950 was done on the basis more or less of “kill the trade unionists,” among other things. The Sandinistas of Nicaragua are named after Augusto Sandino, the leader of Nicaraguan guerrillas who fought the US Marines in Nicaragua for many years.

That’s exactly correct. I’d like to add that not one thing has changed. Social activists including union members and leaders, are murdered every day in Colombia for years now.

Alt Left: “The Macroeconomics of Economic Populism in Latin America,” by Rudiger Dornbush and Sebastian Edwards

I didn’t actually read the book, but James Schipper did. Below I will quote from an article from NACLA that critiques the book well.

James Schipper: Perón came back from exile, and then won the election with a landslide. Unless the Argentines are complete political idiots, this demonstrates that he tried to accomplish something for the masses. Ordinary voters may not understand much about economics, but they usually sense who is on their side and who is not.

The US, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia are three Anglosphere countries that keep voting for rightwing economics despite themselves. The masses have been harmed by neoliberalism in all of these countries, but every four years, they march off and vote for it again. I think part of the problem is that ordinary people are voting against mass immigration and other leftwing stupidities in all of these countries. They don’t realize that neoliberalism comes as an add-on to anti-immigrant policies in the Anglosphere. Voters in the Anglosphere are political idiots.

You can see why people keep voting for the Chavistas in Venezuela. Sure, the economy is a mess, but no one blames the government. 70% of the population openly state that they are Chavistas. Things may be bad now but they know that the opposition is not their friend! This is why they keep voting for Ortega in Nicaragua, Lukashenko in Belarus, and Putin in Russia. These guys are on their side, and the voters can figure that out.

James Schipper: Many years ago, I read a book called The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, in which it is explained how leftist populists in LA, despite their unquestioned commitment to improving the economic lot of the poorest segment of the population, often fail because they overreach.

Wikipedia has an article called Macroeconomic Populism, which explains briefly how overambitious economic populism can backfire.

I would agree that acting too fast too soon isn’t a great idea and a slower approach might work better. But we don’t see a lot of cases of economic stupidity like this nowadays in Latin America.

Yes, I think that book is not good. One man worked for the World Bank. Their basic attitude is “Don’t rely on government to try to fix economic problems and help the poor. It fails every time.” In other words, it’s hopeless. Massive inequality a problem? Sure. What to do? Nothing! Because everything you do is going to fail. I dunno.

Here is a critique of the book:

https://nacla.org/news/2012/4/20/latin-america-unravels-populist-putdown

The book is referred to in this book review of another book as “an outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book.”

From the article.

Rudiger Dornbush, and Sebastian Edwards, two University of Chicago-trained economists.

See? They were both trained at the University of Chicago. That’s the home of Milton Friedman, neoliberalism, the Chicago Boyz, the neoliberal whiz kids who caused so much destruction all over the world, especially in Latin America. UoC/Friedmanite economics doesn’t work. Period. It causes massive inequality, significant gains for the top 20% and a serious drop in income for the bottom 80%. This is exactly what happened from 1980-1992 under Reagan-Bush. Sure, if you are in the top 20%, I would say neoliberal economics is the way to go. But if you’re not, it’s economic suicide.

They complain about D and E’s portrayal of Chile:

The most astonishing example of the book’s studied ignorance happens to be one of the most indisputable and well-documented examples of U.S. intervention: Chile.

According to Chapter 7 of Dornbush and Edwards’ book, written by Felipe Larraín (currently Chile’s Finance Minister) and Patricio Meller, the “decline and full collapse of the [Allende coalition government] experiment during the years 1972-73 is a clear consequence of the ‘successful’ overexpansive policies implemented in 1971.”

Never mind that Nixon reacted to the 1970 elections determined to “smash Allende,” telling then-CIA director Richard Helms to “make the economy scream.” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh details the earliest destabilization campaigns, carried out even before Allende took office:

Approval was granted for a last-minute increase of the propaganda activities designed to convince the Chilean Congress that an Allende election would mean financial chaos. Within two weeks, twenty-three journalists from at least ten countries were brought into Chile by the CIA, and they combined with CIA propaganda “assets” already in place to produce more than 700 articles and broadcasts both in and out of Chile before the congressional election – a staggering total whose ultimate influence cannot be measured.

By late September, a full-fledged bank panic had broken out in Santiago, and vast amounts of funds were being transferred abroad. Sales of durable goods, such as automobiles and household goods, fell precipitously; industrial production also dropped. Black-market activities soared as citizens sought to sell their valuables at discounted prices.

Ok that’s a case of capital flight. Venezuela had the same problem. All I can say is that it upholds Lenin’s idea that the peaceful road to socialism, while a great idea in theory, simply never works in real life because the capitalists simply sabotage the economy.

Larraín and Meller mention Nixon, Kissinger, Richard Helms, I.T.T., and/or Pepsi precisely zero times in their scholarly analysis. Whereas U.S. Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry threatened that “not a nut or bolt will be allowed to reach Chile under Allende,” doing “all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.”

Like I said, they failed badly to include the US massive economic war it waged against Chile. The same exact program was used against Venezuela, with the same results. The sanctions on Zimbabwe and Nicaragua also caused hyperinflation.

The only hyperinflation I’ve seen lately was caused by capitalists waging economic war against the state or by US sanctions. Usually both are going on at the same time. In Venezuela, the capitalists won’t stop raising prices. They love the hyperinflation because they’ve used it to play the currency black market to make a bundle. And they deliberately created it by shutting down production and hoarding goods.

At one point, Maduro put the army in charge of enforcing price controls, and the inflation stabilized for a while, but then they were withdrawn and they went back up again. However, after floating the currency along with a drop in the value of real wages and a reduction of most people’s savings, inflation was subdued. I’d hate to see these guys’ analysis of Venezuela. In fact, Krugman is already saying that Venezuela and Argentina are modern cases of this macroeconomic populism.

The authors argue instead that all state efforts to create a decent economy will fail and the only thing that will work is neoliberalism.

The authors explain that “the message emerging from the papers in this book is clear: the use of macroeconomic policy to achieve distributive goals has historically led to failure, sorrow, and frustration.” That’s why they helpfully disabuse Latin America of its “naive confidence in the ability of governments to cure all social and economic ills.”

However, neoliberalism doesn’t work either:

Second, it is worth noting that Cambridge development economist Ha-Joon Chang has analyzed the effects of these supposedly self-defeating macro policies. He finds on the contrary that “developing countries did not do badly at all during the ‘bad old days’ of protectionism and state intervention in the 1960s and 70s. In fact, their economic growth performance during the period was far superior [3.1% in per capita GDP a year for Latin America] to that achieved since the 1980s under greater opening and deregulation [1.1% a year from 1980-2009].

…And even that rate was partly due to the rapid growth of countries in the region that had explicitly rejected neoliberal policies sometime earlier in the 2000s  – Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela.” In fact, when Dornbush and Edwards published their book in 1991 denouncing “overly expansive” macro policies, Latin America and the Caribbean – largely compliant to IMF diktats at that point – had already averaged an entire decade of negative 0.3% growth rate per capita (1980-1990).

If you are going to read books about economics, I recommend Ha-Joon Chang. As you can see, neoliberalism in Latin America failed completely. Even its proponents admitted that it failed, but their attitude was the usual, “We didn’t give it time enough. Give it some more time and it will start working.” Yeah, right.

Larraín and Meller focus their attention exclusively on the macroeconomic policy errors of Allende’s Unidad Popular (UP) government. Its efforts to “increase real wages and to improve Chilean income distribution failed completely,” they contend, dryly adding that it “took eight years, up to 1981 (during the ‘peak of the boom’), for real wages to recover the level they had held in 1970 before the UP government.”

Larraín and Meller omit from this account Pinochet’s post-1973 reign of terror in which tens of thousands were imprisoned and killed and an economic policy during the dictatorship that led to virtually no growth in per capita income by 1986, 13 years after the coup.

See? Neoliberalism didn’t work either. It took until 11 years after Allende for real wages to reach the level they were under Allende. Then there was an economic crash. I believe it took until 1989 for wages to reach the level they were under Allende again. That’s just a complete failure of neoliberalism over 20 years.

Perhaps the paper’s most artful flourish is the cynical use of the impersonal, passive voice. Nixon directed a comprehensive program of economic sabotage literally bearing Secretary of State Kissinger’s signature. The U.S. funded all major anti-government strikes, the CIA penetrated all of Chile’s political parties, and it courted the military to foment a putsch.

From D and E:

Real wages dropped spectacularly, by -11.3% in 1972 and -38.6% in 1973. This last figure includes a 30% cut induced in the fourth quarter of 1973, after the military coup…[B]y the end of 1971 the signals of disequilibrium were clear for a dispassionate observer. Bottlenecks appeared in strength during 1972, and 1973 witnessed the collapse of the whole experiment. Political instability mounted, and a coup ultimately replaced the UP Government with a military junta [emphases mine].

It was all Allende’s fault. All of the economic sabotage and the economic war the US waged to make the economy scream? That did nothing at all! Seems like a very bad analysis.

Guys like D and E are still writing today:

Today, U.S. scholars carry on the dubious tradition of lambasting Latin American populism, whatever its prevailing definition. Due to South America’s general drift to the left in recent years, academics make increasingly strained attempts to “recognize” and discredit it. In an October 2011 paper entitled Decreasing Inequality Under Latin America’s ‘Social Democratic’ and ‘Populist’ Governments: Is the Difference Real?,”Juan Montecino of the Center for Economic and Policy Research highlights the “arbitrary and ill-defined nature” of this endeavor.

