Contrary to what the media tells you, the whole world is not turning on Russia over this war. It’s only the Anglosphere, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and most of Europe. That’s it!
Arab World: Unknown but there seems to be a lot of support for Russia because Arabs will take the opposite of whatever side the US is on because they hate the US.
Syria: Strong support for Russia because Russia helped them in the Civil War.
Iran: Similar situation. Most seem to support Russia because they support the opposite of the US because they hate the US and because Russia is an ally.
Pakistan: My limited understanding is that a lot of people support Russia because they hate the US so much.
Africa: Unknown. No country has sanctioned Russia. The Central African Republic is strongly supporting Russia because Russia helped them.
Latin America: Unknown. No government has sanctioned Russia. The media are all fulminating against Russia but the opinion of the average person is not known.
South Ossetia: This new country supports Russia because Russia helped them, and in fact they are sending a contingent of troops there.
China: The Chinese people support Russia completely. In part this is a legacy of the Cold War when both countries were allies. Plus China is starting to realize that once the West gets done taking down Russia, China is next on the chopping block.
Armenia: People support Russia. Armenia is sending a contingent of troops.
Serbia: Most Serbs support Russia due to ancient roots and Serbs’ hatred of the US and NATO. The Serbian government is anti-Russia, so the people and the state are at odds here. There have been large pro-Russian rallies.
Bulgaria: Most Bulgarians are supporting Russia due to common Slavic Orthodox heritage. There have been large pro-Russian rallies.
Brazil: All of the media is fulminating against Russia but comments on news articles are now running majority pro-Russia. The media and the people are at odds.
Belarus: Most are pro-Russia.
Spain: The government and media are anti-Russia but comments on news sites are now running ~40
India: Unknown, ally of Russia.
European countries not mentioned: Unknown, media and governments are mostly Russophobic.
Romania: Many years of anti-Russian propaganda have created a Russophobic population. Most are ignorant of the situation though. Extremely Russophobic media.
Sweden: Similar situation as Romania. Many years of Russophobic hate propaganda have created a country of Russia-haters. However, most people don’t understand the issue well. Media is strongly Russophobic.
Germany: Most are supporting Ukraine and the population is Russophobic. However, ~10
Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Georgia, US, and the UK: Strongly pro-Ukraine and Russophobic in media, state, and population. In Georgia the population is anti-Russia, but the government is more neutral. In Czechia and Slovakia, the governments are extremely anti-Russian, but the opinion of citizens is not known. Reports indicate that Russophobic hysteria is so extreme in the US that people are getting fired from their jobs for supporting Russia.
Chernhiv: Russians fired on a line of civilians waiting in line for food in Chernhiv. Later on, the story changed to artillery being fired on them. Russia says that there were no Russian soldiers in the city at the time. We still don’t know who fired at those civilians, though it looks like they were hit by artillery.
Mariupol: Russians are preventing humanitarian convoys from entering the city. False. Anyway, all of the humanitarian aid anywhere in Ukraine is coming from Russia. Ukraine is apparently not running any humanitarian convoys anywhere in Ukraine for whatever reason.
Mariupol: Russians fired on refugees fleeing Mariupol, hence they were not able to leave. Yeah, that’s why when Russia took it over, everyone started leaving! Makes no sense. Many interviews with locals say that the Azov Battalion fired on people leaving the city, in one case firing on a busload of people. People were killed in these attacks.
Mariupol: The proof that Ukraine offered that a maternity hospital got hit was in a video released by Ukraine. Reporters are following a tour of the destroyed building. That you cannot see any gynecological chairs as one would see in a typical maternity hospital is jarring. It now turns out that the hospital used in this video is a children’s ophthalmic hospital. It’s not known why it appears to have been hit by heavy weapons, but no one was hurt or wounded in the attack.
A beauty blogger and model, Marianna, stars in this “maternity hospital” fake. She plays two different pregnant women in the video. The model herself has given birth to a baby and both the baby and mother are fine. The “other pregnant woman” who is actually just Marianna in another role, has died along with her child. We have no evidence of these deaths, not even their names. Since this second pregnant woman is no other than Marianna herself, the pregnant woman with her baby who died does not even exist.
The “maternity hospital” fake was photographed by professional photographer Yevgeny Maloletka. He has been working on propaganda projects for Ukraine for eight years now.
Earlier, workers said that all workers and patients were cleared out of this hospital by the Azov Battalion, who turned it into a base. This quote is from an article dated two days before the hospital was hit. The article quotes Mariupol refugees talking about how they were cleared out of the hospital. Two days before the hospital was hit, Russia published a statement about how Azov took over the hospital and turned it into a base. They also complained to the UN about it.
A video of the maternity hospital in question has now been released. In it a worker said that after Azov took it over, all staff and patients in the hospital moved to the basement. Six babies have been delivered down there so far. He said that a Ukrainian tank fired on the hospital. This was the attack that was blamed on a Russian bomb, but there was no Russian bombing of the hospital.
He said there were no casualties in the hospital because everyone was in the basement. He also said that Azov had vacated its base at that time. It looks like a Ukrainian tank fired on this hospital, which was unoccupied at the time. Hence there were no casualties. Russia never bombed any maternity hospital. It’s just another NATO lie.
Now new details have emerged and they make experts doubt that the maternity hospital strike was carried out by bombing and particularly by a Russian bomb. Video and photo materials show the results of two explosions – one large crater and another smaller one near the building.
Apparently, the large crater was formed by detonating a charge weighing up to 100 kg in TNT equivalent which had been buried 5 feet deep in the ground. If it had been an aerial bomb, the damage to the building and cars would have been different: most of the fragments should have been in the ground, and a small part of the fragments should have been directed, but not towards all sides.
The second explosion at the building could have been made by a directional type of mine or a charge of explosives prepared for a directional explosion.
Local and directed (damage expanding from the bottom to the top of the building cladding) is not typical for damage caused by an aerial bomb. There is no penetrating damage (roughly speaking – holes in the walls) of the building which is formed during bombing from aircraft or in case of a hit by multiple launch rocket systems.
The second explosion was supposed to mimic damage to the building and cars typical of an aerial bombardment, but the wrong location was chosen.
Another argument against a Russian bombing is the fact that the maternity hospital is not on fire; only parked cars were burned. Inside, there is no sign of fire which would almost inevitably have appeared if an aerial bomb exploded. The window frames were still intact, though the glass was broken – if it had been an air strike they would have been blown out too.
It can be assumed that the “maternity hospital” was blown up by soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in order to create a provocation and an excuse for “closing the airspace” in Ukraine by NATO forces. The nationalists from the Azov regiment were previously evacuated, so we don’t see their dead bodies either.
Mariupol:Ukraine says that Russia dropped a bomb on a theater in Mariupol, destroying it. Three days prior, there are statements on the Internet quoting Mariupol residents that Azov had mined the theater and forced residents inside and was going to blow it up as a provocation. People inside the theater at the time have testified that Azov mined the roof and the ceiling of the theater. They then retreated away from the theater where they were firing from the top floors.
Russia knew that Azov was in the top floors, but the theater was removed from the target risk due to the risk of harming civilians. Azov retreated and told all of the residents inside to leave the building. Everyone left. Azov then blew up the theater. People inside the theater said it was empty when it was blown up. However, there were many people sheltering in the basement who appear to have been unharmed. These 180 people “pulled from the wreckage” do not make sense as no one was hurt or killed in the explosion. So the whole thing is a charade.
Mariupol: Russians are targeting civilians in the city. Evidence of this is a tank firing on a large apartment building. The building was empty of residents at the time and Azov was firing from the upper floors.
Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kiev, etc.: People have not been able to evacuate because Russia shoots at them every time they try to leave. False. It is Ukrainians that fire on the people leaving, not Russians. Why would Russia fire on people leaving? They want people to leave. The Ukrainians would have a need to keep people in the cities so they can use them as human shields and use the resulting civilian casualties to scream for a ceasefire or to call for NATO or US to join the war.
Russia fired artillery at Belarus. False. Ukraine fired two Tochka missiles into Belarus. Apparently they are trying to provoke Belarus into joining the war so the West can use that as a pretext to destroy their economy. Also Ukraine will use the addition of another state attacking their country as more reason to call for international intervention. Ukraine is trying to bait and provoke Belarus into joining the war.
Croatia: A drone flew into NATO airspace and crashed in Croatia, forcing NATO to discuss if they should intervene when drones fly into their lands. The problem here is that that was a Ukrainian drone that flew into NATO lands, not a Russian one.
Mykolaiv: Russia attacked an elementary school here, destroying it. Problem is that it was empty at the time and Ukrainian forces were using it as a base.
Mykolaiv: Russia attacked a barracks of a Ukrainian battalion, killing 40 soldiers. It looks more like the attack killed ~200 soldiers. There is footage of soldiers pulling comrades out of the wreckage. There is also footage of a little girl being pulled out of the wreckage of the barracks. No one understands what a little girl was doing in those barracks. Well, she wasn’t in the barracks! The video of the girl being pulled out wreckage is from Kharkiv a few days ago.
Kiev: Russian artillery attacked an apartment building, killing one and wounding four more. Problem here is that Ukraine shot at a Russian missile and hit it, causing it to crash into the apartments. No one knows where the missile was going to land. So it crashed due to Ukrainian antiaircraft fire, not a Russian missile.
Kharkiv: Russians destroyed the municipal buildings of the city. It is true that one large municipal building was hit by a missile, but this building had been evacuated and was being used by a nationalist battalion as a base.
General: Russia is bogged down, suffering from poor morale and serious supply and manpower problems. There is no evidence that any of these arguments made by Western military analysts is true. These analysts are just reciting war propaganda. The war is going slowly because Putin has ordered the army to proceed with care to minimize the deaths of civilians. This is one reason that the battle for Mariupol is taking so long.
That’s about all I can come up with for now. It’s getting exhausting debunking these lies all day long. I think that is part of the strategy.
You see, in a number of these countries, they never really had an actual nation. They were always a part of some empire or duchy or whatever. The real nation-building process was quite recent. Since they never really had a history as a nation, they had to build a nationalist project more or less out of thin air or at least out of castles of sand.
Hence the national heroes of these places goes back to World War 2, when the Nazis promised the Baltics, Belorussians, and Ukrainians with independence from the USSR. The USSR had just recently taken over the Baltic states in order to have strategic depth against the Nazis. The Ukrainians had been independence-minded, at least in the west, since the Bolshevik Revolution. These nationalists claimed that the USSR and Russia have always dismissed the idea that they have separate countries. While in the USSR, nationalist aspirations were largely forbidden and played down.
