The Laz People of Turkey

The last Spot the Language piece was solved by a Turkish commenter who is one-half the ethnicity of the language: the Laz people. Here is his comment about the Laz and the region where they reside. Very nice comment and I would like to thank the commenter very much.

Ertuğrul Bilal: I am a Turco-Laz half-breed. There are at least half to close to one million people like me. I identify as a son of the homeland and as any particular ethnicity. This is also the primal identity adopted by almost all Lazes, who see themselves ethnically Laz only secondarily. Let’s put it his way: Black Sea people’s loyalty is more territorial than ethnic, just like cats.

FYI: Laz is not related to Turkish or any other Turkic language. It is part of the Kartvelian linguistic family, consisting of Georgian, Svan, and the Mingrelian-Laz twin peoples. The single substantial difference between the last two being that Mingrelians remained Orthodox, while Laz converted to Islam in late 15th and 16th century; otherwise the discrepancy is solely dialectal.

Laz people live on Northeastern Black Sea coast, actually at the eastern end towards the Turkish-Georgian frontier. This region has always been multi-cultural just as Anatolia used to be, only somewhat more so; even if superficially it is less obvious nowadays.

The local populace was originally mainly Tzans, a rather obscure culture, apparently resulting from an amalgamation of indigenous populace with immigrating/invading Cimmerians, westward-advancing Kartvelians and perhaps some other not well-known tribes ancestral to both Mingrelians and Laz in Antiquity when Greek colonizers founded practically all cities and most of the towns.

Today, you may find Turks (Alevi Turcomans forcibly relocated there by the Ottoman empire in 16th century who converted to Sunnism, except for a few thousand who remained Alevi) and other people of Turkic origin like my late father who told me his paternal lineage emigrated from Northern Dagestan and was either Nogay or Kumyk.

In addition, there are now Lazes, Georgians, Armenians (Hemshinids Islamicized long ago and some others forcibly assimilated to Turks in 1915), and Islamized Greeks, to mention only the most numerous.

Let’s put it this way – we are accustomed to quite a wide diversity of ethnicities in our country and especially in my parents’ native region, even if the official doctrine still tends to disregard the fact, and while it is not outright denial as in the past, a more subtle denial yet exists.

A Backgrounder on the Kurds of Turkey, Syria, and Iran

Kurds finally get to speak their language and can take Kurdish classes in school, but they do not have mother tongue education. A private Kurdish mother tongue education school opened up but closed after a while due to constant harassment by the Turks. Recently a boy speaking Kurdish in a hallway was beaten by Turkish boys.

Kurdish holidays such as Nawruz, the Turkish New Year, are not recognized. Kurdish culture is often banned. The only Kurdish TV station recently shut down. Newspapers and magazines in Kurdish  are scarce and are often  shut down. Kurdish radio stations are also few.

Bilingual road signs in Turkey and Kurdish are not allowed. Business signage in Kurdish is also not allowed. The state formerly even denied their existence, calling them Mountain Turks, but that has ended.

Kurds have only recently been allowed to serve in Parliament. The HDP, the Kurdish party, got 13% of the vote last time around. A Kurdish MP recently caused a huge furor by speaking Kurdish on the floor of Parliament.

A PKK-Turkey truce of a few years was recently broken by ISIS attacks on Kurdish rallies that killed many Kurds and leftwing Turks. The police appeared to know about the attacks and allowed them to happen. Then the police blocked ambulances and medical crews from getting to the site and beat Kurdish protestors who were leaving. This is the sort of crap that the Kurds have to put up with.

A couple of days after one huge attack on a rally, a Turkish police officer shot a PKK member dead on the  border. The PKK then ended  their cease-fire and went back to war.

Turkey says the PKK are terrorists, but really they are just guerrillas who generally attack Turkish police and military. They also target the village guards, an armed Kurdish force that works for the state.

The PKK has formed an alliance with a number of armed Turkish communist parties, of which there are a few. Some of these communist fighters and  now fighting alongside the  Kurds in  Northern Syria.

Turks say that most Kurds in Turkey do not support the PKK, but I would say that a majority of Turkish Kurds support the PKK. It is true that the YPG, the major component of the SDF in Syria now defending Kurdish lands, is really just the PKK in Syria. Nevertheless, the YPG does not give any material assistance to the PKK. Some PKK do cross the border to go fight in Syria though.