Montecino politely dismantles the findings of economists Darryl McLeod and Nora Lustig, who purport to show that “social democratic” regimes did better than “left-populist” ones in reducing inequality in recent years. He shows that their empirical results are reversed when one runs the same regressions using data from the Economic Commission for Latin America. The paper raises questions as to whether their categories capture “anything more than a general antipathy toward one group of governments.”

In other words, they faked the data.

Unsurprisingly, this antipathy is directed toward three of the four countries Ha-Joon Chang highlights for experiencing growth after rejecting neoliberal policies: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela.

Their enemies now are those three countries. Simon Johnson attacks Latin American populism in the case of Argentina:

Johnson has referred to Argentina as “a country that struggles over many decades (and whose leaders frequently rail against the world) and for which episodes of reasonable prosperity and new economic models are punctuated by gut-wrenching crises.”

In the case of Argentina’s last gut-wrenching crisis in 2001, however, the “IMF’s fingerprints” were all over it, wrote macroeconomist Mark Weisbrot, CEPR’s co-director and Argentina expert, in late 2001. “It arranged massive amounts of loans – including $40 billion [in 2000] – to support the [overvalued] Argentine peso,” writes Weisbrot. Then it “made its loans conditional on a ‘zero-deficit’ policy for Argentine government.”

By doing so, the IMF was able to “convince most of the press that Argentina’s ‘profligate’ spending habits [were] the source of its troubles.” Finally, the IMF – an organization Tim Geithner recently considered essential for promoting U.S. foreign policy – implausibly claimed it had always been against the overvalued peso and that the loans were made in order to placate the Argentine government.

The IMF caused the problem with orthodox neoliberalism and then blamed the government for “profligate spending” because they ordered it to read zero-deficit, a goal which itself caused the crisis.

See? They’re making it up.

Second, Johnson seems to portray the country as wracked by serious, ongoing difficulties. But Weisbrot et al. demonstrate that since defaulting and devaluing, Argentina – widely considered ‘populist’ – expanded 94% from 2002–11 (the fastest growth in the hemisphere), reaching its pre-recession level of GDP in three years, tripling real social spending over seven years, reducing poverty and extreme poverty by two-thirds (using independent estimates of inflation), and achieving record levels of employment.

Their paper also demolishes the myth repeated by many economists – including McLeod and Lustig – that Argentina’s success was largely the effect of a serendipitous commodities boom.

See? Populism worked great in Argentina. It also worked great in Venezuela (before the economic war combined with the collapse in oil prices killed the economy), Ecuador, and Bolivia.

The devastating policies of the past in Latin America, as well as the more successful policies of vastly more independent governments over the past decade, are intimately tied up with Washington’s control over the hemisphere and the recent collapse of its influence – especially in South America. Roger Morris, a staffer at the National Security Council until mid-1970, clarified such considerations for Seymour Hersh:

“I don’t think anybody ever fully grasped that Henry [Kissinger] saw Allende as being a far more serious threat than Castro. If Latin America ever became unraveled, it never would happen with a Castro. Allende was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America…Chile scared him.”

The devastating economics of the past in Latin America were caused by the US waging economic war on countries that practiced populist economics. This same populism has worked much better now because the influence of the US has greatly fallen in the continent.

The U.S. government has long imposed double standards on the permissibility of social reforms. While instrumental to Allende’s overthrow abroad, the Nixon administration could boast progressive domestic achievements, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, widely considered one of the most important anti-poverty programs in U.S. history.

Similarly, Lyndon Johnson enacted Great Society programs at home but sent thousands of troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965 to quell an uprising demanding the restitution of the deposed social democratic president, Juan Bosch. A liberal wishing to implement land reforms, Bosch was the subject of an FBI espionage and interception operation authorized by J. Edgar Hoover in the months preceding the rebellion, as Bosch sat exiled in Puerto Rico.

See? Liberalism at home. Fascism abroad. That’s the policy prescription of the US under Democrats and liberal Republicans. Also note the FBI overthrew him. The FBI was deeply involved in the lawfare against Brazil that resulted in the false charges being filed against Lula that put him in prison. See? The FBI literally overthrew Lula in Brazil. The FBI are not just pigs; they’re the worst pigs of them all – feds. And it is a deeply political and always reactionary organization. Fuck the FBI.

Perhaps unknowingly, Johnson is simply keeping within the permissible framework of an intellectual culture that has always accommodated and justified Washington’s hypocrisy. To my knowledge, Johnson has yet to apply his support for “standing up to the banks…proposing a more responsible course of action than that preferred by the banking elite,” and “greater transparency in financial transactions” to the IMF, which has conducted most of its deliberations, meetings, and consultations in secret.

Simon Johnson is pro-IMF, like the authors of that book.

On the The New York Times website, he offhandedly dismisses Latin American populism with a reference to an outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book – all in an article that challenges the U.S. elite by praising populism. This is a compelling example of the imperial double standard that keeps “pro-populist” commentators from seeing what is going on in developing countries.

The book you are praising is referred to an “outdated, far-right, academically dishonest book.” I believe that is correct.

But even if the Times’ readers never learn of Latin America’s protracted struggle for self-determination against U.S. power, the region is now a breeding ground for the most constructive values associated with populism. More than a decade of successful revolts has allowed for the elections of independent left governments in most of South America and has brought enormous gains to the poor majority through greater economic sovereignty and democratic social reform. Or as Kissinger might put it, Latin America has unraveled.

See? For the last 20 years, excellent populist economic policies in Latin America have brought enormous gains for the poor majority. According to E and D, it should have been catastrophic.

Alt Left: The US Imperialist Regime Change Playbook: Engage in Violent and Seditious Activities Towards the Targeted Government, Provoke Repression, and then Impose Sanctions, Fund Contras, or Sponsor a Fascist Coup to “Restore Order and Democracy”

In Venezuela and Nicaragua, the US staged violent riots with armed insurgents that attempted to overthrow the government, and then slammed sanctions on the governments when they cracked down on the seditious traitors. Obviously when you crack down on seditious traitors, it’s hard to be real democratic about it, as you start to throw lots of traitors in jail, shut down their treasonous organizations and political parties, forbid the seditious political parties and politicians from running for office again, and often have to start censoring the media because of the frankly murderous lies that the opposition yellow press prints, which actually results in getting a lot of people killed.

During these seditious coup attempts, the reporting is completely dishonest in the US and about as fake as you can get. Outrageous acts of murder committed by the putschists are breathlessly reported by the treasonous local and overseas US press and having been committed by the government, working people into a fever pitch. Opposition fascist liars flood social media, riling everyone up.

But do you see how they provoke repression? This is the imperialist playbook. Provoke repression with illegal and seditious activities, and then scream dictatorship when the law enforcement arms of the state try to restore some order. Wave after wave of sanctions were slammed on the Nicaraguan government by Democrats and Republicans both. When it comes to support for imperialism and alliance with the forces of violent revolutionary fascism and reaction around the world along with rightwing and fascist dictatorships in power, support for fascist states and forces is a bipartisan affair.

The US supports the fascist opposition in Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Belarus, and Ukraine. The US supports the fascist states of Turkey, Israel, India, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Brazil, Honduras, and Haiti and opposes the anti-fascist forces fighting against them. Face it, America loves rightwing dictatorships and fascist governments and opposition forces.

Alt Left: The Nicaraguan Violence of 2017 Was Actually a US-Sponsored Fascist Coup Attempt

I was following the fascist coup in Nicaragua in 2017, which was written up as some righteous civil disturbances and riots against a brutal and vicious leftwing Sandinista dictatorship run by Daniel Ortega and his wife Rosario. Really it was just a fascist coup attempt by the 27% of the population opposed to Ortega. That figure is about right for Latin America. The opposition to the Chavistas in Venezuela amounts to 27% of the population. Furthermore, 70% of Venezuelans openly state that they are Chavistas. As long as people keep saying that, the Right will never win.

There was one report after another of outrageous murders and attempted murders by the government. They all shocked me in their depravity.

The government had set an opposition radio station on fire, killing everyone inside!

Whoops. It turns out that the fascists had set a government radio station on fire, killing 10 government employees inside.

There were regular riots at the universities, where rich brats were said to be barricaded inside against murderous government forces inside.

I did some research and it was actually..

Whoops! The fascist students who had taken control of the university and were attacking the government forces and supporters.

Everything I read turned out to be the exact opposite of the way it was reported.

Government forces set a house on fire, killing a family of four inside!

Whoops! It turned out that this took place in an opposition controlled neighborhood where government forces were not present and were instead five miles away. Opposition rioters had raided a two story house full of Sandinista supporters and set it on fire, killing a family inside.

Roadblocks with armed insurgents were set up all over the country. People coming by were questioned, and government supporters and employees were taken out of their cars, beaten, tortured, and sometimes killed.

Finally, there was a fake human rights report issued by Amnesty International that got everything wrong and attributed almost all of the violence and deaths to the government, when really it was the other way around, and 80% of such was attributed to the opposition. Amnesty International, a disgusting imperialist organization that works hand in hand with the US government nearly as an arm of the CIA, got most of their data from the fascist organizations among the insurgents.

Slowly but surely, the government took the country back. When it was all over, 300-400 people were dead. The government was pretty reasonable considering that they were dealing with an attempted by armed mobs of rioters representing only 25% of the population trying to overthrow the democratically elected government with violence.

Most other countries would have been much more brutal. Nicaragua didn’t even arrest that many people, and most of those traitors have already been released. Out of 4,000 opposition organizations, four were shut down by the government for the obvious role they played in the sedition. The US reacted with outrage to this and said that the Sandinista government, which typically got favorable ratings of 70-80%, was a dictatorship.