After the USSR took the Balts away from the Nazis and incorporated them into the USSR, they lost the independence they had had during the interwar period. They claimed that the USSR did not allow them to develop their national languages but that does not seem correct. Anyway, the USSR and Russia were always seen as the thorn in the side of the national aspirations of these peoples.
Since they never had much of a recent history, most of the nationalist heroes of Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine end up being some nationalist Nazi collaborator from 1942 named Vyashlev the Jewslayer or something along those lines. There are statues and monuments to these guys all over these countries with the exception of Belarus. At the same time, all of the Soviet era statues, including to heroes of the Great Patriotic War, have been torn down or vandalized.
The Litts (Lithuanians), Letts (Latvians), and Ukrainians were the biggest Nazi collaborators of all of the national groups in the region.
Poland and Finland are extreme Russia-haters for nationalist reasons, but the Poles don’t like Nazis, and I don’t think the Finns are all that Nazi. Poles hate Communism, in part for religious reasons of extreme Catholicism.
In Hungary, the right wing has Nazi tendencies. The Hungarians had a sort of nation long before the modern era. A fascist dictator named Horthy ruled Hungary in the interwar period and during WW2. I believe he was a Nazi collaborator. The leader of Hungary, Victor Orban, has praised Horthy. The nationalists here are Nazis, but they are not a large movement. The party is called Fideliz and its origins are in the Red Arrow of WW2. They are Nazis.
Romanian nationalists are descendants of the Iron Cross of WW2, but they are not very popular for some reason. I believe Romania has been a national idea for some time. Also, they are Orthodox. Czechoslovakia is another national idea that has been around a long time. Nationalists are not popular in either country, as you can see in the amicable breakup they had into two separate states.
Belarussian nationalists are Nazis, but they are not popular. They only get 20-25
Croatian nationalists are absolutely Nazis, descendants of the Ustasha collaborationist regime. That’s why Communist Yugoslavia cracked down so hard on them. They are also Catholics. The recent president Franz Tudjman was absolutely a fascist, though I don’t think he was a Nazi. Over there, Croatian nationalism often just boils down to “Serb-hater.”
There is a racial aspect to Ukrainian nationalism. It holds that the true Ukrainians are a sort of Aryanized Germano-Scandinavian people, descendants of the Kievan Rus, which was after all settled by Swedes.
The others, the Slavs (Russians) are simply undermenscen to be destroyed. So they copied Nazi racial ideas and said that they were not Slavs to get away form Nazi anti-Slavic theory. The Slavs were hated by the Germans mostly because the Nazis saw all of them as Communists. They were also said to have a “slave (Slav) mentality” (see Nietzsche) which made them too weak to resist against Communism. The Ukrainian nationalists also saw Russians as Communists.
Ukrainian nationalists hated Jews because they saw the Jews as the leading edge of Soviet imperialism (anti-Ukrainian nationalism) and Bolshevism. In other words, they were following the Judeo-Bolshevik theory of the Nazis. It is true that Ukrainian Jews were passionate Communists at this time, in part because the USSR cracked down so heavily on antisemitism.
As I mentioned earlier, Ukraine or Malorussia (literally Small Russia but in this context Central Russia) has long been seen as a land of bandits and robbers, a lawless place. This tradition continues today with oligarchs robbing the place blind. An anarchist named Makho was a Ukrainian in the Russian Civil War. Originally allied with the Soviets, he turned on them during the war and led and anarchist rebellion. Makho is also seen by Russians as a typical Ukrainian. He was a bandit before he was an anarchist, and anarchism is associated with lawlessness and chaos, hence he’s an archetypal Ukrainian.
There is another culture war going on here, and that is the Roman Catholic West versus the Istanbul (or Antioch) Eastern Orthodox. Few people realize this but the Catholic Crusaders killed as many Orthodox Christians in Palestine as Muslims. They were seen as heathens. Afterwards, another sort of Catholic crusader in the form of German crusaders attacked the Orthodox communities to the northeast. And it looks like they converted them to Catholicism while they were at it. The German crusaders saw the people to the northeast as forest-dwelling barbarians and heathens.
Western Catholics again attacked the Orthodox in the East under Napoleon, and once again were beaten back. The result in part was two Russian borrowings in the French language – bistro and douche (the original French “water toilet”).
The Germans in World War 2 and their Roman Catholic collaborators were seen as another in the line of Western Catholic attacks on the Orthodox East.
In Ukraine, this also has a religious form as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church split from the Russian Orthodox Church at some point and became what some see as a heretical schismatics. They adopted a sort of “Greek Catholicism” (I’m not even sure what that is, but supposedly it’s a heretical schismatic split from the Orthodox) and allied themselves with Roman Catholicism and the West against the Russian and Russian Orthodox Church of the East. The Ukrainian Nazi nationalist battalions often attack Orthodox churches for some reason. I’m not entirely sure why they do that.
So as you can see, there is a lot of history going on here.
Igor: A couple of ‘Nazis’ in a town here or there doesn’t justify a full scale invasion of the whole country.
All Ukrainians hate Russians though. And rightly so. Remember the ‘Holdymor’? Or all the other bulking tactics Russia did on them?
Russia are a plague to their neighbors, and Ukraine wants nothing to do with ten and that is their right.
Luckily, the Russian army are getting flogged at time of writing.
Russia is a plague to its neighbors? It has an excellent relationship with Armenia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizstan, Mongolia, China and especially Belarus, which is right next door. It’s true that nationalists in Ukraine and the Baltics hate Russia because the USSR thwarted their drive for independence. They also moved a lot of Russians into the Baltics, or perhaps the Russians moved themselves into the Baltics.
The Baltics and Ukrainians complain that Russia suppressed their national languages but I do not think that is true. They got to go to K-12 school all in their native language, there were newspapers, magazines, journals, TV and radio stations and literarure in their national languages. They even had universities where the language was that of the republic. And the USSR did set all of them free at the end. How many other nations would have set them free? None! You see any other countries setting their separatist regions free elsewhere in the world? Of course not.
The Germans came in and promised the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine independence from the USSR, so they were popular with the nationalists in these places, all of whom still love Nazis to this day. In the Baltics and Ukraine, all of the statues to the nationalist heroes were of Nazi collaborators. All four countries have a serious Nazi problem.
I’m not sure why Poles hate Russia. Poland has always been a football in between Poland and Russia. She has felt bullied by those two countries. Poland attacked Russia in 1919 for no good reason. Poles are also angry about Communism because it never went over well there. I think the Poles are just too Catholic for Communism to work well.
Stalin himself said that trying to impose Communism on the Poles was like “trying to put a saddle on a horse.” The Russia-hatred in these places is due to nationalism and the drive for independence, which they saw as thwarted by the USSR. Finns hate Russia too. The USSR attacked Finland and annexed some of their land in the Winter War in 1940. I’m not sure why the USSR did that.
The Fake Holodomor That Never Happened
Holodomor was fake. It never even happened! There was a famine but there was no terror famine. 2-3 million people died in Ukraine but they were concentrated in Eastern Ukraine where they were Russian and loved Stalin. It was even worse in the Volga region where Stalin was very popular. In addition, 1 million people died in Siberia. People died in Moscow. And lots of people died in Kazakhstan. And plenty of people died in the parts of Poland next to Ukraine.
In order to believe the crazy Holodomor myth, you have to believe
Stalin deliberately starved Ukraine because he hated Ukrainians. But why? Why did he hate Ukrainians?
And why did his terror famine focus on Eastern Ukraine where they supported him. If he only wanted to starve Ukrainians, why did he starve people in the Volga too where they supported him. Stalin also had a lot of support in Kazakhstan. Why did he starve people there” That was almost as bad as Ukraine. Did he hate them too? How come they get left out of this debate? Why did he starve 1 million people in Siberia? Did he hated Siberians? Why did he starve people in Moscow? Did he hate Moscovites?
Wow, it looks like Stalin hated everyone because he starved the whole damn country! Why did people starve in Poland? Were the Poles in bed with Stalin in a plot to starve Ukrainians? Then why did they starve themselves? Are they retards?
None of that makes sense!
2. Maybe the terror famine story of a bumper harvest crop that was confiscated by Stalin just to starve Ukrainians is fake?
Which is more likely, one or two?
The whole story of a bumper harvest confiscated by Stalin just to kill Ukrainians has now been proven wrong. 1932 was a famine harvest. It was only 50
There was also a long insurgency versus the kulaks which centered in Ukraine. 390,000 people died in the anti-kulak campaign, which was a very vicious war.
In early 1932, Ukrainian kulaks were raiding collective farms up to 20 times a day, murdering the men and raping and then murdering the women and then destroying the crops and killing the livestock. The Ukies were piling their crops in the fields to get rained on or setting them on fire!
The Ukie morons destroyed their own crops and then said, “Duh, whoa we have a famine, dudes! Maybe we shouldn’t have set our own crops on fire!”
The moron kulaks killed half the livestock in the USSR! “Duh, we killed all the farm animals. Now we don’t have any meat to eat!” Fields were plowed with horses back then, and they killed so many horses that this contributed to the famine harvest.
The famine occurred for a variety of reasons. In part it was stupidity on the part of the USSR. They shut down the old system before they were able to get the new one going very well, and this contributed to a bad crop. But most of it was natural. There was a wheat rust epidemic that swept through the entire region from Poland to Kazakhstan. True, Ukies suffered the worst losses, but that was where the epidemic was worst and the harvest collapsed the most.
Most people died of disease, not starvation. The USSR still had rudimentary sanitation at the time, and many people died of cholera. You can often survive this disease, but in their malnourished weakened condition, it proved fatal. A reporter drove through Ukraine during the famine but he saw little out of place. There were long but orderly lines outside some clinics. There were no dead people lying in the streets. All of the Holodomor photos you see of starved people lying in the streets were put out by Ukies. Those are photos from another famine that occurred during the Russian Civil War.
The next year though, 1933, was a bumper harvest so it was just one year. The USSR never had another famine. In the days of the Czar, famines used to sweep through feudal Ukraine on a regular basis. The USSR ended the regular tradition of frequent famines in Russia.
CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: So Time Magazine less than 2 years ago admitted there are neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s east, namely the Azov Battalion. Again, I believe you that there are nah-tsees in dah you-crane but I did not see a Nazi (lol) elsewhere. Seriously, the country is not overrun by the Hitlerjugend.
You just hate right-wingers and see the devil everywhere they gather. Putin is a mass murder who decimated Grozny with impunity. A few Hitler-hailin’ dickheads in Eastern Ukraine aren’t a real threat to anybody but the locals. And considering Putin already controlled Crimea and Donbass, he could have killed the Nazis there. Shelling other cities is not justifiable.
First of all, conservatives in most parts of the world are not really Nazis. However, rightwingers in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, Belarus, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, France, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden, Bulgaria, Austria can absolutely be Nazis, thought most rightwingers in the more western of these nations are not Nazis.
In the East it is different, and conservatism in those eastern countries simply tends to be Nazism. Nazism is a phenomenon of White Europeans, and there’s about zero support for it in most other parts of the world, though there are a few Nazis in places like Argentina, the UK, the US, Bolivia, Chile, India, Mongolia, and a few other places.
There aren’t really many Nazis left in the Donbass. Members of Nazi battalions, when captured by the separatists, were slowly beaten and tortured to death over a period of a day or time. Most of the pro-Ukies took off, but all of the rest of them went over to the separatists because the Ukie occupiers pissed so many people off.
Most of the Nazis in Crimea, what few were even there, presumably took off after independence. Keep in mind that when the “little green men” took over Crimea, the entire Ukrainian Army stationed in Crimea immediately surrendered to Russia. However, there is still some opposition to Russia in Crimea because when the Russians started this war, there was even some armed resistance in Crimea!
Ukraine Has a Nazi Problem, to Put It Mildly
It’s hard to say how many Nazis there are as so many “non-Nazis” go along with the Nazis due to fear, peer pressure, propaganda, or other reasons. The 20
Up to 33
Three Ukrainian Regions – East, Center, and South
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are Russian. This is where the separatists are or at least they are in the East in the Donbass. If they put the entire area east of the Dniper to a plebiscite, I’m pretty sure that they would vote to secede from Ukraine. Only part of this region, the Donbass, is now separate.
The area west of the Dniper and east of Kiev is called Central Ukraine, and it is completely different. It’s not really Nazi but it’s not pro-Russian at all. It’s pro-Ukrainian government. They’re somewhere in the middle of the pro-Russian East and the Nazi West.
But they are not pro-Russian at all, and Russia will have a very hard time occupying this place because the population will be so hostile.
The only place Russia can occupy is the South and the East, and they are having problems with anti-Russian demos right now.
Occupying Nazi Western Ukraine will be almost impossible because the population will be insanely hostile. I don’t know how they will do it. They probably won’t. But it will be a perennial problem. If the East goes independent or strongly pro-Russian, which is probable, and the Center is controlled by a pro-Russian demilitarized, neutral, and at least somewhat denazififed state, as is possible if difficult to carry out, the idea would be for Russia to say the Hell with the Nazi West.
Problem is all the Nazis in the rest of the country will flee there. And lots of advanced weapons are pouring in there, so it’s full of powerful weapons and armed to the teeth. Not to mention the population are already Nazi fanatics for a good 80 years now ever since 1941 and maybe even before from 1932 and the famine. The temptation is to say the Hell with it and let this Nazi state fester.
A new rump Ukraine state will be formed there, and I believe that NATO forces may even move in in large numbers to occupy it. It will then become a new “Ukraine” with the same dynamic in place – endless weapons supplies and NATO training to turn it into a cat’s paw to attack Russia with, although Russia will now have some geographic depth with Novorussia in the east and the pacified state in the center.
An insurgency against the Center and the East is already planned there, as all US factions from “right” to “center” to “left” are in agreement about bogging down Russia in a new Syria or Afghanistan. Call it the Syrianization of Ukraine. So the Ukraine problem of 2014-present will simply move from Ukraine to Western Ukraine. At some point, Russia might have to go into Western Ukraine to clean those Nazis out, and it won’t be pretty.
Hitlery Clinton has already come out in support of Syrianization, as has (((Victoria Nuland))) who pretty much singlehandedly created this whole mess. Her husband is (((Donald Kagan))), one of the craziest, most vicious, and blood-drenched neocons of them all. They both installed (((Yatzeniuk))) as President, a fanatical Russia-hating nationalist and oligarch. So there’s a bit of an (((angle))) here as there is with so many lousy things, but that’s not the whole story, and this is what crazy antisemites miss.
These are just American Jewish neocons. They don’t represent Israel or American Jewry at all. Mostly they are just fanatical US imperialists. They’ve hitched themselves to US imperialism, but almost all US Gentiles are in the same sheep flock.
The Democratic Party and Joe Biden Started This War
(((Nuland))) is a neocon Clintonite.
When Biden came in, he brought back the neocons, many of whom had been thrown out by isolationist Trump. Both parties have a vast neocon faction, almost all of it Gentile, though a number of the leaders are Jewish.
Hence, anti-Russian policy was vastly ramped up. If Trump was still in, this war would not have happened. But the Democrats radically ramped up the aggression against Russia because the Democrats are now the McCarthyite party of Russia-haters, while Republicans are split between a base that is both pro- and anti-Russia, even if Republican politicians are whores with fingers to the wind who have no basic values at all other than “zero sum game” and “win at any cost.” So Biden and the Democratic Party’s foreign policy is worse than the Republicans, and Biden and the Democrats pretty much started this war.
A Recent Historical View of the Ukrainian Nazi Infestation
There are plenty of Nazis in Central Ukraine too, especially after eight years of incessant Nazi propaganda. It’s started to effect people, and even ordinary Ukies are a lot more anti-Russian and pro-Nazi than they were eight years ago. Also a lot of the Russian speakers simply left, especially the ones in the South and East.
It was like this all over the Donbass inside and outside of the separatist regions. Many of these people are coming home now on the backs of advancing Russian troops, and they are quite happy to be home.
The reason for the anti-Russian protests in the South is due to a variety of reasons.
First, many men are veterans of the war in the East.
Second, many Ukies have relatives or neighbors in the military currently fighting the Russians.
Third, eight years of brainwashing works.
Fourth, many people may have turned pro-Ukie and anti-Russian to avoid persecution.
Fifth, most of the Russian speakers took off.
The result is you now have quite a few pro-Ukies in the South, but they are still a minority. The majority are still Russian speakers, but they have been quiet and holed up inside for eight years, and a lot of them left and will presumably return. But there are definitely pro-Ukies in the West and even some in the East.
There Are No Pro-Ukrainians Left in the Donbass
When the operation in the Donbass started, the Ukie troops came in as liberators taking back the separatist zones for Ukraine. About 20
However, the Ukies conquered a lot of those towns but were never able to control them. The separatists fought an extremely dirty guerrilla war, not wearing uniforms, hiding among the population in yards and houses, jumping fences from house to house, on and on.
The Ukies would be lured into rooms where there were women and children present so the Ukies thought it was OK to come in. Then a hidden separatist would jump out and attack the Ukie soldiers. Obviously this endangered the women and kids too. There were booby-traps and hidden bombs everywhere.
The Ukies eventually decided that there was no way they were going to defeat them because they were too deeply rooted in the population. They also said that after months of brutal occupation, the entire pro-Ukie 20
About half of the Donetsk and Lugansk states were controlled by the Ukies after they pushed the separatists out and them. Indeed the separatists were about ready to be defeated when Russia poured in and reversed the losses.
Yes, the Nazis had a lot of support in Hungary, Romania, the Baltics, Finland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Belarus. They played the nationalism card and went into those parts of the USSR promising those peoples independence. Of those, four are Orthodox, four are Catholic, and two are Protestant.
In Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Serbia, Macedonia, Greece and Albania, the Nazis had little support and often much opposition. The first three are Catholic and the last three are Orthodox.
I’m not seeing any particular tendency of any particular religion to be more Nazi-supporting than any other.
In Poland, they probably just killed too many Poles. How many Poles would go along with that? Protestants never went over to Nazis too much for whatever reason. Maybe they’re too individualistic. Also Protestants have never been very antisemitic. That’s been more of a Catholic and Orthodox thing.
Many Ukrainians sided with the Nazis. In every country they went into, the Nazis recruited homicidal antisemites for the SS. They found no more than moderate support in most places, but in Ukraine, they were overwhelmed with volunteers.
Ukrainian SS units fought all the way over in Northern France, where they hatched a famous rebellion against the Nazis in 1944.
You see, to the Nazis, even the SS Ukrainians were just inferior Slavs, and the Germans treated them terribly. The Ukrainians didn’t appreciate it. They rebelled in Northern France and killed the 50 Germans leading their unit, only losing four men. Then they all went over to the French Resistance. The Resistance happily took them in even though they were former SS. Pretty weird. SS guys joining the resistance!
The Ukrainian SS in France didn’t work very well. A German officer said, “It’s hard to motivate Ukrainians to kill Americans for Germans in France.” They were simply not part of the fight over there.
A lot of Ukrainians became concentration camp guards. The famous guard Ivan the Terrible, Ivan Demjanjuk, was one of them. They even had a special name for the Ukrainians who worked in the camps named after the camp where they were trained.
Ukrainian nationalists also committed a number of massacres in Slovakia and Poland.
Villagers under their rule said they were worse than Germans. They said German soldiers at least had a basic civilized politeness about them. They were mostly just doing a job, and they seemed a bit bored a lot of the time. They didn’t tend to go in for gratuitous unnecessary violence. The Ukrainians seemed to enjoy being cruel for the fun of it.
Keep in mind that the German Army itself often did not commit ethnic massacres. That was usually left to the SS. The German troops didn’t really have the stomach for lining civilians up and slaughtering them. Originally, the Nazis had ordinary soldiers massacring civilians, but the soldiers were outraged at what they had done and wrote letters back home about how awful it was. There were a lot of PTSD cases and desertions.
That’s why they created the SS in the first place – because the ordinary soldiers were not capable of massacres like that. Soldiers may be killers but they’re not necessarily murderers.
A German general in Warsaw saved 3,000 Jews. The Nazis had captured 3,000 Jews and put them to work in a factory for a general. The idea was to work them for a few weeks until they could transfer them to camps. The general got wind that the SS were coming, and he called his Jewish workers around. He got up and simply said, “The SS will be coming in two days.” The workers got the message and they all took off. He didn’t stop them.