The PKK has many clandestine camps in the far northern mountains of the Kurdish area in Iraq. The Kurds now have considerable autonomy and near independence in their Kurdish zone. However, the Iraqi Kurds allow the Turks to bomb the PKK in the mountains. They have also allowed the Turks to set up a number of small military bases inside Iraq that the Turks use to attack the PKK.

Kurds in Iraq have full rights, including mother tongue education. There is also an armed movement called PEJAK in Iran. This is just the PKK in Iran. Iranian Kurds may have it better than Turkish Kurds but they do not have much in the way of rights and there is no mother tongue education.

The Kurds of Syria have always had the most rights of the Kurds of any nation. There was a reason why there was an armed insurgency in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran but there never was one in Syria. All Kurds in Syria speak Kurdish. Kurdish is even often heard in Damascus! Nawruz is a national holiday and Kurdish culture flourishes. There are many Kurdish newspapers, magazines, and radio and TV stations in Syria now.

They do not yet have mother tongue education and speaking Kurdish is a bit restricted as you are not allowed to speak Kurdish in government offices. I am not sure about bilingual road signing or business signage.

With Rojava, the Kurds had a massive expansion of rights as the leftwing political party of the YPG took over and ran the area as a de facto separate state for a few years.

Alt Left: Repost: Why Trump Is a Disaster: (((Middle Eastern Foreign Policy)))

People are commenting on this post from a year ago. It’s a nice post but it has a lot of complex ideas floating around that it hammers away at the reader in brief fashion. It should be good for a slow read.

At any rate it is quite relevant to the current turn of events in Syria with Turkey invading Syria to fight the Kurds, the US leaving all of Northern Syria, and Assad moving in to take over everywhere the US is leaving. Oh, and there are Russian troops on the ground and Russian planes in the air. The Kurds are holding out a lot better than anyone thought, and pretty soon Turkey is going to have to fight Syria and maybe even Russia too. It’s all getting pretty interesting.

I actually think this was a brilliant move on the part of Trump. Unfortunately in the course of carrying out this plan, a lot of people got killed and wounded, but people were getting killed and wounded all the time anyway. I don’t think Trump really abandoned the Kurds. He just handed them off to Assad and to some extent to Russia.

Anyway, this is probably good for a post on its own.

Zamfir: I’m surprised you have a strong preference for Democrats over Republicans. To me it seems like a hopeless choice. If you vote Republican you’re voting for one set of evil elite interests, but not explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage; if you vote Republican you’re voting for another set of evil elite interests, and explicitly against your biology and cultural heritage.

Hard to pick between those two! What is the real advantage in voting Democrat in your opinion? (I guess I’d vote for Bernie, but then again I’d vote for Trump for similar reasons… Not that I expect either one would ever do much on anything I care about.)

His foreign policy is literally insane. He’s an ultra-rightwinger. Venezuela. Syria. Iraq. Nicaragua. Trump resigned from the UN Human Rights Committee. Trump jacked up the military budget to the extreme.

((Trump))) hates all the enemies of Israel. (((Trump))) ought to just move to Tel Aviv already. (((Trump)))’s the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel President we ever had. (((Trump))) has caused serious harm to the Palestinians, and he has uprooted decades of somewhat sane policies in the Holy Land in order to back Israel to the hilt.

The reason Israel has been acting so bad lately, cracking down on domestic dissidents, and massacring Palestinians demonstrating at the border, is because Trump gave them the green light to do so.

Trump loosened the the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in Syria and Iraq, and civilian casualties increased by 10 times. Trump’s deliberately murdering civilians by the tens of thousands. Just the other day, Trump bombed Iraqi forces on the border of Syria, killing 30 of them. Trump loosened the ROE in Mosul, and we and the Iraqis killed 40,000 civilians as a result.

Trump openly states that he wants to steal other countries’ oil.