The openly seditious media was allowed to continue to publish, even though most of them should have been shut down. The openly treasonous political parties that engaged in an attempt to overthrow the government by force were not shut down and were allowed to continue to run for office. I would have shut them all down.

Alt Left: The Left Won in Peru!

Amazingly, the Left has finally won in Peru and it’s about time. Things had really come to a head there. The Shining Path insurgency had not taken place in a background. Peru spawned the worst leftwing insurgents because it had one of the worst systems on Earth. Similarly, few countries were more feudal or unequal than Cambodia in the 1970’s. People were distributed into five economic castes depending on income. People of lower castes were virtually forbidden from speaking to the higher caste people. The city people viciously exploited the rural areas, and the rural people hated the city people. Cambodia had one of the worst societies on Earth. So of course it spawned the worst Leftwing movement ever.

The Right, of course, in the form of the party of former dictator Fujimori’s daughter, is already screaming fraud. There was no fraud. Anyway, the election was run by the center-right former government, and they were dead-set against this Leftwing guy winning. The US government and media can be reliably predicated to chime in quickly that the election was fraudulent. You just wait. The rich in Lima are trembling and threatening to pull all their money out of the country. The Lima Stock Exchange (which probably should be shut down) is having conniptions. We will see how this plays out in coming days, but I’m not optimistic.

Thing is, every time the Left wins, the US insists that it’s automatically a dictatorship. Meanwhile, the US does everything it can to provoke the state into overreacting with constant coup threats and regular coup attempts and even actual coups, huge street riots that turn into virtual counterinsurgencies, a vicious rightwing opposition that is downright seditious and takes all of their money from the US, lockout strikes by the bosses, currency warfare by currency traders, economic warfare (make the economy scream a la Henry Kissinger) when businesses refuse to produce goods or simply stockpile them to drive prices up, creating inflationary crises.

That’s in addition to the capital strikes and mass capital outflow, which has to be stopped. Problem is the only way to stop it is with currency controls and sooner or later currency controls cause a currency black market and dual currencies, usually effecting the real currency badly. The black market currency rate is often deliberately tinkered with to create inflationary crises. This is what the treasonous Venezuelan rich did with their currency firms in Houston that set the black market rate at crazy prices that caused wild inflationary spinouts. Eventually the real currency has to be floated, which wipes out everyone’s saving and drives the cost of the currency down to a very low number.

 

Alt Left: The Left Won in Mexico

AMLO’s leftwing party won a majority of the legislature just the other day. He hasn’t been a very Lefty president. He ran as one but I don’t think he has been governing as one. But just to show you that Mexico is a part of Latin America, the rich and middle class raised a huge uproar over this man’s victory. And so has the US and especially the US media.

And an overtly fascist and putschist reactionary elite of the Mexican ultra-rich, associated with the most conservative strands of the Catholic Church and social conservatism, appeared on the scene calling for a fascist coup to overthrow the “dictator” AMLO. US papers have been full of articles about how AMLO is a “dictator” and has authoritarian tendencies. Apparently it’s complete nonsense. Even the more honest members of the opposition say there’s obviously nothing undemocratic about him. He’s as democratic as any Mexican President and perhaps more so.

Also, there’s been wild cartel-related mass violence and homicide raging across Mexico for 20 years now. These break into all out warfare between gangs and the police and army, who are often on the take and working for the gangs. The gangs also kill journalists or local politicians who get in their way. The same insanity has continued under AMLO, possibly even at a lower level, and while it was barely mentioned before, not AMLO is letting the cartels spin out of control and is allowing violence and homicide to rage across the land. For this reason he needs to be ousted.

But they get people all riled up about this more or less lies. Anyway, crime is rarely a state’s fault and once crime goes completely out of control, there’s not a whole lot you can do about it short of imposing an extreme totalitarian and authoritarian dictatorship. In El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, and Brazil the mass crime and high homicide rates have nothing to do with the governments. They occur under both left and rightwing governments.

Leftwing governments leave and rightwingers come in and the crime stays the same. The opposite happens and crime stays the same. But heavy crime is only weaponized against leftwing governments. Crime in Venezuela is just as bad as in rightwing El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but only in Venezuela has it been the fault of the governments. All of those governments have tried everything they could, but when crime goes completely out of control, there’s not much the state can do short of outright dictatorship.

I was shocked but then not so much. Of course the Mexican Right is fascist. It’s just that they haven’t had a real Left government in since Cardenas in 1936. The ghosts of the Revolution are dead and the party of the Revolution, the PRI, turned corrupt and rather un-revolutionary, though the basic changes of the revolution were allowed to remain unchanged.

When the PRI couldn’t win an election, they simply stole them. The Leftist PRD, running Cardenas descendant, won the election in 1986, but the PRI declared the election flawed and said it had to be counted over. The government retreated for two weeks and said nothing. When it was over, a PRD victory had suddenly turned into a PRI win. In other words, they stole it. The “liberal” New York Times cheered it on and said there had been massive fraud in favor of Cardenas while it cheered for the “democracy” of the PRI stealing an election.

Alt Left: The Playbook of US Imperialism: Everything They Say Is the Opposite of What Really Happened

This analysis is based on the theory that US imperialism and Western imperialism for that matter is basically fascist. Not that our societies are fascist themselves because we have managed to insulate ourselves from this. But European jerkoffs spend most of their time running around the globe trying to deny the Third World even the barest social democracy that has made Europe so livable.

Modern Western Liberalism: Liberalism at Home, Fascism Abroad

How else you can you explain how Europe attacked social democracy in Latin America in Mexico, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Colombia? Social democracy at home, fascism abroad. This is the project of the Europeans nowadays, and NATO spearheads this project. In the US it is similar, social liberalism at home, fascism abroad, at least for the Democratic Party. Canada has something between social liberalism and social democracy, and their politics is for this project at home and fascism abroad.

When reporting about hot button issues abroad in the West, keep in mind that everything you read about countries the West is hostile to is really the opposite of what really is or what really happened.

Everything Is the Opposite of What It Really Is

With fascists and fascist supporters like the US, everything is the opposite of what it really is.

Elections That Never Make Sense

Rightwing governments that use fraud to steal elections are restoring democracy.

Leftwing governments that win elections always win due to fraud because of course they cannot win any other way. As soon as they get in power, no matter how much freedom they allow, they are always authoritarian dictatorships. The elections that government has, even if they are models of fair elections, are always marred by massive fraud.

Rightwing governments that overturn these legitimate elections and steal them for the Right are always uncovering the massive fraud. The resulting election theft is called by the New York Times and US government “restoring democracy.”

When the Venezuelan fascist coup overthrew the democratic government of Hugo Chavez in 2002, the US government and the New York Times lauded the “restoration of democracy and end of dictatorship” that the fascist coup (the fascist coup was a restoration of democracy) against a democratic government (the democratic government was a dictatorship) represented.

The US/NATO Fascist Playbook: Mysterious Snipers Shooting at Both Sides

Fascist gangs usually supported by the US and/or NATO, a fascist military organization in Europe, open fire on both security forces and and either left or rightwing rioters. Fascist forces often fire on their own people and blame it on the government as a pretext for a coup to overthrow the government. This is what happened in the US-supported fascist Maidan Coup in Ukraine. When the fascist gangs open fire, the US turns it into leftwing security forces opening fire on leftwing mobs and security forces.

See the 2002 coup in Venezuela, where fascist gangs operating from overpasses shot and killed 32 people, all Chavista protestors or Chavista Venezuelan security forces, then feverishly blamed the government forces for shooting at their own supporters and comrades in arms. The US media tripped over itself reporting how the Left had opened fire on itself, massacring 32 of their own people. It took some time to straighten it all out.

Sanctions

The local fascists and the US also destroy the economy with economic war or sanctions, and then the US and the fascists scream that the Left government has destroyed the economy with its “socialist policies.” Of course it was really the economic war and the sanctions, but no matter. Even notice how all US articles on the Iranian and Venezuelan economies blame the government for the economic and social crisis that was deliberately caused by US sanctions?

Syria

In Syria, gangs of Al Qaeda-linked Islamists (Salafist Islamist like Al Qaeda and ISIS linked forces resemble fascists in many ways) raided villages full of government supporters and murdered everyone inside. Then these same forces screamed that the Syrian government had raided an opposition village and killed all the opposition people inside. The US and Western media then flooded the news with reports that the war criminal Assad has committed another massacre.

There have been 10-20 huge massacres of whole villages in the Syrian Civil War. The US, the West and the Islamists all claim that they were all done by Assad. If you go to Wikipedia and look up all of these massacres, it will tell you that they were all done by Assad.

I researched every one of those massacres in depth.

They were all done by the Free Syrian Army, who are Al Qaeda linked Islamists who burned down churches in every city and town they conquered. The villages massacred were inhabited by Sunni government supporters, Alawites, and Christians. All three groups were feverish supporters of the government. The US continues to state that all of these cases were massacres of opposition supporters by Assad’s forces.

That’s like I set your house on fire and then stand outside screaming about what an arsonist you are as you try to put out the fire. I call the fire department and they arrest you for arson while you’re hosing the building and thanking me, still holding kerosene and matches, for being such a good citizen as they walk by back to their trucks.

The Ties Between Fascism and US Imperialism Are Deep

This is basically how the US and all other forces linked to Western imperialism run their foreign policy. And every government in Europe that is a member of NATO, I’m talking to you. NATO is basically a fascist army. As you can see, the ties between fascism and imperialism are deep. In modern imperialism, the West goes around the world installing fascist and rightwing dictatorships and supporting fascist forces that are trying to overthrow leftwing governments. Not all of the governments it supports are fascists, but all are rightwing, at least in Latin America.