Later in the war the same general tried to save another few thousand Jews. This time he was caught and executed. I have a lot of respect for that man.
Understand that your average German soldier or officer was just a soldier first and foremost, a fighting man. They were not necessarily any more antisemitic than any other German. A lot didn’t have passionate feelings about Jews one way or the other.
Some of those Nazi nationalists in those other countries were worse than the Germans! The Germans were so outraged by the behavior of the Ukrainian UNO under Stepan Bandera that they put him in prison in Germany! The Romanian nationalists outraged the Germans when they hung Jews on meathooks in slaughterhouses. That was too much for the German Army. Germans, you know, they do have certain standards!
I saw an interview with a Belorussian man. He was talking about the Belorussian nationalist Nazi collaborators, whose heirs are now the Belorussian opposition that the US supports. He was alive in World War 2. He said that the Belorussian nationalists were going to come to their village of 10,000 people and kill everyone in it. The villagers went to the local Nazi commander and told him about it, and he was outraged. He stationed a unit inside the village to protect the villagers. I respect that man too. When you’re worse than Nazis, that’s pretty bad!
The Jews in Ukraine are particularly evil. They’re out and out neo-Nazis, but it’s this weird Nazism that substitutes Russians for Jews. However, the spiritual father of these Nazis was an independence movement supported by Stepan Bandera in World War 2 Ukraine who supported Hitler and murdered 200,000 Jews and 40,000 Poles on their own. So the Jewish Nazis in Ukraine are supporting a movement that helped in the Holocaust of their own people!
In addition, the governments of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and the opposition in Belarus are all pro-Nazi because the independence movements in all of these places were pro-Nazi in World War 2 in part because the Nazis conquered these places and promised them independence.
The local Nazis in some of these places were almost worse than the real thing. A Belarussian recently told about how the Belarussian local Nazi militia were going to wipe out his entire village for whatever reason, and the village heads went to the local German Nazi Army commander and told him of their plans. The Nazi officer was so appalled that he halted their plans and stationed soldiers in the village to protect the people. The local Nazi militias in Romania hung local Jews on meathooks in slaughterhouses. Photos of these murders leaked out, and even the local German Nazi military officers were outraged by this.
The truth is a number of German military officers were not interested in or even opposed to the Jew-killing.
A German general reportedly saved 3,000 Jews in Warsaw from imminent extermination by the SS. They were working in a factory the Nazis had set up as a sort of slave labor force, but the general tried to treat them as well as he could. He heard that the SS was coming to raid the factory and he knew what that meant. So he gave a talk to his Jewish workers and told that them that the SS was coming to the factory in a few days. He didn’t say anything else. He didn’t have to. All 3,000 workers had fled by the time the SS showed up. The general said they broke out while his men were sleeping. The Jews escaped to safety, at least for a while anyway. He later tried protect another few thousand Jews and was caught and executed.
Not everyone in the Army was a raving antisemite. In the beginning the Nazis had assigned the task of Jew-killing to ordinary soldiers. Famous letters from German soldiers expressed disgust and outrage over the gruesome murder by bayonet of a couple of dozen Jews that their unit had participated in in Eastern Europe. The soldiers had so many breakdowns and traumatic reactions afterwards that a special Jew- and other civilian-killing force, the SS, had to be created.
Before the Nazi Party went after the Jews, they had a lot of supporters among German Jews, many of whom were ready to go fascist themselves. They only reason they didn’t was because Hitler turned on them. If not they would have been with him to the end. By the way, guess who else supports those (((Nazis in Ukraine)))? You got it. Israel.
Jewish Fascists in Israel
The Jewish would-be fascists of the 1930’s have since vacated to Israel where they have resurrected a native Israeli fascism derived from the literal Jewish fascist Jabotinsky, who wrote The Iron Wall in 1921. All of the Likud and other rightwing governments since the early 1980’s have been literally heirs to Jabotinskyism. In fact, Jabotinsky is considered to be the spiritual father of the Likud Party, and everyone who came after him is one of his children. Jabotinsky supported all of the nascent fascist movements in Europe at the time.
Israel has now made alliances with fascist-like parties in Hungary, Poland, (((Ukraine))), India, and the Philippines, which should not be surprising because fascist states form alliances with other fascist states, and Israel is a fascist state made up of Jewish fascists.
Falange Fascists in Lebanon
Israel has long supported the fascist Falangists in Lebanon, a strongly-Christian native fascist movement. About half of Lebanese Christians are with these fascists and the other half are with Christian President Aoun and hence are supporters of Hezbollah because he is with Hezbollah. So half of Lebanese Christians are with Hezbollah and the other half basically want to exterminate Hezbollah. By the way, the fascist Lebanese Christians hate the Palestinians too.
They are also one of the only groups in the Arab World to support actual rightwing economics, which goes against basic Arab culture and Islam itself. This is because while most Middle Eastern Christians (Catholics) look East to the pro-socialist Eastern Orthodox Church, especially the leadership in Russia. The Lebanese, who are also Catholics, are Western Catholics who look to Rome and Europe. Hence the support for Western neoliberalism and libertarianism, two things which have never caught on in the Orthodox East and probably will not within the foreseeable future. Neoliberalism literally goes against their very culture.
The forefather of that movement, a man named Gemayal, emerged in Lebanon early on. In the 1930’s, he also supported fascist movements in Europe. He literally had pictures of Hitler pasted to his high school locker. The US also supports these Lebanese fascists, and in fact they are the principal US ally in that government. The Saudis also support them, but the Saudis are Far Right themselves, so it should not shock us when they support non-Islamic fascist, in this case, Christian ones.
The Israeli government is Far Right, and Far Right parties are often fascist-like. And as I noted above, the Far Right in Israel literally has fascist roots.
Manuel Rodriguez: Back to politics. What is going on in Bolivia is worrying me. We have fascist squads lynching “undesirables” like peasants. We also see that there have been placed barricades with rubbish and tires that block vehicle mobilization, causing people to be fed up and remove the barricades. You know what this all reminds me? The guarimbas of 2014 in Venezuela and Nicaragua. I can see where this is going.
————————– Separate: There is an tendency that is pretty worrying going on at least in Latin America.
The people are tired of the structural inequalities from the neoliberal policies of the right, causing them to lose in elections whenever they appear as they are, and the people are conscious enough.
The mutation consisted on swapping in the public’s mind the Traditional Right image with Center-Right, which seems like a more popular alternative. The complementary tactic is for thee Center-Right to dress up as the Center-Left, which in reality are already prepared sell-outs whose main purpose is try to divert votes from the Left to help the Right win.
The media did their thing, which was to help Center-Left Boric would win over the Leftist Jadue. The whole purpose of Center-Left Yaku Pérez’ candidacy was to make the Leftist Andrés Arauz lose.
That strategy seems to be being recently changing. They are changing the Center-Right for populist Trump-style fascist Far Right candidates. The most worrying thing is that they are getting a lot of support from the population. Bolsonaro is an classic example. Jose Antonio Kast is a more recent example. It seems that Vamos in Argentina is going to win in the parliament.
I would like to point out that the election in Ecuador was profoundly unfair. First of all, the main opposition party kept getting banned, and its leaders all have warrants out for their arrest on fake charges. This “lawfare” is similar to what was done in Brazil. By the way, the FBI greatly assisted the Brazilian fascists in the lawfare against the Left down there. The US is also engaging in lawfare against Venezuela.
Vamos are Argentine fascists?
Obviously Bolsonaro is a fascist, and Kast is clearly a Pinochet-style Chilean fascist.
Why are people voting fascist? I don’t get it. Although Chile and Argentine both have deep fascist blocs in each country, in my opinion mostly because those are majority-White countries. Brazil is also a majority-White country, which may be why they are going fascist too.
In Latin America nowadays, where you lack a White majority, fascism is hard to install because Latin non-Whites hate fascism. They’ve had quite enough of it. However, they do support it in Colombia. On the other hand, Colombia is also a fairly White country. Fascist roots in Colombia go back to Independence. The country simply has developed a culture of popular fascism for whatever reason. Turkey is very similar. The people get no benefit for voting fascist, but they keep doing it anyway.
There are fascist governments in non-White Haiti, Honduras, and Paraguay, but all of those are dictatorships. The Right seized power with fascist coups – armed in Haiti and Honduras and legislative in Paraguay – and they have ruled by dictatorship ever since.
In the Americas, Whiteness is associated with rightwing authoritarianism and fascism. In Europe this is not the case, but Whites are a huge majority over there. It appears that Whites go fascist when they are in the minority, but Argentina and Chile are majority-White, so I don’t get it.
Really any population descended from the Catholic Spaniards divides into the typical Far Right-Far versus Left Collectivist pattern. This pattern is also seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, and Lebanon, all Mediterranean countries. This is also seen now somewhat in France. Spain, France, and Italy are Catholic, Greece is Orthodox, Turkey is Muslim, and Lebanon is mostly Catholic and Muslim. Mediterranean countries are collectivist, so politics tends to be collectivist. Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity are collectivist religions.
Left collectivism is Communism and socialism, while Right collectivism is fascism.
The Catholic East European fascism in Poland and Hungary is different and has a Catholic socially conservative and anti-Communist tint. Liberation theology never took hold in Eastern Europe except in Czechia, where there is a long tradition of “Catholic Communism.”
In Ukraine, the Baltics, and Belarus, the fascism is simply Nazism, pure and simple. Ukraine and Belarus are Orthodox, and the Baltics are Catholic (Lithuania) and Protestant (Latvia and Estonia). The Nazism here stems from World War and the independence movements in these countries making alliances with the Nazi occupiers who promised them independence. The Communists in turn were seen as anti-nationalists who thwarted these nations independence dreams. See below for more on that.
In Orthodox Georgia and Russia, fascism nationalist – ethnic nationalist in Georgia or simply nationalist or “Russian Empire nationalist” in Russia.
Protestant Northern Europe is more individualistic. The Right there is just about dead except in the UK and the Baltics. The Right in the UK is a pale copy of US politics. See below for the anti-Communist roots of the Right in the Baltics.
The Right in the northern individualist parts of Europe is mostly anti-Muslim. It’s conservatism is toned down like all politics in Northern Europe is toned down, so it’s not really fascist, instead a type of Woke Anti-Islam. Otherwise they are very left on social issues. One of their leaders in the Netherlands was a gay man. And they support a more socialist economics, but this is the case for both the Right and Left in most of Europe proper other than the Baltics.