Trump supports ISIS. The Pentagon is protecting ISIS right now. We train ISIS fighters at a base in Abu Kamal. Every time Syrian troops try to attack ISIS, we bomb them! Trump claims he’s fighting ISIS? Trump is supporting ISIS. We are allowing ISIS to have a large swath of territory in Syria that covers some oil fields. We have bases over there and we refuse to attack ISIS. Sometimes ISIS patrols even drive right by our forces.

Obviously US forces have been embedded with these groups, including ISIS, for some time now. We coordinate attacks against the Syrian military with ISIS. When Syria attacks ISIS, Trump’s military (the air force of ISIS) rushes in and bombs the Syrian army in support of ISIS!

Trump tricked a group of Russian, tribal and Christian militias into thinking an oil field was going to be handed over to them. When these forces went to occupy the oil field, Trump lied and said they were attacking our allies.

Our allies, the SDF, were nowhere in sight. We had told them to leave the oil field. As soon as this group reached the oil field, we started bombing them. At the same time and apparently coordinated, ISIS attacked these forces.

This is where this madman Pompeo chortles about killing hundreds of Russians. Yeah. They murdered those Russians in cold blood along with a lot of anti-ISIS militiamen, including many Christians.

At other times in this war, ISIS killed a few Russian officers, including generals, with very precise targeting. They also targeted the Russian embassy with very precisely. They could not have done these things on their own. The only reason they were able to kill those Russian officers and attack the embassy is because we must have had Special Forces helping ISIS carry out those attacks.

We are using the Kurdish YPG and SDF to occupy a large portion of Syria, including most of its oil. So we are helping the Kurds steal Syria’s oil. We are trying to ruin the Syrian economy by starving it of oil funds.

But when the Turkish military attacked Afrin as part of an invasion of Syria to conquer Syrian land and annex it to Turkey, the US supported them to the hilt. Many brave Kurdish fighters were killed by these invaders.

The Turkish military was accompanied by militias they called the Free Syrian Army, but all they were were radical Islamists. Many were ISIS and Al Qaeda who just changed their uniforms to fight alongside the Turks.

The Turks have been supporting ISIS to the hilt for a long time now, and we have not lifted one finger to stop them. At the same time we are helping Kurds steal Syrian land, we are helping Turkey slaughter Kurds in Afrin in Syria and supporting their genocidal war against the Kurdish people in Turkey.

Most of the funding for ISIS and Al Qaeda comes from Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Qatar quite openly supports Al Qaeda. ISIS was a project of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia from Day One.

When the Saudis and UAE invaded Yemen, they airlifted thousands of ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters from Syria to go fight alongside the Gulf invaders.
The Houthis fired a missile at a ship full of ISIS and Al Qaeda militiamen and blew up the ship. Trump lied and said it was a civilian ship and accused the Houthis of endangering shipping in the area. Our ships then fired on the Houthi area that shot at the ship.

When Trump attacked Al Qaeda in a botched mission in Yemen, our military came under very heavy fire. Trump responded by leveling the small village we were attacking and killing almost everyone in it, including women and children. Our forces also deliberately blew up houses that had nothing but women and kids in them. But America was freaking out about one dead Special Forces fighter, who probably deserved it if you ask me.

We are occupying land in Syria which we stole and will never leave. We support Turkey conquering part of Syria and annexing it!

Trump has been involved in one fake false flag after another in Syria. Trump has been told that these are false flags, and he bombs Syria anyway. His administration is directly involved in the planning and carrying out of these false flags with the British and the French.

Trump has an alliance with the Saudis, which has resulted in supporting their awful invasion of Yemen. Trump’s also been assisting the Saudis in funneling guns and weapons to the Al Qaeda-type Islamists in Syria as part of an alliance with Saudi Arabia.

Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Turkey, the US, Israel, the UK, and France have all been supporting the radical Islamists in Syria, including Al Qaeda and even ISIS. All of those countries had intelligence and military advisors directly embedded in those groups, in particular in Al Qaeda. An Al Qaeda commander told us this in an interview with a German journalist.

Trump has helped the Saudis and UAE literally invade Yemen, where they have been conducting a genocidal campaign against the Yemeni people. Trump sold a huge amount of weapons to the Saudis.

Trump verbally attacked Qatar and helped the Saudis to isolate them. Trump accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, which is true, but so are our allies Saudi Arabia, UAE, and more broadly Jordan, Turkey, France, the UK and even our own government.