Alt Left: A Black Person Wrote This

Growing up, I lived through true systemic racism. Trust me when I tell you it is real. The problem is, it is not coming from White people. Systemic racism in the US is Black racism against Whites! American Black culture was born out of rebellion and resistance towards an unfair system at that time. Yet it has failed to change with the times in society.

Black African Culture is not one that can mix with other cultures because it is by design rebellious and resistant. Everything from language to appearance is almost the direct opposite of “White culture,” for lack of a better term. Asking White people to accept or adapt to the Black culture that has formed in America is not practical or even possible because it is in direct conflict with and geared to rebel against White people and to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.

This really isn’t hard to understand. In American Black culture, all White people are “the enemy” from the start. Whites built the civilization that Blacks aspire to but which they aren’t capable of creating among or by themselves. The core mentality – that White people and what White people have created are “the enemy” which must be destroyed – has to change before anything else can.

Black American culture, which is inherently rebellious and based on resentment or hatred of others, is not sustainable, even for it’s own people. Once the rest of society distances itself from that culture, the same rebellious, resentful mentality will cause the people to turn inward against each other because that is all those people know. We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.

They are right about systemic race problems, but they are looking to make changes in all the wrong places.

Everyone’s going to scream that this is racism or even ultra-racism. The automatic assumption is he’s a White nationalist, except he’s just some Black guy who got to know his people a little too well.

The truly disturbing thing about this post is: Just how much of it is really true?

For starters, I don’t think Blacks are out to destroy White civilization. The ones here seem like they are, but they’re just idiots. Blacks in general in most of the world do not have destruction of White civilization on their agenda. Further, Blacks are only 13% of the population. 13% of the people will never destroy the civilization of the majority. They just can’t, and most of them don’t even think about it anyway. They’re too busy fucking, getting high, and Holocausting each other to think about us very much, if you ask me.

I agree that Black culture doesn’t mix well with other cultures, but Arab and Islamic societies seem to have figured out a way to work them in. In Latin America, everyone is so mixed that there is no Black culture, for all intents and purposes.

It is basically rebellious and resentful here in the West, but is that true in the Caribbean? Dubious. In Africa? Not really. Only in South Africa.

I agree that here in the US, the rebellion and resentfulness have turned inward onto themselves. That’s clear to me.

I agree that Whites are the enemy, yet nevertheless, many Blacks (a majority?) all want the society that the White Man Built. Except left to their own devices with such a society handed to them on a silver platter, indeed they cannot maintain it. Look at any majority Black large city.

Black people need to live with others. Gathering together masses of Black people unmixed with others just doesn’t seem to work out well.

In a lot of ways, Black Culture is the polar opposite of White Culture, but when you get towards more middle class and/or educated Blacks, the differences between them and us are not severe. Sure, there are differences all right, and I don’t necessarily want a Black girlfriend who hangs mostly with Blacks unless they act pretty White. I’m just not into that culture of theirs, not that it’s terrible in modified form, but it’s just not my culture, and it’s not for me. They can have it.

It is true that asking Whites to adopt Black culture will never work, though many wiggers are trying their darndest. Still, most Whites find this culture abhorrent and want nothing to do with it. It’s like a negation or a polar opposite of everything we believe and value. In addition, this culture is opposed to us, so why would we join a culture that hates us?

to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.

Well, yeah, but in North Africa and the Sahel, the Islamic Black Culture is not really so bad. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the Dark Continent forever, probably from the start and certainly before Livingston. This only happens in a place like South Africa, where Whites are 9%, and non-Whites, most of whom are Black, are 91%. Also those Blacks are very unintelligent. US Blacks are much more intelligent than South African Blacks, with an IQ that is ~20 points higher. That’s almost 1.5 standard deviations and this explains much of why US Blacks act so much better in so many ways than African Blacks.

And no, White nationalists, the future of the US is not South Africa! The future of the US is a 91% Black America? Get real.

We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.

I agree that we see it in every case where large numbers of Blacks are crowded together, such as in larger cities, typically where they form a majority.

He’s also probably right that there is far more systemic or institutional racism among Blacks towards Whites than the other way around. I’m not really buying the systemic or institutional racism thing. I think it’s mostly a bunch of crap.

Alt Left: Right and Left in Islamic and Catholic Societies

If you’re not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and cheering the people doing the oppressing.

Malcolm X

This is precisely the function of the media in a capitalist society. The Chinese media is not like this because, duh, China is not a capitalist country! Nor is the Iranian media because Iran is not a capitalist country. In fact, Iran is almost something like “Islamic Communism.” I’m not wild about Ayatollah Khomeini, but he did have a strong social justice streak.

The Revolution was populist, pro-independence, and anti-imperialist. Iran is almost based on a Muslim version of Liberation Theology or “the preferential option of the poor.” The social safety net is huge in Iran. Also, much of the economy is run by the state. It’s actually run by religious charities, often with ties to the military and the IRGC. I believe these religious charities do not operate at a profit. Small businesses are not bothered at all, as in all Muslim countries. I was reading Ayatollah Khameini’s tweets for a while on Twitter, and I could have been reading Che Guevara. Basically the same message.

Islam is just not friendly to neoliberal economics or radical individualism. It is a very collectivist religion in a very collectivist society.

Neoliberalism hasn’t caught on much of anywhere in the Muslim world other than Indonesia and the Southern Philippines, and they had to murder 1 million Communists in cold blood to get there in Indonesia and the Moros have always rejected Catholic rule in both a political and economic sense. it is notable that the Maoist NPA are also huge in Mindanao, home of the Moros.

Pakistan, too, has inherited the selfish economics and even feudalism in land tenure straight from Indian Hinduism. They even have caste, which would be considered an aberration in any decent Muslim society.

All of the Arab countries are basically socialist at least in name, and that was never a hard sell there. It’s true that 100 years ago, the Arab lands were mostly feudal in nature, with big landowners and peasants in debt bondage. They rich had co-opted the religious authorities like they always do, and the mullahs preached that Islamic feudalism was right and proper because the Prophet had said, “It is normal that some are rich and some are poor.” But it was always a hard sell, and it had a very weak foundation.

After independence, socialism was instituted in most if not all Arab countries at least in name. In particular, huge land reforms were done in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Palestine. I assume something like that was done in Algeria too. It was a very easy sell, and everyone went along with it without a hitch. The mullahs quickly changed from support for feudalism to support for socialism.

Hamas rules Gaza and I was shocked at how huge the social safety net is. The many religious charities run the safety net, which is distributed under the rubric of Islam. This is done instead of the state doling it out.

Mohammad himself didn’t have much to say about economics, but he wasn’t a neoliberal capitalist or a feudalist.

In Christian societies, the rich have utter contempt and hatred for the poor, who they regard as little more than human garbage. If you want to see this philosophy in action, look at the classism in Latin America. As all Muslims are part of the umma, and hence, as all are brothers and sisters, it is simply unconscionable that wealthy Muslims would be able to openly hate poor Muslims. You simply cannot treat your fellow Muslims like that. It’s not officially haram but it might as well be.

European Style Fascism in the Middle East

It is instructive that the only place in the Arab world where neoliberal economics and in particular Libertarianism took hold was in Lebanon, and even there, it was only among Catholic Maronites. Most Arab Christians look east to Antioch (and before that, Constantinople) to the Eastern Orthodox church, which is really just the eastern wing of Catholicism.

The Maronites, though, deride Antioch and instead look to Rome. They see themselves as European people instead of Arabs. Many deny that they are Arabs and instead refer to themselves as “Phoenicians.” It is interesting that the only real classical fascism in the Arab World  took hold in the Lebanese Maronites, where the Gameyels imported it from Europe in the 1930’s.

The Jews of Israel also developed a very European form of fascism starting with Jabotinsky and his book The Iron Wall in 1921. This man was an open fascist. He is considered to be the spiritual father of the Likud Party. During the 1940’s, the armed Jewish rebels split into leftwingers who were almost Communists and rightwingers who were more or less fascists.

The Kahanists today look a lot like a European fascist party. And in fact, the entire Israeli rightwing around Likud, etc. looks pretty fascist in a European sense. So Israeli Jews are really Jewish fascists or fascist Jews. It has never been an easy ride for liberal and secular US Jews to support the Orthodox religious fanatics and rightwingers if not out and out fascists in the Likud, etc. in Israel. This was always completely unstable, and after that latest war, it’s finally starting to fall apart. But the seeds of destruction were already there.

But note that the Jews of Israel very much look to the West and see themselves as Europeans (which many are for all intents and purposes). They align themselves with the Judeo-Christian European society that many of them came from.

Half of Israeli Jews are Mizrachi Jews from the Arab World, and they have always had a Judeo-Islamic culture. However, when they moved to Israel, this was dismantled by perhaps not entirely. They rejected it due to the association of Arabs and Islam with the enemy, which is correct.

Economics and Catholicism

This radical classism and near-feudalism in Latin America was supported by the Catholic Church, which was always a very rightwing institution because they were always in bed with the rich. There were always Left splits in Catholicism like Dorothy Day and The Catholic Worker. The Catholic clergy in the US has tended to be quite leftwing.

There is a long history of “Catholic Communism” in the Philippines, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the Basque Country, France, Italy, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, Cuba, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, and Uruguay. The IRA was a leftwing Catholic armed group. A lot of priests were caught hiding IRA cadre. So was the ETA in the Basque Country of Spain.