The Economic Right is only popular in the UK, where the political economics mirrors the US, and in Czechia, the Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. In all of these places except the UK, it is an anti-Communist reaction where many people are angry about living under Communism in the past, so they have gone to extreme Right economics as an overreaction.
In Estonia and Latvia, support for the economic Right has been disastrous and has almost destroyed both countries. The Economic Right has little power in Russia and Belarus, with only 10-20
Rambo: Your friend there is wrong, Highbrow. Fascism is NOT dead. Just look around the world. Trying my best not to spout clichés, it’s very much alive and well. Maybe that’s what Highbrow has been trying to remind people of.
Yes, and fascism now is taking dramatically different forms than it has in the past. In general, fascism is political process set up by capitalists when they are facing a serious threat from the Left. Any rightwing authoritarian regime or dictatorship against the Left, especially a popular one, can only be seen as fascist.
Therefore, there were many fascist regimes in the world in the last 75 years. States in bold house current fascist regimes. States in normal print indicate past fascist regimes:
In Latin America in Guatemala until 1995, El Salvador until 1992, Honduras, Nicaragua until 1979, Haiti, Colombia, Brazil, Peru under Fujimori in the 1990’s, Ecuador, Bolivia under Hugo Banzer in the 1950’s and briefly last year, Argentina under Videla and Uruguay under the generals in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, Paraguay, and Chile under Pinochet, but also in Spain under Franco until 1975, Portugal under Salazar until 1974, Croatia and Serbia after the Balkans War, Greece under the generals in the late 1960’s, Ukraine, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Pakistan under Zia in the 1980’s, India, Iran under the Shah until 1979, Liberia under Samuel Doe in the 1980’s, Zaire under Mobutu, South Africa under apartheid, Rhodesia under Ian Smith, Morocco under the king, Brunei under the Sultan, the Philippines, Vietnam under Thieu and Diem, Thailand Burma under the generals, Indonesia under Soekarno, South Korea under Singhman Rhee in the 1950’s until 1980, Taiwan in the 1950’s until 1980 and China in the late 1940’s under Chiang Kai Chek, and Fiji.
Incipient fascism is creeping in the US, the UK, Israel, Poland, and Hungary.
There is presently strong fascist opposition in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, Belarus, Lebanon, and Hong Kong.
Pro-fascist democracies exist in the Dominican Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Georgia in particular and frankly, in the entire EU and NATO because the EU and NATO are supporting the fascist opposition in Latin America, the fascist government in Ukraine, and the fascist opposition in Belarus these days.
There are arguments that the Taliban is fascist, but I’m not buying it. I’m also not buying arguments about “Islamo-fascism.” Nor do I think China, North Korea, Belarus, or Russia are fascist.
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.
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
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.”
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
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.
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
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
…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
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
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
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.
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.
The West has constructed a narrative that Russia is a lying, coup-mongering, murderous, terrorist, aggressive, expansionist country. The problem is that this is all projection. It is actually the West, as in NATO, that is all of these things.
Large entities have been set up to fight “Russian disinformation.” Having studied the question for a long time now, the only disinformation is coming out of the West. The Russian “disinformation” is instead the closest thing to the truth! At least in terms of international geopolitics, where the US and now the West are barely known for their honesty.
After the fall of the USSR, the terrorist organization called NATO had nothing to do. So they had to invent a threat in order to continue their unnecessary existence, which is sleazy and disgusting.
The West colonized Russia under Yeltsin and stripped the country bare using a lot of (((Russian traitors))) who sold the country off for 10 cents on the dollar.. A note about the coincidence marks. The traitors weren’t all Jews. More like a lot of them were and even there, a lot of Russian Gentiles worked with them. But they definitely worked with their (((pals))) in New York and Tel Aviv to strip Russia bare. Why? International Jewry has hated Russia forever.
I guess this was the payback. Some Russian Jews are ok. There’s a righteous Jew on Twitter called Jewish Russiaphile. He’s a Russian Jew who is unabashedly pro-Russian. But these are not common. Meanwhile a lot of the Russian “Jews” who “fled” to Israel are barely even Jewish. The Jews have paid for this conceit now by the fact that these more or less Russian Gentiles have now formed literal White Supremacist gangs in Israel. Do the Jews ever think there might be a backlash to some of their machinations?
The Jews and the Russians have been going at it forever in and around the Pale and in other places. Russian Jews are the worst Gentile haters of them all. They literally fix Bloody Marys and say they are drinking the blood of Russian Gentiles.
It’s a Hatfields and McCoys thing where everyone acknowledges there’s a blood feud but no one seems to know who started it or why. What is little acknowledged is that when the Jews moved into or more properly were herded into the Pale, they proceeded to savagely abuse the Slavic peasants there economically.
Yes, there were pogroms against Jews and they were terrible.
But those were set off by the Czarists in order to deflect criticism of the Royals. “Hate the King? No! Don’t hate the King? He’s good! Go kill those Jews over there!” Yet the Russian Jews were in bed with the Royalty if I am not mistaken. Many peasant rebellions in Medieval Europe targeted Jews because the Jews had become tax collectors for the feudal lords who abused the serfs. Come time for the villagers with torches, the lords could not be found, ensconced in castles and forts. The Jews instead were an easy target. But it was their fault in a way for lining up with the enemies of the people.
15 million Russians died under Yeltsin when Russia was reduced to a raped and plundered Western colony. The US made many promises at this time about not extending the terrorist organization called NATO to Russia’s doorstep and then proceeded to violate every one of them.
Russians were humiliated when Yeltsin turned Russia into the supplicant, abused slave of the bankers in (((New York))), (((Tel Aviv))), and Frankfurt. Granted the German banksters were Gentiles.
Russians, unlike Americans, know who their enemies are. They elected Putin because he figured that out. Under Putin, the way the Russians see it is one man is fighting back! Against the invasion of the West, that is. This is the message.
The US has also surrounded Russia with military bases, not just in the the terrorist organization called NATO but also to the East in Central Asia. As usual, we project this aggression onto the victims by claiming that Russia is expansionist and the West is just a poor victim.
Well, there are two kinds of people in geopolitics, bad and worse. Geopolitics is a dirty game and non-psychopaths need not apply.
Don’t ever think any of our sleazy Western leaders is 1
Alexei Navalny, the “Russian oppositionist,” is a pathetic drama queen. He has 2
His fake rallies (riots) get broken up because he refuses to hold them in designated places and instead holds illegal rallies in other places where they are not allowed. When that’s not enough, his minions run out into the street and block traffic so they can get arrested and scream persecution. When the cops come to arrest them, they attack the police. Poor victims!
Russia and Belarus recently uncovered a CIA plot hatched under “liberal Democrat” Biden murder Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, and kill most of the Legislature of Belarus. That was a CIA plot. As soon as it was uncovered, how did the West respond? The Western cucks in Czechia made up something about Russia agents blowing up a depot and threw out 18 Russian diplomats. Except Czech intelligence determined at the time that it was accidental.
See that “stolen election” in Belarus? Granted the process is not fair, but I assure you that Lukashenko got 80
Not to mention that as everywhere in East, “anti-Russian” and “Nazi” are synonyms. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Ukraine are Nazi countries. The leaders are unapologetic Nazis, and there are statues to Nazi war heroes all over these countries. Of course, the Belarus opposition are Nazis too, including the schoolteacher who ran for office that last time. Nobody likes the Belarus opposition.
Everyone knows Navalny is a traitor and a spy who works for MI6.
He deliberately stayed in Germany, breaking his consent decree in his legal case. His previous 3.5 year sentence for stealing $1 million was suspended by the evil, Navalny-hating judge! I see the judicial system in Russia is real biased against Navalny. Not. Instead of checking in with parole like he was supposed to, he stayed in Germany. He did this to provoke a crisis and force an arrest so he can cry victim.
There is a real opposition in Russia – the Communist Party and Zhirinovsky – the patriotic opposition – and they both oppose Putin. They amount to 20
I’ve talked to Russians about Navalny and the Westernizers. Their response? “Oh, you mean the traitors! We Russians don’t call them the opposition. We just call them the traitors.”
The Russia Today website is full of Russia-haters in the comments. Yet 95
No one was ever poisoned, there is no Novichok in Russia, nor is it being used to poison anyone anywhere. All of those fake poisonings were done to frame Russia.
It was Ukraine that M17 shot that jet down, not Russia. They did it to frame the Russians.
There were no Russian agents blowing stuff up in Czechia. It was a lie made up to frame Russia.
There was no Russian Four Winds hack – that was done by our best pal, Israel. No country spies on us and has penetrated more of our state institutions than Israel, but no one can say a peep about it. Because of that, we lied and said Russia did the hack in order to frame it.
The US, “the air force of ISIS” helped ISIS kill two Russian generals. There is no way that ISIS had the intelligence and capability to target those generals at the distance they did.
The US and the Kurd traitors lured 200 Wagner mercenaries into a trick and a trap and killed them. Remember that case where “200 Russian mercenaries and a pro-Assad militia tried to steal an oil field from the Kurds?” First of all, that oil field belongs to Syria, not to the Kurdish traitors and US occupiers.
Second of all, there had been agreement between the Kurds and the militia and their mercenary friends for the Kurds to withdraw from the oil field and hand it over to the Assad militia. About a week later, the US suddenly ordered the Kurds to withdraw. The Assad militia and the mercenaries figured that the deal had been done and moved in to take the field according to the plan. At that point, the US screamed that “the Assad militia and the Russian mercenaries were trying to steal an oil field!” We called in bombers and bombed both parties mercilessly in the middle of the night. ~200 Russian mercenaries were killed. As you can see, they were lured into a trap so they could be killed.
The beached whale known as Mike “Fat Fuck” Pompeo gleefullly announced the next day that the US had “killed 200 Russians” who were trying to steal and oil field. Some Pentagon spokesman also made some comments along the lines of how fun it was to kill all those Russians. Think maybe the US is trying to provoke Russia by luring all those Russians into a trap, killing them, and then gloating about it while seeming to dare Russia to retaliate?
I’m not even sure that the double agent in the UK many years ago was poisoned with plutonium, not that he didn’t deserve it. A retired high ranking agent in French intelligence says MI6 poisoned him to frame Russia. I would not put much of anything based MI6 psychopaths.
One NATO false flag and provocation after another.