Trump did this because Qatar had opened up friendly relations with Iran, which caused Saudi Arabia to almost declare war on Qatar. We verbally attacked Qatar because Trump hates Iran. All of this is to screw Iran. He dismantled the Iran deal and put sanctions back on Iran.

Alt Left: Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents: The West Supported the Creation of ISIS

Repost from Washington’s Blog. This has been known for a very long time, but I am still trying to figure out what it means. At the very least, it seems to show foreknowledge of the creation of the ISIS caliphate in Eastern Syria and possibly Iraq.

It also says that the US and its allies are supporting the creation of this caliphate because it will be bad for Iran and Syria, and those are the Allies’ worst enemies at the moment. It also says, very early on, that the Syrian rebels are being led by the salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda in Iraq (later to become ISIS), and that the US and its allies are supporting these radical Islamists in their war against Assad.

The Syrian Revolution had been led by the MB from the very start. The Muslim Brotherhood was always most of the opposition in Syria after their horrific defeat at Hama in 1983 by Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez. This battle killed 30,000 people and left the city in ruins.

After that, most Syrian MB fled the country, many leaving for Saudi Arabia and Egypt and others for Europe, mostly Germany. Some were later to become peripherally involved in the 9-11 attack. Membership in the MB become illegal in Syria, and a law was passed mandating the death penalty for membership in this organization. But few were convicted of this crime.

There was a crackdown on the Egyptian MB too at this time, and many of them left for Saudi Arabia also. In the 1980’s, both groups of MB refugees in Saudi Arabia got jobs in schools are religious teachers. It was here that their philosophy married with the Quietist Wahhabis (quietist means they promote peaceful change, not violent change), and the explosive mixture combined to create what become known as Al Qaeda.

It’s quite obvious though that the US knew about the ISIS caliphate before it even happened (How did we know that?) and supported the creation of the ISIS caliphate in Syria and Iraq as a way to attack Syria and Iran, whom the Allies saw as their primary enemies.

Newly-Declassified U.S. Government Documents: The West Supported the Creation of ISIS

By Washington’s Blog

Judicial Watch has – for many years – obtained sensitive U.S. government documents through freedom of information requests and lawsuits.

The government just produced documents to Judicial Watch in response to a freedom of information suit which show that the West has long supported ISIS.   The documents were written by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency on August 12, 2012 … years before ISIS burst onto the world stage.

Here are screenshots from the documents. We have highlighted the relevant parts in yellow:

ISIS1Why is this important? It shows that extreme Muslim terrorists – salafists, Muslims Brotherhood, and AQI (i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq) – have always been the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

This verifies what the alternative media has been saying for years: there aren’t any moderate rebels in Syria (and see thisthis and this).

The newly-declassified document continues:

ISIS 2Yes, you read that correctly:

… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Deir Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…In other words, the powers supporting the Syrian opposition – the West, our Gulf allies, and Turkey wanted an Islamic caliphate in order to challenge Syrian president Assad.

Sure, top U.S. generals – and Vice President Joe Biden – have said that America’s closest allies  support ISIS.  And mainstream American media have called for direct support of ISIS.

But the declassified DIA documents show that the U.S. and the West supported ISIS at its inception … as a way to isolate the Syrian government. And see this.

This is a big deal.  A former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism intelligence officer and a former MI5 officer confirm that the newly-released documents are a smoking gun.

This is a train wreck long in the making.

Is Cousin Marriage Ok or Not?

James Schipper: You are far too concerned about inbreeding. The problem with inbreeding is that it increases the probability of harmful recessive coming together. However, if those genes are very rare to begin with, then the negative consequences of inbreeding will be quite modest.

Some time ago, the German magazine Der Spiegel had an article about that.

Its conclusion was that the consequences of cousin marriages among Turks weren’t particularly severe. As an example, it mentioned a debilitating disease caused by a recessive gene.

This gene has the same frequency among Turks as among Germans, but 1/10,000 of Germans had the disease while 1/4,000 of Turks had it. So the frequency of the disease among Turks is 2.5 times higher than among Germans. However, 1/4,000 is not a huge problem.