Catholic Leftism never caught on in Poland and Lithuania due to hatred of Russia and the USSR. Nevertheless, both are more or less socialist countries.

Even today there is an active “Catholic Communist” movement in Cuba that is very lively. In Honduras and Colombia, Catholic priests actually led guerrilla bands. Liberation Theoloy is something like “Jesus Christ with an AK-47.” The Leftist who recently took power in Paraguay was a former Catholic priest.

The ELN was founded by a priest, Camilo Torres, and many Catholic clergy even supported the Shining Path! Edith Lagos, a 20 year old woman, was the leader of a very early Shining Path column in Peru. She was killed in 1980 and the entire town of Ayacucho, 30,0000 people, came out for her funeral which was held at midnight. The lines of mourners stretched through the whole city. All of the priests in town blessed her body, and she was given a proper Catholic funeral.

I believe that the PT or Workers Party of Brazil has a large Liberation Theology component. The Catholic clergy had an excellent relationship with the FARC in Colombia. Of course, the Catholic clergy played a big role in Venezeula, and Hugo Chavez himself was a practicing Catholic. The FMLN Salvadoran rebels were explicitly Catholic, as were the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. One of the Sandinists’ top leaders, Tomas Borge, was a Catholic priest. Jean-Paul Aristide in Haiti was a Catholic priest. Catholic believers are now allowed to join the Communist Party in Cuba, and near the end of his life, Fidel Castro said he was a “cultural Catholic.”

After Vatican 2 and Liberation Theology began to spread out via the seminal documents written by Gustavo Gutierrez in Brazil, “A Theology of Liberation,” otherwise known as “exercising the preferential option for the poor,” it began to spread in Latin America. It started with local priests and especially Catholic lay workers in impoverished areas and then slowly spread. Even today, Catholic layworkers and especially seminaries are very leftwing, while the Vatican itself is not. A lot of seminaries are hotbeds of homosexuality, and the gay priests and lay workers are quite open about it. It is estimated that 15% of Catholic priests are gay.

Alt Left: Why Has a Sexual Preference for Pedophilia Been Wired into So Many Men?

21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study. The studies compared male reactions to females under 13 with reactions to females 16+.

Whenever anything is that common, there is probably a genetic tendency for it. Also, age preference in males cannot be corrected by any experimental means. Things that cannot be corrected in the lab are usually thought to be hardwired and biologically based.

So why are 20% (!) of all men basically preferential pedophiles?

It appears that there is a genetic preference for pubertal age girls that has been encoded in males and is present in a sizeable minority of them. The reasons for this are up for grabs, but among the Yanonamo Indians of Venezuela, men usually grab a wife at age 12 and often fight other men for girls that age. Sex may not take place for a few years later, but at least they nab them very young.

Perhaps there was a preference to select pubertal girls and sequester them away from other men for a bit until they became fully fertile at age 16, at which time she would be locked into that man and all of her children would be his.

Historically, early life was indeed short, nasty, and brutish, and perhaps primitive life still is. By age 40, every Yanonamo man has committed at least one homicide of another man. If you’re a pacifist you simply don’t make it to age 40. You die young, killed by other men. Kill or be killed. The law of the jungle.

Alt Left: The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls)

It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!

I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.

I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.

In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.

You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.

Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.

Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.

The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?

Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.

Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t. Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?

Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.

Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!

But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!

From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.

The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.

It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!

Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.

In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal. Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.

So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.

But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.

The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.

We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.

So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.

Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”

The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.

Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.

That’s unconstitutional on its face.

The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.

Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.

So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.

So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.

Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.

How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!

One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”

But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!

There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.

But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.

They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.

Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.

But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label all the rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.

DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.

Alt Left: It’s a Shithole, but It’s Their Shithole

Polar Bear: I have some respect for Haitian independence.

I have a lot of respect for Haitian independence. Good for them! A free man is a happy man, or if not, at least a great man.

A shithole but it’s their shithole. There’s beauty in a person being independent and into their own culture.

Exactly! It’s a shithole but it’s their shithole! Perfect. The ghost of Desallines lives!

There’s a famous quote from an Iraqi nationalist.

Outside of the homeland, there is nothing.

That’s so perfect. You have to love anyone who loves their land so much they will give their own life for it.

Americans lost all respect for this so long ago. All we’ve been doing is killing nationalists for defending their homelands for over a century now. Pathetic, especially considering our nationalist origins. We started out as an anti-colonial rebellion and then we turned into the worst neocolonial shits. Look what empire does to a land.

Fidel said something along those lines but it was more in terms of the Revolution. In terms of free speech, he said:

Inside the revolution, everything. Outside the revolution, nothing.

And that’s pretty much their philosophy. I’m on a Cuban mailing list and I get online publications that have Cuban writers and many Cuban citizens commenting. Pretty interesting stuff. The most interesting one is run by an exile. And they criticize, Hell, they slam, the Hell out of the system. But they still want to keep the system. They just want to make it work better is all. Anyone who says you can’t criticize the state in Cuba is insane. There are even out and out Contras in Cuba.

Some were in the press recently. The state pretty much left them alone and just attacked them in the media. But the comments from the citizens were amazing. Most of them were mad at the government for not putting them in jail! And there were a lot of spontaneous demonstrations organized against these people. Most people were calling them traitors.

I even love Saddam in a way, although he was a shit. There was a huge battle at the airport. A lot of Iraqis lost their lives because we used fuel-air explosives, which should be banned. An Iraqi man was there and he turned around and there was Saddam Hussein, standing right next to him. Saddam gave the man his automatic weapon. He told the man to use it and fight for his country if he wanted to. Saddam said:

Don’t do it for me. I’m nothing. I’m not important. Forget about me. Do it for the country. Do it for Iraq.

And then he disappeared. This guy didn’t even like Saddam but he was absolutely in awe of him after that. I liked how a farmer shot down a US helicopter with an automatic weapon. Saddam himself later went out to his field and congratulated him in person.

I also liked how a huge squadron of US helicopters, 25-50, took off towards Baghdad at night. They were halfway there when the dark land below them completely opened up on them. It was the Republican Guard. No one even knew they were there. All of the helicopters turned around. When they got back to the base, they were shot full of holes. I also liked how in the early days of the invasion, US convoys in the South were hit with horrible sandstorms. You could barely see in front of you.

Wave upon wave of Saddam Fedayeen swarmed across the desert in zero visibility to attack the convoys. And in the Southern cities where the Jews told us we would be welcomed with flowers, American convoys moved through silent streets at mid-day. Too silent. Keep in mind that these were Shia cities, repressed by Saddam. They got halfway through the city when every single rooftop in town opened up on the convoys. They were full of mostly ordinary citizens with automatic weapons. Some were Baath Party members, but a lot were just the local Shia. No bad how Saddam had treated them, they were still ready to fight the invaders. I guess they hate the Americans worse than Saddam.

I liked how eight days after the invasion, Saddam suddenly showed up on TV, supposedly 100 feet underground. No one knew where he was. He urged Iraqis to fight for the homeland. He also used an obscure word, hulagu, which sent Arabic speakers racing for their dictionaries. Arabic has a lot of old words that no one uses much anymore but educated speakers throw them out now and again and it sends speakers scurrying for their dictionaries. Hulagu is a reference to the Mongols who sacked Iraq centuries ago.

I especially liked how 12 days after the invasion, with the US supposedly in control of the capital, Saddam suddenly showed  up out of nowhere in the Adhamiyah Sunni neighborhood. A large crowd materialized and hoisted him on their shoulders cheering. It was all videotaped. Then he vanished again. The Americans had no idea where he was and they had no idea he was in that neighborhood. And they never knew until the video was released that he had been there. Arabs are sneaky fuckers. I wonder if that’s how the Jews got that way – living around those sneaky Arab fucks their whole lives.

Maybe it’s just a damned sneaky part of the world if you think about.

Alt Left: Lousy People Make Lousy Countries

If you want to know just how shitty a group of people are, just give them their own country and see what they do when they get a hold of it. Israel is the nation of the Jews. It’s one of the worst countries on Earth. What does that tell you? Turkey is the nation of the Turks, the Gulf Arab countries are the countries of the Gulf Arabs, and India is the country of the Indians. Three of the worst countries on Earth by far, in the running with (((that shitty little country))).

Israel sucks because it’s full of Jews, and this is how Jews act if you give them a country.

Turkey sucks because it’s full of Turks, and this is how Turks act if you give them a country.

Gulf Arab countries suck because they’re full of Gulf Arabs, and this is how Gulf Arabs act if you give them countries.

India sucks because it’s full of Indians, and this is how Indians act if you give them a country.

Why does Mexico blow? Because it’s full of Mexicans, that’s why.

What other reason could there be? Every nation is created by the people who make it up. If the people suck, you get a crappy country. If the people are decent, you tend to get a pretty good country. The only times this might not be true is when the majority oppose the state, but that’s not the case in any of the above nations except Bahrain, where the majority Shia oppose the awful government.

Colombia sucks because it’s full of Colombians.

Guatemala sucks because it’s full of Guatemalans.

El Salvador blows because it’s full of Salvadorans.

Honduras sucks because it’s full of Hondurans (although to be fair, most of the people oppose the state).

Haiti sucks because it’s full of Haitians. Now, I happen to like Haitians in a political sense because 92% of them are Lavalas, and they almost all hate their horrible government, but it’s still true that Haiti is full of some pretty low quality people.

Brazil blows because it’s full of Brazilians, a half good and half bad people. Looks like the majority tips bad though because they just voted in a picture- perfect model of Mussolini.

And don’t give me this: “Oh the people are wonderful! It’s just their terrible government!”