Russia regards extending NATO to Ukraine as an existential threat and of course they are correct. This is one more provocation being done to bait Russia into attacking Ukraine. Then we will slam the sanctions on them. In part this is a last-ditch attempt by the US to stop the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which is on the final legs of its construction in Northern Germany.
And if Russia takes the bait, many more sanctions will be piled onto Russia, including the worst sanction of all – throwing Russia out of the SWIFT system, the international system for transferring money among banks used by most countries in the world. Russia has stated that being thrown out of SWIFT would be an act of war. Let’s see what happens.
Bartleby TDV: I’m not sure. I’ve given up trying to decide. Whaddya think??
I think I’m just “alt-” for now. It’s like all these gender types they pull out of their asses.
I just hate elites and I want to see them disappear from the planet. So we can revert to some primitive society and in about 2,000 years we’ll have a whole new crop of them, but that’s a long way off.
I don’t know. What are your views on economics? Right and left is mostly about economics. All the rest is just BS. Scott Alexander and I are Alt Left – anti-PC, anti-SJW, anti-woke, anti-Cultural Left liberals and Leftists. The others are just rightwingers, especially Mercer, Hansen, and Bloody Shovel. I’m a “conservative socialist.” A socially conservative liberal to Left socialist. I wouldn’t link to those three if you paid me. I really dislike reactionary politics. I’ve looked at your site and you are 100
Sadly the link between culture and economics is as deep as ever. Everyone who has had it up to here with the woketards decides that they are “conservatives” and need to vote Republican. I keep telling people that they can mix and match and be left on some things and right on others, but basically 0
The problem of course is that PC, SJWism, the Cultural Left, Identity Politics, and Woketardism is seen by 100
For instance, for a long time, the only people who ever read here are rightwingers. And here I am, practically a Communist, and my site is nothing but conservatives. Liberals and Leftists come here sometimes, but we’ve always had White Supremacists on here, and the first time they open their mouths, these guys take off. Or the first time I start spouting my social conservatism.
The idea of socially conservative liberals and Leftists simply does not compute. I’m starting to wonder if I’m the only one.
How many people mix and match? I am starting to think zero. None, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. If you’re against PC insanity, you go rightwing on everything and I do mean everything. Against mass immigration? You go full rightwing Republican on everything. Race realist? 99
The problem of course is that everyone on the Left who sees through the stupidity of ID politics gets thrown out of the Left, and boy do they throw you out hard! They also call you Republican, conservative, reactionary, and especially fascist and Nazi. I’ve been called all these things so many times that I have started to believe that this is what I actually am. I have searched all of the conservative and reactionary movements in the US and the world over and I dislike or despise almost all of them. I simply hate the very notion of conservatism itself. It’s crap. I’ve started to wonder if I was a fascist or a Third Positionist or a National Bolshevik. I can’t be any of those things. They’re all just fascists. I searched through all variations of fascism abroad including Third Positionism, Strasserism, and National Bolshevism, and while it is more appealing on economics, the rest of it is simply horrible. I despise anything that even smells like fascism. It’s a monstrous ideology. I can never support it.
The only project I might be able to get with is the Russian conservatism of Vladimir Putin. Russian conservatism is the left of the Democratic Party on most important things, although there is an element of social conservatism running through it. I dislike the autocratic nature of Putin’s rule.
Lukashenko in Belarus is similar. He is even more left than Putin but he’s also a social conservative. He’s also much more of a dictator than Putin, albeit he is quite a popular dictator, with 80
People on the Left like me who despise the woketards get cancelled and deplatformed everywhere on Earth to the point where the only places I can post at are rightwing websites. I despise rightwing politics.
I created the Alt Left to create a safe space for liberals and Leftists who had had it up to here with the Woketard Left, but it seems it’s as much of a pipe dream now as when it started. At one point, we had 18,000 members of Alt Left groups on Facebook. I renounced most of them. Some were just warmed over Cultural Leftism, such as anti-TERF feminists, trannies, and gays.
Many others were just rightwingers. A vast number were Libertarians, Ancaps, etc. I had to go around and keep renouncing all of the new factions sparking up because it was nothing but rightwingers and reactionaries, at least on economics. Quite a few were simply Muslim-haters. These are pretty much Cultural Left on everything except Islam. And they’re all hard right on economics, 100
A continuous problem in all Alt Left groups was continuous invasion by conservatives. We had to keep throwing them out. And a lot of even the top Alt Lefties were not very leftwing. Most were hardcore capitalists, albeit being opposed to neoliberalism and supporting Keynesianism.
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.
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.
Brian: Identity politics is a bulwark against socialism, even against mild social democracy. It works by preventing an awareness of common cause among those who aren’t near the top of society. It’s used domestically, in the U.S., to stymie any sort of labor movement, and abroad it serves to keep vassal states weak and dependent.
Yeah this is perfect. Why is the US pushing gay rights all over the world, especially in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, places where homophobia is at a high level? Why does the US push feminism and women’s rights so strongly in Afghanistan? Why is Soros pushing radical feminism and gay rights all over Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia?
And appallingly, why does Soros refuse to fund this same radical feminism in Israel, where his primary loyalty lies? Gosh, that’s straight out the Protocols! Weaken the Gentile states but keep the Jews strong so we can continue to lord it over the Gentiles, our economic and cultural competitors.
What’s the point? It’s clear the most Afghans do not like such things. Also we push the same Cultural Liberalism or Cultural Left crap.
I call it GloboHomo because of its emphasis on a strong push for gay rights in homophobic countries and the fact that the Cultural Left is part of the US Empire and the corporate-Empire-Deep State globalization project, which benefits elites, the rich, and corporations but doesn’t benefit your average person at all. Note that an essential aspect of globalization is anti-nationalism and neoliberalism.
The US has always hated nationalism because when nationalists come to power, they get tired of being exploited, raped and ravaged US colonies who get 10 cents on every dollar US corporations take out of their nations and instead advocate for a national economy where they manufacture their own things, grow crops for food instead of export, and nationalize large US corporate interests so the nation can use it’s national resources to help its own people instead of having them stolen by US corporate carpetbaggers.
The part about growing food for consumption not export is very important because the US Empire’s (also the project of the entire West) is to stop countries from making their own stuff and growing their own food. Why? Because we wish to keep them in a colonial dependency because that way we can exploit them maximally and extract the highest profit from their countries while giving them as few of the profits as possible.
The US typically makes alliance with a comprador elite, oligarchy, or ruling class along with an upper middle class sector attached to it. This class also represents most of the business interests of the nation. The US allows this top 20
This allows them to benefit from not making their own stuff or growing their own food by allowing them to run the import and distribution models that import and distribute US food and manufactured products. The top 20
In fact, the US pushed neoliberalism all over the world, in particular in Latin America, in the 1980’s and 1990’s. These were referred to in Latin America as The Lost Decades for the negative economic growth during those times. The so-called Pink Tide that so enraged the US and led to fascist coup after fascist coup was the logical result of the disgust Latin Americans felt for The Lost Decades foisted on them by the US.
During this period when the US pushed neoliberalism, generally only the top 20
Why do we want nations to grow for export and not for internal consumption?
Because that way we can make money off the agricultural sector by profiting from the import of these foods from the nation. We don’t want them growing their own food because then they wouldn’t grow so much profit-rich crops for export and would instead grow for consumption, which US corporations can’t make a profit off of.
Also, if people grow for consumption, they would eat their own food instead of being forced to import most of their food from US farmers and food manufacturing corporations. I would also note that the US imported US manufactured food is usually not very good for you, being high in salt, sugar, simple carbohydrates and fat and low in protein and complex carbohydrates. Canned processed food usually isn’t’ particularly good for you for a variety of reasons.
Why do we not want nations to make their own stuff?
Because then they would not need to import all of their manufactured goods from US corporations!
Thing is, when nations grow their own food and make their own manufactured products it’s very difficult for the US to go in and exploit that country and make super-profits. Sure there are still a level of profits to be made – note the trade between the US and Europe – but the profits are not nearly at such a high level.
Transformer: Hey Robert, I would like your opinion about black libertarians Thomas Sowell and Walter E Williams. Do you think they make arguments that are difficult to refute? Here is Sowell saying Socialism is a failure.
I’ll get to Williams in a bit.
Of course I don’t agree with Thomas Sowell. I’m not even sure that Communism has been such a failure, or socialism if you will. I really like the Chinese Communist Party’s new definition of Communism or socialism or whatever. The words Communism and socialism don’t have any meanings. They mean whatever people who use them say they mean. In other words, people can keep changing the definitions of these things all they want to and say, “Well, Communism and socialism used to mean this, but now it means this new thing.”
Anyway, I really like the Chinese socialism with Chinese characteristics model of Communism and I believe China is absolutely a Communist country and I would say that they have figured out how to make Communism actually work. The Vietnamese model is quite similar and even that works quite well. So does the Laotian model.
I will admit that I am not sure if the classic model of state socialism or Communism is capable of producing a functional economy. I worry that it doesn’t. But that’s why I say redefine the word and decide that socialism and Communism are these new things that the Chinese and the like are doing instead.
We decided the old model didn’t work, so we went back to the drawing board and made a new model. And everybody screams and yells and says you can’t do that because the only way to do your model is the old way, so the new model isn’t even the model anymore and instead it’s something else. I think these people are engaging in magical thinking.
What’s wrong with that?
Iran has a very socialist system and it works great. So does Belarus. Russia is a lot more socialist than you think, way more. I like the new Cuban model too.
And I think the Venezuelan model works great too. The problems they are having down there have to do with sanctions and an embargo that are completely wrecking the economy. Just to give you an example of how evil the US is, Iran shipped four ships of gasoline to Venezuelan and the US intercepted them on the high seas and out and out stole the cargo. They brought they ships to Houston where they are stealing the cargo right now. So you see, we’ve made it impossible for them to make their own gas and when anyone tries to send them gas, we seize the ship and steal the cargo.
Almost every single country on Earth is on paper at least some form of social democracy. I think only the US and Botswana are not. I’m not sure about Canada, but it’s way more SD than we are. The Democratic Party’s social liberalism and its cogener in Canada are not social democracy. Social democracy is rather to the left of both of those things.
Why even read those guys unless you are still figuring out your basic views on political economy? Well, if you are still figuring that stuff out, by all means, go ahead, read the right, read the left, read everyone. But that rightwing stuff is very brainwashing, and almost all of it is a lie in some form or another.
From Moon of Alabama. By the way, I cannot recommend that site highly enough. The bottom line over there is the search for the truth. Grab your stomach if you go over there though because their (factual) revelations about this county will make you want to retch. Not recommended for patriotards. A common phrase over there is “the Outlaw US Empire,” which, sadly, is exactly what we are.
A brief history of Europe since WW2 showing how it became a slave colony of the US. NATO (North American Terrorist Organization) and the EU both massively involved. The stuff below is very complex if you don’t have the background, so go ahead and ask me any question you want if you need anything explicated.
As I’ve been trying to say here, this is part of a bigger overall process happening in the European Peninsula since the post-war period marked by an unbroken streak of decline in every possible facet.
This process, however, is multifaceted and is an amalgamation of many variables, historical and economic:
Most important of all, Europe went from imperial to colonial status in a big bang event (WWII);
Cold War cut it off from the rest of Eurasia;
This status as USA-oriented (American colony) ossified beyond the Cold War in the form of the ideology of Atlanticism and social democracy (“socialism” in American terminology);
Collapse of social democracy and rise of neoliberalism as a manifestation of a transition from socialization of wealth (post-war miracle) to socialization of misery (tendency of the profit rate to fall, long depression in European capitalism);
Degeneration of social democracy into a demented form of “humanitarian imperialism”;
6) Cannibalization of Europe by Germany with the creation of the EU and more importantly the EZ;
7) The institutionalization of Atlanticist ideology in Germany with the creation and codification of the EU (a dialectic reverse of point 6);
8) A desperate German attempt to expand eastwards (the “3
Some things are hard to understand here. 6 and 7 for instance – the notion about a dialectic reversal. 6 describes how Germany is gobbling up or expanding its influence over all of Europe in a sense. 7 describes how Europe or NATO is gobbling up Germany and reducing it to insignificance (I think).
8 is the same. It describes how Germany is trying to expand its influence eastward in the wake of an expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, using the EU as the governmental branch and NATO as the military of this “state.” However, at the same time as Germany hurries to follow NATO in its footsteps, this new Great Game exhausts the US Empire, which is the military core of NATO that is blazing the trail for Germany in the first place (I think).
Transformer (to Jason): I notice you don’t write about Latin America a lot.
I was hoping for Robert to respond to this article but would like your thoughts. I think the issue of inequality in Latin America is very deep. Conservatives like to blame the left and Communism (think Fidel Castro and the current Venezuela government under Maduro), but the situation is more complex.
Conservatives say inequality is caused by socialism and Communism? See what liars they are? Conservatives are the biggest shmucks. See? They can’t even lie properly. The best liars are at least somewhat believable. Conservatives are like the 13 year old pathological liar. He’s just a kid and you can safely dismiss almost everything he says. Seeing as they are such awful liars, why do so many people fall for their laughable, pitiful lies?
It’s the greed, right? Conservatives sell greed. They say support conservatism if you want to make lots of money or keep all the money you have. Support liberalism is you like being poor and having most of your money taken away and wasted on boondoggles and ne’er do wells, many of them disgusting criminals, and the rest at least repulsively amoral and stupid.
I guess if you are selling greed, stupid humans will believe everything you say. Tell him if he wants to be rich he will realize it’s pitch dark outside when it’s 95 degrees and high noon, and he’ll go outside and insist it’s true. Tell them he can keep all his money if he’ll only acknowledge that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east, and he’ll swear they knew it along.
The truth is the opposite. The more socialism you have, the greater the economy. Venezuela before the crash was the most equal country in Latin America. Belarus and the Scandinavian countries are some of the most equal countries on Earth, with GINI indexes of 25-30, which is about where any country should be.
I admit that conservatives have their good points about their Latin American capitalism, but saying that Latin American inequality is caused by socialism isn’t one of them.
The more rightwing economics you have down there (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter), the more unequal things get. This is because capitalism is exactly how Marx said it was. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the natural, typical, expected, and totally ordinary outcome of any pure capitalist system. You could almost write a Goddamned mathematical law about it. I know you can plot it on a linear chart.
The only countries that split up their wealth in any sort of fair way other than, “Everything for the top 20
I think it’s clear that some sort of mixed economies with private, cooperative, family, and public enterprises work best of all. And the commanding heights of the economy must be ruled by the state. This is one thing the Chinese got right. And incidentally, in Japan and even South Korea, it is much the same. And both of the latter countries model their economies in part on, believe it or not, Nazi Germany. There were a lot of terrible things about the Nazis, but their economy was not one of them.
In such a system, the state owns the commanding heights and has the last say in everything. And both quite-capitalist countries use state economic planning to guide their economy. So it’s not true that a planned economy does not work. When state and private actors work together to guide the economy of the country forward, the results are very good.
Here is a rundown on the “conservative Left” – liberal to Left on economics and centrist to Right on social issues.
Nazbols or National Bolsheviks– The classic socially conservative and economically Leftist group. Founded in Russia by Limonov, a writer. They never had much of an ideology other than some extreme nationalism, albeit not ethnic nationalism but instead “Russian Empire nationalism” -see below. Mostly they were just permanent rebels, almost perverse in that sense. They seemed to automatically oppose anything or anyone in power reflexively. Often tarred by the Cultural Left as fascists, Nazis, etc. However, Limonov himself was neither a Nazi nor a fash. His movement united people from the left, right and center in a populist nationalism similar to Peronism. More of a Third Positionist. Arkan’s Serbian Tigers of the Serbian National Party could be seen as Nazbol. Horribly marred by racism and even genocidism. They were guilty of genocide of non-Serbs in the Balkans. Milosevic may have been similar – a racist Communist (see below).
The Alternative Left or Alt Left – more Centrist than conservative on social stuff. Already splintered to Hell and split into 13 different wings, including a moderate sort of liberal-Left White Nationalist wing rejected by the others but nevertheless one of the founding factions. Movement was originally race realist, now dropped from program. Agnostic and silent – no comment – on race realism. Brocialist Left (Brocialists), also Partyboy Left, Fratboy Left, Trollblogger Left, Shitlord Left, or Asshole Left, sometimes very irreverent and offensive but mostly just trolls. Shitlord, shitposting and trolling tendencies. Some are “trollbloggers” like Max
The Realist Left. More liberal than left on culture and more between the Cultural Left and the Alt Left on social stuff. Their beef is more intellectual – opposition to postmodernism. They are also anti-Marxist though. Basically Keynesians with safety net.
The Old Left. Hard Left on economics. Quite conservative on culture. Think KPRF or the Russian Communist Party.
Dirtbag Left, etc. Left economics. Other groups think the are too SJW. Basically brocialists. Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kuklinski, Cenk Uyghur, etc. Anti-SJW, irreverent. Partyboy Left, Fratboy Left, Asshole Left. Brocialists.
leftypol -longstanding 4chan sub. Marxist on economics but somewhat anti-Identity Politics (Idpol), nevertheless quite left on culture but not nearly as far as the Cultural Left. Sort of Cultural Left 1995, if you will.
Third Positionists. All sorts of groupings. Vary a lot but tend to be nationalists but not ethnic nationalists – anyone can come to the nation, assimilate, and be a national – French post-Revolution nationalism or Russian nationalism. Russian nationalism like French nationalism is assimilationist nationalist and typically not ethnic nationalist, accepts many minorities into the “empire” of the Russian state, Orthodox but warm towards moderate Islam and assimilating Jews, very pragmatic.
Peronism – longstanding socialist nationalism of the “common man” or shirtless ones and populist in that sense. Somewhat socially conservative. Like Nazbols in uniting right, left, and center around a populist nationalism. Also contained both Marxist and fash wings!
International Socialist Movement – runs International Socialist Review website. Trotskyist but pragmatic, longstanding anti-Idpol on a Marxist theoretical basis.
“Conservative Left” – There are others that are part of existing states. However they are marred by ethnic chauvinism, racism, fash tendencies, authoritarianism, brutality, or even genocidism. Erdogans in Turkey, Orban in Hungary, Arab nationalists like Baath Party people in Syria and Iraq, Burmese regime, Qaddafi’s green socialism in Libya, Iranian Revolutionary Left or even the existing state, Putin in Russia, Lukashenko in Belarus, Duterte in Philippines, Sandinistas, ETA in Basque Country (dissolved), and even Hamas & Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to some extent. All former Communist countries were conservative on social stuff with left economics.
Red Tories – Canadian group. Liberal-left on economics, a bit conservative on social stuff but not too much. Moderate heterodox movement.
George Wallace supporters – left populism marred by racism.
Strasserists – “White Nationalist Left” or worse Nazi Left or Racist Left in the original incarnation. Heimbach’s Traditionalist Workers Party, Tom Metzger, etc. I appreciate Metzger’s populist support for workers – albeit White workers – and ferocious anti-bossism, anti-rich rhetoric. Both are Strasserists, but they are terribly marred by racism- Metzger’s followers have murdered minorities and Heimbach’s movement was very racist. Original Strasserists disliked Jews on an economic instead of racial basis and rejected Nazi scientific racism. Nevertheless, modern Strasserists have committed racist murders against Jews, so I don’t see why the reason for their antisemitism is important. They are extremely marred if not discredited by racism. Basically Nazi Communists, if that term even makes sense. Strasserists were very pro worker and anti-capitalist, I’ll give them that. There is a huge Strasserist wing on Stormfront. Most people don’t know that.
“Economic reductionists” – slur directed by mainstream Left towards the conservative left. Also often called fascists, rightists, conservatives, racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, bigots, etc. probably falsely because conservative Left types are not even as bigoted as conservative Republicans, instead more centrist on minority and women’s issues, and in general most conservative Left groups support equal rights based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
We can go on and on here. Jack London was a sort of Racist Left akin to the WN wing of the Alt Left. The US Left was like this pre-Kennedy. Many US working class and union members are still like this, now scandalously abandoned by the Democrats and US Left as Deplorables, and hence voting Trump and Republican in vast numbers. I think the Democrats need to let these folks back into the fold, but we’re too busy screaming at them and calling them bigots and rednecks. Hence we have Trump as President and a Republican Congress. Way to go Cultural Left! Keep electing Republicans!