But people aren’t set in stone. Germans and Japanese used to be the worst people on Earth, and now they’re some of the best. But I’m not quite so hopeful about some others. Haitians, for instance, may be problematic for a long time. But electing a Lavalas leader would sure be a step forward.

Alt Left: An Explanation for the Use of Anti-Gay Slurs on This Site: We’re Not Using Them to Refer to Gay Men

Imagine being this obsessed with faggots lmao are you trying to tell us something Lindsay?

Hope this helps: https://lgbt.foundation/comingout

I don’t appreciate the standard SJW and Gay Politics trope that homophobes are all homosexuals. I’ve met many homophobes in my life, and it was correlated with extreme expressions of masculinity as in hypermasculinity or toxic masculinity, if you will. It’s also associated with straight men who are successful with women. In other words, it’s associated with hypermasculinity, including being a player, etc. It’s just reinforcing the fact that they are hypermasculine by attacking gay men to show how masculine they are.

I’ve never met a homophobe in my life who was actually gay. I’ve been unfortunate enough to know many closeted gay men in my life, and while most of them are unbelievably fucked in the head, I’ve never met one who was a homophobe.

The most viciously homophobic societies on Earth such as Jamaica where up 90% of the population think gay men should be killed actually have very low rates of male homosexuality, whereas according to this theory, 90% of men in Jamaica should be a gay. It’s not true. My father was a homophobe. According to this theory, he was a screaming queen. Going back even to the 19th Century and long before, the vast majority of men were extremely homophobic. Sodomy was often punished by prison or execution. Oscar Wilde went to prison. Alan Turing got castrated. According this theory, men from 19th Century to far back in time were a homosexuals. It’s ridiculous.

All men who are biologically gay or bisexual should be respected in that because they were probably born or at least got wired up that way, so it’s not their fault. You going to beat up people with cystic fibrosis? How about dwarves? No one is responsible for any biological condition they are born with and can’t be changed. On that basis, gay men must be accepted and even loved and supported in the sense that we want the best lives for them just as we want for everyone else.

On this site, we don’t like men who are voluntarily engaging in gay sex just to be groovy or perverted or whatever. And yeah, I might call them anti-gay slurs. Why are they doing this?  They don’t have to. Nothing is forcing them to be this way. They’re just choosing to engage in this behavior that we think is disgusting. They could stop anytime they want.  On the other hand, I don’t want to attack these guys too much because society is full of stupid straight men having gay sex for all sorts of weird and ridiculous reasons. They’re everywhere. I’ve even had some friends  who took that idiotic route.

On here, we use faggots to mean straight men “who are not men.” They’re with the feminists. I’m not really talking about gay men. I don’t think a gay man would have reported my tweet unless he was an SJW. Most of the use of that word and similar words is to describe SJW straight men, to attack their masculinity and say they’re not men.

Straight men use anti-gay slurs towards other straight men all the time. Those men are often male feminists and SJW’s are the enemies of the men, especially the real men, and so we are attempting to humiliate them, attack their masculinity and say they’re not men in an effort to shame them and get them to quit being our enemies. This site is anti-SJW, not particularly anti-gay.

Straight men also use anti-gay slurs to describe straight men who are pathologically unmasculine. We also call them pussies, wusses, little bitches, women, girls, girlymen, etc. We don’t use those words towards gay men. We use them towards straight men in  order to police masculinity, which I believe is correct. Straight men should be shamed over grotesquely anti-masculine behavior by other straight men. They should be called names to attack their masculinity. Maybe they will come to their senses and man up.

For instance there is a #metoo movement right now that is attacking straight men by saying that flirting with women is harassment, dating is sexual assault, and sex is rape. This is all coming out of feminism, and it is part of war on straight men. A bunch of pussy straight men are lining up with the women in that war. They are our enemies. In general, gay men don’t care what we do sexually with women, being libertines themselves. I really doubt if most gay men are trying to get us fired for talking to, flirting with, dating, and having sex with women. They’re mostly on our side in this issue. As sexual degenerates, they’re mostly of the opinion that it’s ok for straight men to be sexual degenerates too.

For instance, we call Starbucks Fagbucks not so much because it is all that gay, though there are some gays working there, including some most idiotic and obnoxious ones who are basically SJW’s. Mostly it is because Starbucks has gone insane on feminist SJWism and #metoo crap. They are banning men from stores for looking at women! They are banning men for trying to talk to men in a completely nonsexual manner, as in just saying hi or talking about the weather. They’re basically banning straight men’s expressions of sexual behavior towards men. We would call them “homos” for doing that.

So we call it Fagbucks to shame them. Any man trying to prevent straight men from having sex is a “fag” because it’s “gay” to try to stop us from getting with women.

Keep in mind that most times you see anti-gay epithets on here that they are directed mostly at straight men and at gay men only to the extent that they are SJW’s. Mostly we are not referring to gay men at all – just our SJW straight male enemies.

I try not to use fag and faggot and anti-gay slurs on here towards gay men because I think it is a bit shameful, and I don’t want to hurt gay men’s feelings by attacking them just for being gay. They can’t help being gay so we should not attack them on that basis. Granted, all straight men hate male homosexuality, the idea that they themselves or their friends being that way, and gay sex itself, but we should not be attacking gay men just for being gay because it’s not something they could control, and it’s not their fault.

If I ever use anti-gay slurs, it will just be towards some particularly unpleasant gay men or to over the top public expressions of male homosexuality, as in I might say, “faggoty gay pride parades” because I think those parades are gross and disgusting outrages. Gay men are not gross and disgusting outrages, but those parades sure are.

I apologize to the feelings of any gay men reading on here, but when you see an anti-gay slur on there, keep in mind that I’m attacking feminist and SJW straight men who are waging war on their brothers. It’s part of a tactic to attack their masculinity for attacking brothers and basically going over to our enemies.

We’re not talking about you!

Alt Left: The Chameleon-Like Nature of Fascism

I wrote this in objection to a paper under review right now on Academia by a Left professor of Somatic Psychology, a PhD and a very smart man, who quotes Wilhelm Reich, a Jewish pro-sex and anti-fascist writer, as saying that fascists are out of touch with their bodies. Presumably antifascists are in touch with their bodies and not repressed. Apparently sexual repression and being out of touch with your body is part of the genesis of fascism. I don’t agree. Here is my response, in part.

I think that quoting Reich on fascism is not the greatest idea. He’s not the best person to ask about fascist theory. The modern intellectual descendants of Reich (the Cultural Left) don’t have a very good view of fascism.

Further, Reich was an extreme sexual libertine who may have molested his sister and raped his maids as a boy. Reich’s sexual libertinism was rejected by all Communists in the last century and is still condemned in existing Communist countries. So Reich’s critique is ill-formed, as the Communists were just as bad as the fascists when it came to Reich’s libertinism.

Fascists are sexually repressed? I don’t know. I’ve run into some MAGA women lately who are ridiculously libertine to the point of being degenerate or depraved. They’re about this far from becoming out and out porn stars. Yet fascists they are. A friend used to be an actor in the porn industry. He told me that the industry is full of conservatives. I’m aware of a few pornstars who were basically White Supremacists.

Donald Trump’s fascism was nearly a “pornographic fascism.” He cavorted with pornstars, cheated on all of his wives, made lewd remarks about his own daughter and the teenage underage daughters of his friends, reportedly attended sex orgies, and may have raped a 13 year old girl and forced a 12 and 13 year old girl to have sex with each other. He’s as libertine as Reich, yet he’s a fascist.

Better definitions are coming out of serious scholars of the Left. There area number of modern scholars who are trying to pin down exactly what fascism is. Almost all are operating from the Left. Among these superb modern theorists of fascism are David Neiwert who blogs at Daily Kos, the authors of a blog called Three Way Fight (not sure if it’s still up), along with excellent political scientists working out of the universities.

Better older analyses of fascism also come from Lenin and especially from Trotsky, who wrote some of the best essays on fascism ever written.

A “popular dictatorship against the Left” seems to be the best definition. “Palingetic nationalism” is another, referring to the bird that rises from the ashes in mythology. Fascism appeals to “the everyman,” “the man on the street” – “the shirtless ones” of Peronist fame. That’s the appeal – to your “basic man” and “basic woman.” It also appeals to strong primitive drives of aggression, violence, projection of failures onto outsiders, expansionism, often imperialism, an opposition to liberalism and democracy. It also opposes equality and in favor of hierarchy.

Fascism involves a reverence for sacred violence bordering on the religious, a worship of “the greatness of the ancestors,” a dialogue to restore “the glory days of yore” from the ruins of the “degenerate present”, ruined by liberals, democracy, anti-nationals, nation-haters, and traitors.

Fascism has historically supported a return to traditional values and a rejection of degenerate modernism, but as we can see in the “pornographic fascism” of Donald Trump, that’s not necessarily the case anymore.

Fascism also always advocated a return to traditional male female role models, but that need to be a hindrance to basic equal de jure rights for women, as seen in the many successful MAGA women and the many often-religious MAGA men who love and cherish their wives.

Fascism has typically targeted minorities and has been racist. People think that fascism is inherently anti-Semitic, yet many early Zionists such as Jabotinsky were open fascists and supported the fascist movement in Europe. Some of the early Israeli guerrillas were Jabotinskist fascists.

I’d argue that Israel has been fascist from Day One, but certainly with the coming of Sharon and Netanyahu, the ideological descendants of Jabotinskyist fascism, Israel became literally a fascist country. Jacobinsky is the hero and spiritual founder of the Likud Party. He was an early Zionist who wrote a book in 1921 called The Iron Wall. He and his followers were strong supporters of the fascist parties in Europe in the 1920’s and 30’s. Some of the early Zionist guerrilla organizations were Jabotinskyist fascists.

In Lebanon, the Gemayalist Phalangists named after a general named Gemayal, are an actual literal fascist party. Even their name is fascist as phalange is a popular name for fascist parties. They are Christian Maronites who see themselves as transplanted Europeans, descendants of “Phoenicians,” who despise Arabs and Islam. They are also the most pro-Israel party in Lebanon. This founder of this party had photos of Hitler in his school locker when he was in high school and the party’s ideology is modeled on the classic European fascism of the 30’s.

Israeli fascism is not anti-Semitic at all, and many White Supremacists actually support Israel as the model for the racist state they wish to set up. Many dislike Jews in the Diaspora who are seen as anti-national, but have no problem with the fascist Jews in Israel and see them as fellow fascists.

A number of the anti-immigrant Right parties in Europe are pro-Israel, including the National Front in France, the AfD in Germany, and the neo-Nazi party in Austria! They often like Israel because of its strong anti-Muslim orientation. Along the same lines, the Muslim-hating Hindu nationalist fascists ruling India in the form of the BJP party, are very pro-Israel.

The pro-fascist Spanish and Italian conservatives, remnants of former large fascist movements in those countries, are pro-Israel. The fascist Saudis, Bahrainis, Egyptians, Moroccans, and Ermiratis are now pro-Israel. They’ve always been Rightists so it’s no surprise. So philosemitic fascism is absolutely possible and even existing.

Arab nationalists have always been quite fascist despite their Leftist trappings. Saddam was a fascist, as was Hafez Assad. Some think Bashar Assad is a fascist. The North African leaders, all Arab Nationalists, were fascists in the sense that they tried to destroy the Berbers’ identity and make everyone into an Arab. The Assads and Saddam also attacked Kurds and Assyrians, in both cases in attempts to turn everyone into an Arab. Saddam also attacked Turkmen. And he discriminated against Iraqis of Iranian background in the South so much that he threw hundreds of thousands of them out of the country.

The Moroccan fascists are even expansionists, having invaded Spanish Sahara. The Indonesian fascists committed genocide in East Timor and Aceh and in the entire country against Communists when they unleashed a genocide in 1965 that murdered 1 million Communist in less than a couple of months. It was as bad as the Rwandan genocide.

All of these are examples of “Muslim fascists,” so fascism and Islam are quite compatible.

There seems to be a view in the West that fascism must be White Supremacist and of course it must be anti-Semitic.

None of the above were White Supremacists. They were all non-Whites, and none were self-haters.

Also as you can see above, fascism need not be anti-Semitic.

I also listed a number of fascist and anti-Islamic movements, rightwing dictatorships along with the post-fascist conservatives in Spain and Italy. The former fascist followers of Mussolini and Franco simply melted into the rightwing movements of both countries. In Spain it was the Conservative Party, a party with fascist roots.The Francoists simply changed clothes and melted into the Conservative Party. Francoism is still extremely popular, mostly in the form of anti-separatism, these days. I’ve been to their very popular websites.

Burlusconi in Italy has inherited the descendants of fascism in Italy. A fascist and racist separatist and somewhat White Supremacist movement has formed in Northern Italy. They are White Supremacists in the sense that  they claim the are Celts or “pure Whites” and they despise Southern Italians as de facto “niggers.”

A friend in Italy told me that fascism was still very popular in Italy to this very day, although it was also widely hated as the Left in Italy is often Far Left or almost Communist. There are cities in Sicily were the leftwingers are all Communists and the rightwingers are all fascists. They engage in street battles all the time.

My friend told me that the Red Brigades, an anti-fascist Far Left group of Communists that attacked the state, was extremely popular in Northern Italy, particularly in Vicenzia Province where he lived. His sister was a strong supporter of the Red Brigades, and she came from a normal middle class background in Trieste.

Fascism is said to be anti-Muslim, yet we have Islamic fascism in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Morocco, and probably the Taliban in Afghanistan. Turkey and Azerbaijan are classic fascists of the 1930’s type, however they have married this to Ottoman imperialism and Islamic jihadism, particularly the genocidal variety that held sway in Turkey from 1880 until 1940.

That the Taliban are a new sort of fascism was an argument of the Leftists at Three Way Fight. I’m not sure I agree with that. Other Muslim fascists used to rule in Indonesia,  Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Iran. Above I listed more Muslim fascists in the Arab World, who might better be described as rightwing dictatorships.

Fascism is chameleon-like and changes shape endlessly to mirror and capture whatever times it is in. I can even see chameleon-like fascists adopting yoga, meditation, and bodywork, the “Left” body psychology mechanisms the author refers to. Hitler was a vegetarian and a good animal rights supporter, if terrible in so many other ways.

This aspect of fascism of what makes this political mercury blob so hard to pin down. Indeed, many fascists pose as anti-Nazis and anti-fascists and accuse anti-fascists of being fascists! I’ve seen this with my own eyes.

Problem is the Modern Left starts talking about fascism, and it immediately degenerates into propaganda and nonsense where we push views that line up whatever biases our Left formation is pushing du jour. The Cultural Left, which is almost devoid of intelligence or intellectual honesty of any sort, in particular cannot be relied upon, as almost everything coming out of there is propaganda and a lie in some form or another. For instance, the Cultural Left argues that White Supremacists, anti-feminists (or what feminists would call misogynists), homophobes, and transphobes are all “fascists.”

That’s utter nonsense as none of this Identity Stuff has anything to do with the Left in the first place, as the Left is only about economics and many Communists of the last century were in fact social conservatives described under the epithets above. Many of the antifascist fighters fighting in the Allies in World War 2 were White Supremacists, racists (in particular, racist against Blacks), “misogynists” (or at the very least strong sexists), and virulent homophobes. Trannies didn’t exist back then, but they would have been hated much worse than gays.

The very racist White Southern Democrats of that time absolutely despised Hitler, Mussolini, and the rest of the European fascists along with the Japanese, who were promoting a sort of “fascist militarism.”

The Cultural Left would have us believe that Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hoxha, Deng, Ho Chi Minh, the Bulgarian Communists, etc. were all fascists because they were social conservatives. Homosexuality was banned as a bourgeois vice in the Eastern Blog. The Shining Path executed homosexuals and cocaine abusers (another bourgeois vice). The Khmer Rogue were terribly racist. I don’t think anyone will deny that they were Communists.

Even Strasserites are Communists, granted they were odd ones. Further, Strasser had no biological race-based objection to Jews. He had an economic objection. And he wasn’t the best anti-Semite. He kept asking the others why they were so overboard on the Jewish Question.

Stalin wasn’t the best on women’s rights.

The Bulgarian Communists had opinions on race that would be considered Nazism nowadays.

As noted, homosexuality was banned in all of the Communist World. Castro put them in labor camps. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation even today doesn’t have the best policy on gays nor on Jews for that matter. I’m pretty sure they are Communists.

Trans people were not even acknowledged by any Communist country ever.

We have to completely rethink our view of fascism.

It is perfectly possible to have a libertine fascism in a porn-drenched society, which is what we just went through with Trump. MAGA folks are not repressed at all in my observation. They’re not out of touch with their bodies. The Sex Revolution of the 60’s which I was a part of took care of that.

MAGA fascism even allowed for equal rights for women. MAGA women do not appear to be discriminated against legally. A lot of them made a lot of money and held high positions.

Fascism has always been homophobic, yet the Nazi brownshirts were full of homosexuals, and I’ve talked to many gay MAGA types.

I assure you that there are gay MAGA folks. I’ve talked to a number of them. Mitch McConnell is a lifelong homosexual. He’s as fascist as they come. The first brownshirts were full of homosexuals. The Republican Convention welcomed an open fascist, the founder of Ebay, to their convention. They gave him a standing ovation.

I’m aware of Neo-Nazis to this day who are open homosexuals. James O’Meara was one. A number of White Supremacists have been outed as closeted gays. One was murdered by his young Black boyfriend. A friend used to be involved in these groups and he told me that was a LOT of homosexuality in this scene.

Brazilian fascist integralism was multi-racial and formally anti-racist, populist to the core. But Bolsonaro does not come from this milieu; he represents an actual throwback in some ways to classical European fascism of the 1930’s.

Fascism has traditionally been racist, but Black and Indian fascism is a real thing. I believe that fascism knows no color. The Tonton Macoutes of Haiti were black fascists. The Black Hutu government in Rwanda was fascist, as was Mobutu in Zaire and Samuel Doe in Liberia.

A fascist indigenist Indian rights activist is running for President in Ecuador. He’s pulled support from Cultural Left morons who support his Identity Politics while overlooking his fascism, a typical error of IP types, who are the a scourge of the Left.

Obviously modern fascism opposes transsexualism, but that’s not necessarily the case into the future. Caitlin Jenner, a fully-transitioned transwoman, is MAGA.

In the future we may see even forms of fascism that offer equal rights to gays and maybe even transsexuals.

Alt Left: The Death of Social Democracy in Europe

If you haven’t noticed, there’s no more social democracy or democratic socialism in Europe. Probably the only thing left is Belarus, Moldova, Turkey, and Russia. Possibly Iceland because they told the banks to go pound sand. Greece elected a Leftist government, Syriza, that quickly went full-blown neoliberal, reportedly out of necessity. What has happened to social democracy is something that any Marxist could have predicted – the incompatibility of even trying to have any sort of socialist society in the midst of a capitalist economy.