Thinking Mouse: But the enemies of NATO are corrupt crooks at worst and non-pragmatic idealists at worst. I think historical materialism influences morality too, we don’t posses our beliefs, but our beliefs posses us, and beliefs live upon the technology of an certain mode of production. On a positive note, the world does seem to become more multipolar with the emergence of China, Turkey, Japan, Russia, India and large parts of Africa. I don’t think these nations will get Independence, but just more fair deals with America thanks to their ability to defend themselves. Eventually when technology and infrastructure spread across the world, will the proletariat take their fare share from the petit and normal bourgeoisie! Africa might have large riots about tax evasion and the WTO´s forced laissez faire in 20-40 years, or maybe anti corruption will be more gradual.
First of all, I would like to thank the comrade for his excellent comment. It is smart and informed comments like these that make this site so great. Who are the enemies of NATO? Venezuela, Russia, Belarus, Turkey, Syria, Iran? Anybody else? Who cares if they are corrupt? Nations have a right to self-determination. Anyway, a lot of NATO allies and even members are corrupt and even murderous or genocidal.
“China, Turkey, Japan, Russia, India and large parts of Africa”
Exactly. This is why Russia is so important. China is not allied with NATO at all. Isn’t Japan a de facto NATO ally or member? And isn’t India a NATO ally? Turkey is a NATO member that is now on the outs with the rest of the alliance. It’s still the Sick Man of Europe after all these centuries. I agree a lot of Europe seems to be not actively allied with NATO. What about Egypt and Sudan? Haven’t they signed on to the anti-Iran bullshit?
“Eventually when technology and infrastructure spread across the world, will the proletariat take their fare share from the petit and normal bourgeoisie!”
We can only hope, comrade! Or barring that, at least dream. Instead of ruling society, I think proletarians should aim for something a lot lower – simply getting something more like their fair share in society.
Africa might have large riots about tax evasion and the WTO´s forced laissez faire in 20-40 years, or maybe anti corruption will be more gradual.
Corruption is endemic in all of Black Africa, is it not? Tax evasion? You mean African elites do not pay their fair share? How long has the WTO been enforcing neoliberalism in Africa? I thought only the IMF could do that. Why would the riots be 30 years off instead of sooner?
If you don’t put in currency controls, “social democrat” and “liberal” George Soros will sweep in and speculate on your currency so as to ruin your currency and destroy your economy. He will do this if you do not do what this Jew orders you to do. Soros has already destroyed a number of economies around the world, especially in Indonesia, Malaysia and Mexico. Soros’ “social democratic” pals in Berlin recently pulled the same fast one on Belarus by speculating on its currency, ruining its value and wrecking the economy. Hence socialist Lukashenko has had to go hat in hand to the IMF and World Bank for loans. The Germans probably took out Belarus because they actually do have a socialist system in that country, and there’s nothing the EU “social democrats” want to destroy more than a socialist country in Europe.
I have gotten a lot of crap from my enemies for being on the Academia.edusite in the first place, but really anyone can join. The following was posted by one of the reviewers in an Academia session by one of the leading lights of the Basque-Caucasian theory. As you can see, the mythological and multiple lines of genetic evidence are starting to pile up pretty nicely too. This is neat stuff if you are interested in the Basque-Caucasian link in addition to work going on into the remains of the Neolithic Farmers who were subsumed in the Indo-European waves. It turns out there is quite a bit left in different parts of Europe, especially in terms of Neolithic Farmer mythology. From a discussion among academics and independent scholars on a paper on the Basque-Caucasian Theory in Historical Linguistics during a session in on Academia:
I am not a linguist but interested in the topic as it proposes a linguistic correlation between Caucasic languages and Basque, as it parallels my own current research on reconstructing European Paleolithic mythologies using ethnographic analogies constrained by on archaeogenetics and language macrofamily correlations. Tuite (2006, 2004, 1998, 1997) has pointed out the hunter-gatherer beliefs and myth motifs shared across a ‘macro-Caucasic’ area to the Hindu Kush and into Western Europe. Basque deities Mari, Sugaar, and Ama Lurra and their associated mythologems have striking similarities to the macro-Caucasic hunter mythologies (not found in Finno-Ugric or Middle Eastern ancient mythologies.) I am currently writing a paper identifying many examples of Southern/Western Gravettian art in Italy, Spain, southern France that appear to depict imagery only explicable by analogy to Macro-Caucasic religious myth and ritual. With respect to mtDNA fossil genetics, three skeleton samples are from Paglicci Cave, Italy, ~25 cal BP: one is macro-N-mtDNA (homeland Caucasus/Caspian/Iran; currently highest frequencies Caucasus, Arabia), and two skeletons, RO/HV-mtDNA (homeland northern Middle East; currently highest frequencies, Basque, Syria, Gilaki, Daghestan). During the later Magdalenian another diffusion occurs apparently by a similar route: HV4-mtDNA emerges in Belarus-Ukraine (~14±2 ka) and under Late Glacial Maximum HV4a (~13.5 ka) moves south and splits in the three refugia: southern Italy, southern Russia (HV4a1, ~10 ka), the Middle East (HV4a2, ~9 ka), and Basque area (HV4a1a, ~5 ka, suggesting full emergence of distinct Basque culture and language), (Gómez-Carballa, Olivieri et al 2012). These studies further support the existence of a Macro-Basque-Caucasic mythological stratum as well as shared language substrate.
The cutting-edge liberal theory is that Basque (and some other odd far-flung languages) is part of the Caucasian language family. In other words, at one time, the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus like Chechens were all one people. What this probably represents is the ancient Neolithic farmers who covered Europe before the Indo-European invasion replaced almost all of the languages of Europe. All that is left is Basque and the peoples of the Caucasus. Everything in between got taken by IE except for some late movements by Uralic and Turkic speakers. Up in the north, the Lapp Uralic speakers are, like Basques, the last remains of the Neolithic farmers. The Sardinians also an ancient remaining group of these people, but their language has been surmounted recently by a Latinate tongue. As it turns out, the Basques and Caucasians also share a number of cultural similarities. There are also some similar placenames. And there is some good genetic evidence connecting the Basques with the Caucasian speakers. It’s all there, but the conservatives are balking, to put it mildly, about linking Basque with the Caucasian languages. I have long believed in this theory. I read a book over 20 years ago comparing Basque to the Caucasian languages and a few other distant tongues and thought the case was proved even via overkill by the book. And recent work is so super that one wonders why the conservatives are still winning. I feel that the link between Basque and the Caucasus languages is now proven to an obvious and detailed degree.
This guy is a Trotskyite, but I often agree with his analysis of capitalism and US imperialism, which is 100
First of all, he is correct that the US was an imperialist country long before the Cold War and even before there was a Soviet Union. The Monroe Doctrine, still in effect today, was an imperialist policy. The US was actually a formal imperialist power around the turn on the century, and in a way, it still is now as the US retains colonies and refuses to free them as the UN has demanded.Everything else he says is also right on.
The New “Cold War” Is The Same Old U.S. Imperialist War
by Steven Argue
Cartoon depicting the brutal and murderous U.S. colonization of the Philippines long before there was a Soviet Union. As many in the U.S. today declare that Russian opposition to U.S. aggression in Ukraine and Syria are indicators of a new “cold war”, it is important to remember what the so-called “Cold War” was in the first place during the time of the USSR. Before the so-called “war on terror” there was the Persian Gulf War, and before there even was a Soviet Union there was “the war to end all wars”, “the white man’s burden”, and “manifest destiny”. All of these were / are to justify one of the most bloodthirsty imperialist systems that has ever existed on the face of the Earth, that of U.S. imperialism. The fact that the U.S. used the existence of the Soviet Union to justify their blood thirsty imperialist wars, coups, and dictatorships in places like Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, etc. simply had nothing to do with any reality of an actual war between the USSR of the time and the USA. The so-called “cold war” was nothing but a hot U.S. imperialist war against the people of the world, a war that continues under different names. Today, as usual, the USA is on a drive to overthrow every independent nation in the world. This has continued under Obama with his overthrow of elected governments of Ukraine and Honduras, putting a death squad government in power in Honduras and a murderous fascist junta in power in Kiev that includes open neo-Nazis who hate Ukraine’s national minorities, including Russians. Likewise, Obama waged a bombing and proxy war in Libya that overthrew that country’s government, a government that committed the crime of spending some its oil money on providing everyone with free housing, education, and health care. This gave the Libyan people a far higher life expectancy than other oil rich countries in Africa ruled by U.S. backed dictators. Likewise, the United States is currently trying to overthrow the elected capitalist government of Venezuela for similar “crimes” of disrupting total capitalist profit by spending oil money on the people. In Libya, the imperialists brought to power genocidal religious fanatics who committed ethnic cleansing against Black Africans, commits rampant torture and murder, and is allowing the imperialist oil companies to rob Libya of its natural resources unhindered by pesky spending on human needs. Likewise in Syria, the United States is giving weapons to genocidal religious fanatics that have slaughtered religious and ethnic minorities. Russia is in the cross-hairs of U.S. imperialism today, in part for strongly opposing U.S. imperialist intervention in Syria and Ukraine. Russia itself today is a weak capitalist country, but for the U.S. imperialists, it is not weak enough. An important adviser to the Obama administration is Brzezinski whose plans for Russia include economic isolation, regime change, and then breaking Russia into three pieces. Russia itself is not an imperialist power in any Marxist sense. Russia has more foreign direct investment coming into the country than going out. Likewise, Ukraine has had very little foreign direct investment from Russia and very large amounts coming in from the EU. U.S. and EU imperialist strategy in the region has been to force a government on Ukraine that carries out IMF austerity and isolates Russia. They got this with the February coup along with a government that is likely to be friendly to imperialist exploitation of gas reserves through environmentally devastating fracking in western Ukraine. Russia, on the other hand, is merely trying to maintain trading partners as the United States tries to isolate it and is not trying to dictate what sort of economies and austerity countries around them maintain. While United States imperialist policy is one of forcing austerity and privatization on countries, Russia has been equally capable of trading with countries that maintain planned socialist economies, to the benefit of the working class, like the planned socialist economy of Belarus. Meanwhile, such countries, like Belarus and Cuba, are under U.S.economic blockade because their planned socialist economies and independent governments prevent large amounts of foreign imperialist exploitation. To the extent that Russia is now providing a small counterweight to blood thirsty and rapacious U.S. imperialism, the imperialists are building up NATO forces, pouring on lies similar to Bush’s lies of weapons of mass destruction, and speaking as if the so-called “cold war””is back. Yet, then and now, the so-called “cold war” has never been anything but a hot U.S. imperialist war against the people of the world. – Steven Argue of the Revolutionary Tendency