The fate of social democracy is the what has always been the fate of social liberalism in the US and its counterpart in Canada and Australia. All of these variants have never been anything but reactionary on foreign policy – smashing the slightest sign of liberalism anywhere in the world if it even dared to peek its head out. Many governments in Latin America were overthrown for the crime of raising the minimum wage.

And most of these were overthrown by “liberal” Democratic governments. Bill Clinton set the stage for the overthrow of Aristide. Aristide’s crime? He dared to raise the minimum wage. He had investments in some factories there. So did Hilary. Hilary overthrew Honduras. The crime? Raising the minimum wage.

Even FDR, the most progressive President of the 20th century, was a raving reactionary freak on foreign policy. “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.”

Teddy Roosevelt was progressive at home but an imperialist brute overseas. “Walk softly and carry a big stick.”

The standard formula for all of these countries has always been some form of liberalism at home combined with hard right or ultra right policies that favored rightwing dictatorships, death squads, the genocide of the Left, and out and out fascism overseas. Liberal at home, reactionary abroad. And now Joe Biden, one of the most liberal Presidents in modern memory, is already treading down the same worn path.

And now the social democracies have undergone the same transformation that social liberalism, etc. has had from the start. One gets the feeling that liberalism or socialism at home in a capitalist country will always have to co-exist with ultra-right, pro-fascist politics overseas. In other words, a foreign policy of imperialism.

Most of Europe is whored to the ultra-rightwing NATO. The EU is for all intents and purposes the civilian state and NATO is the Defense Ministry of that state. Even Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are hard right countries when it comes to their NATO alliance. Finnish foreign policy has always been rightwing, a legacy of their hatred for Russia. Dutch, French, British, and Spanish foreign policy have been horribly rightwing forever now under social democratic and conservative governments both. Indeed in Europe, there is little difference between the two.

Spain strides around Latin America like a brute. Apparently they still think they rule the place as they once did.Most of this involves threats, arm-twisting, sanctions and whatnot every time countries try to assert more control over their resources, which are inevitably being exploited by Spanish corporations. Bolivia’s nationalization of oil and gas is instructive in this regard. The social democratic Spanish government was just as reactionary as the conservative one.

The French are cruel and colonialist towards their former colonies and do not allow any independent governments to form there, especially in Africa. The French and Canadians were deeply involved in the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, apparently for the crime of raising the minimum wage. In addition, France is still demanding that Haiti repay it for its losses when the slaves of Haiti were freed and the slave-holding families were massacred. France is a social democracy.

The Dutch held a phony inquest in the M17 false flag shootdown where a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down an airliner in order to blame it on Russia. The EU was also deeply involved in this plot and especially the coverup. As were the British and in particular the BBC, the official organ of the British state. The British stole $4 million in gold from Venezuela by confiscating it. British foreign policy mimics US foreign policy in every reactionary thing we do. The UK is a social democracy.

Italy led the charge against Qaddafi and helped steal billions of his gold reserves. Italian corporations also quickly tried to get on Libya’s oil. Italy is a social democracy.

100% of the EU is sanctioning Venezuela for the crime of trying to create a social democracy in America’s backyard. No socialist country would ever sanction Venezuela. Same with Nicaragua. They’re all sanctioning Nicaragua too. Nicaragua’s even less socialist than Venezuela and Norway’s probably a lot more socialist than Venezuela.

So you see, these countries may have some sort of socialism at home (increasingly threadbare) but in foreign policy, it’s straight up full-blown reaction and imperialism, support for rightwing dictatorships and out and out fascists. The reason is simple. The economies of all EU countries are based on their multinational corporations.

Multinational corporations want nothing but rightwing dictatorship, preferably fascist, when they cannot elect hard Right democratic states. These corporations will not tolerate the slightest socialism or even liberalism overseas because they all operate on a predatory model towards the Third World.

Hence the foreign policy of all of the EU “socialist” countries is all about what’s good for the corporations that run their economies. Their corporations wish to go abroad and rape, ruin, exploit, destroy, and stripmine the economies of the Third World by exploiting their resources such that the corporations get almost everything and the countries themselves barely get a nickel.

This has always been the model and it always will be the model. So the EU social democracies have the same problem of the Democratic Party – while they can be leftwing at home to some extent, they all go hard rightwing and pro-fascist and rightwing dictatorship overseas due to their fealty to the corporations that run their economies.

Jewish Hypocrisy on Race Is Astounding

Polar Bear: Jews and Gentiles are conditioned to side with Jews.

Well, Jews are not wonderful and special and perfect just because they got genocided. Lots of groups got genocided. Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Cambodians, American Indian tribes, Aboriginals, Moiriori, Chechens, Gypsies, Herero, Congolese, Hutus, Yezidis, East Timorese, Hindus in Bangladesh, got genocided. Have they turned into diabolical monsters because of it like the Jews did? I don’t see why getting genocided gives Jews the right to turn into the worst human beings on Earth. All that does is make people think maybe they deserved it.

I don’t think the world has the stomach for any more Jew-killing. It’s been going on a pretty long time, and this last go-round was a doozy. In fact, it was so bad that I think that all mass-Jew-killing is off the table for probably centuries into the future. No one wants a repeat of the Holocaust.

Why should I automatically side with Jews? Because they got killed in the Holocaust! This is going to sound cruel, but boo hoo! I’m sad that y’all got massacred, but now that you’ve turned into human monsters, I’m not going  to support you because bad people did something terrible to your people. By the way, you are now playing the role of the bad people doing terrible things to others.

Israel is a dyed in the wool racist state to the very core of its being. The racism or bigotry is enshrouded in virtually every law and code in the country. The other correlate is apartheid South Africa, which it seems to have been modeled on. It is also very similar to the Jim Crow laws that Blacks were forced to live under not just in the US South but in many places in Latin America. You never knew that Jim Crow was in place in other places too, did you? I know for a fact that there was legal segregation in Cuba until after the Revolution. And there was de facto legal segregation of coastal Blacks in Ecuador.

Israel is probably one of the most openly and brazenly racist countries on Earth. Why do they get to be racist monsters? Because they got killed in the Holocaust! Boo hoo. It doesn’t give you the right to turn into racist kleptomaniacs. No one gets to be racist monsters or terrible people. I don’t care what got done to them. You don’t get to turn bad in revenge because something bad got done to you.

Jews drive me up the wall.  They are absolutely committed to flooding all White Christian countries with non-Whites and non-Christians. Why? Because when the White  Christian population gets below 50%, a Nazi type regime can never come into power. I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Some Arab Muslim countries were pretty cruel to their Jews in the last 75 years. Be careful what you wish for.

They  scream and yell about racism of all types, but they exaggerate it by a factor of 10, and they make mountains out of molehills. It’s all done to demonize White Christians as racist devils. You know why they do this? Revenge. It’s revenge for the Holocaust. And part of it may be resentment because there was some legal discrimination against Jews for a while in the US.

As a counterpart to the argument about Blacks, the Jews seem to have prospered pretty well in spite of all of that discrimination. So there may be revenge for the anti-Jewish discrimination we put them through. A famous Jewish psychiatrist, Stanley
Rothman, in the 1960’s diagnosed the basic Jewish character as Paranoid-Masochistic Character. The masochistic part means they love being victims. I say you can take anything away from a Jew, but never take away his sense of victimhood. He will fight for that for his dear life. It’s literally the most important thing in his life. It’s his fuel for living.

The paranoid part is obvious. Jews are paranoid. You look at a Jew wrong and you just like those people who threw them in the ovens. They spend most of their lives all revved up about what their enemies trying to do them and how they are poor, pitiful victims. That’s a Hell of a way to live your life.

The young Jewish men Rothman saw were very angry at US society. Most of their rage focused on WASP’s. Coded, that means White Christians. Traditionally, WASP’s were the ruling class in the US, but that has probably not been true for a long time if we speak of mere White Anglo Saxon Protestants. The US ruling class for some time now has consisted of all White Christians. They were full of rage and hatred for WASP’s and harbored an extreme desire to get revenge on the WASP’s that had supposedly been holding the Jews back. So here you can maybe see the antagonistic position that a lot of Jews take towards White Christians.

Jews scream all the time about how wonderful all the non-Whites are, especially Blacks and Hispanics, but they won’t be caught dead living within 10 miles of any of them. But if we complain about crime, litter, or graffiti, we’re evil racist scum, and we need to get canceled.

Cancel culture was started by the Jews. So was Identity Politics. The Jews are the original Identity Politics group.

This above is raw, naked hypocrisy. They scream at us for being racists for complaining that some Black guy stole our car. They won’t shut up about how evil and racist White Christians are. But they won’t live anywhere near these minorities because they know full well how crime-prone they are and all of the pathologies that typically follow large numbers of these people.

So our countries all get flooded with non-Whites and non-Christians for the benefit of the Jews and the detriment of the White Christian sons and daughters of the land. Why? Because that’s good for the Jews.

But we’re all Nazis so we deserve it.

And Israel gets to be one of the most racist countries on Earth because…? Because why? Because they got killed in the Holocaust! See what hypocrites they are? Anti-racist, White-hating fanatics in the Diaspora hypocritically proclaiming their love of all non-Whites whom they disdain so much that they won’t even live near them. And in Israel, they’re as racist as a Southern cracker in the 1950’s. Why? Because that’s good for the Jews.

See how they think? Everything’s all about them. It’s all about what’s good for them. If it’s good for them, we have to do it, no matter if it’s bad for everyone else, no matter that it’s in direct contradiction to whatever they’re pushing on the other side of the world. What if we all went through life maximizing what’s good for us? It wouldn’t be a very pretty world.