Suppose that x is a recessive gene and that it has a frequency of 1%. If mating is purely random, then 1/10,000 of the population will be xx, (1x + 99X)(1x + 99X) = 1 xx + 198Xx + 9801XX. The more assortative mating becomes, the more it will approach the limiting case of 1xx + 99XX, in which case 1/100 of the population will be xx.

Contrary to widespread belief, inbreeding does not worsen the gene pool. It may lower the quality of population, yes, but that is something different. If anything, inbreeding may lead to an improvement of the gene pool. This can happen if people with xx are sterile or so undesirable that nobody will mate with them. In such a case, the x gene will gradually disappear as more and more people who are xx will be born.

All indications are that the predominantly Muslim populations of Northern Africa, West Asia, and South Asia are on average not as intelligent as Europeans. However, neither are the Hindus.

Ashkenazim Jews, on the other hand, are on average smarter than Gentile Europeans, but consanguineous marriages were common among them as they were among blue-blooded Europeans. European kings or aristocrats who married a cousin were legion. Queen Victoria and William III, for instance, were married to a cousin.

The problem is that something called inbreding depression has been well-documented for IQ. The more inbreeding, the lower the IQ goes on average. You can plot it on a graph. However, if this is true then why is Ashkenazi Jewish IQ so high? And they do have quite a few genetic diseases too.

The high rate of genetic diseases among certain Arab Muslim populations, especially in the Gulf, has been well-documented. And the effect of inbreeding depression on the IQ’s of Muslim groups who practice this has also been documented. I think what James’ comment leaves out is the well-documented inbreeding depression effect that cousin marriage has on the IQ of offspring. He leaves that out of his critique.

Alt Left: Repost: The Failed State of India Grew from the Indian Mind

A very nice old post. People started commenting on it again today and I went to read it and thought it was worth a repost. The original post got 118 comments! Boy those were the days, huh? Should still stimulate a few comments even on the repost.

And it’s quite well-written if I do say so myself!

Seriously? writes: This blog tries too hard, and still only manages to draw one or two angry Indians — if that.

There is no hatred of the ‘White man,’ including even of the British, because Whites aren’t special enough to warrant hating. While there’s a consistent income gap between Black and White Americans, there is an even larger Indian-White income gap in favor of Indians.

India’s relationship with so-called White nations is similar to that of Japan. We don’t feel threatened and are progressing quickly enough to put history behind us.

But I think you’ve missed a fundamental shared characteristic of Indians, so much so that this blog can never be reconciled with reality. In fact, of all the stereotypes of Indians, I think this is the only one with any real merit. Indians have a kind of “brotherly love” predisposition which is hard to describe.

The second a Pakistani, for example, shows any type of support for an Indian, he or she can expect an endless stream of positive responses and absolutely no negative ones.

Recently there was a poll done to determine India’s second (after Gandhi) “greatest” individual. India’s first Muslim president received the most votes, even over the likes of even Nehru, who only ranked 15th. Despite the poll’s assumption that Gandhi was bar none the greatest Indian, polls including Gandhi invariably show Ambedkar (India’s Dalit activist and philosopher) ahead, usually ranking Ambedkar first or second.

But I guess you still may be able to twist this around to still trash Indians.

I suspect the main motivation for this blog and the posters on here is that Indians you come across don’t consider you as great as you consider yourselves. This ends up coming across as arrogance to you, so you feel the need to react by trying to situate them further below you in the imaginary hierarchy you had before meeting them. Indians don’t react as negatively as you had hoped and so the effect is repeated and overall magnified.

Combine that with confirmation bias and then you eventually reach the conclusion that Indians have no good qualities whatsoever, have never accomplished anything, and are scheming to take over the world. But you can’t afford them anything positive, so you then say they don’t have the capability to do anything special like take over the world in the first place. It’s all pretty sad, really.

That is very interesting about that poll.

But how come every Hindu one meets has an extreme hatred of Muslims and/or Pakistan then? What’s it about? If Ambedkar is such a hero to most Indians, then why is India still mired in the most barbaric casteism known to mankind?

It doesn’t make any sense.

And I am starting to think that like most Indians, just about everything “Seriously?” says is a lie. There is hatred of the White man, and it’s most prominent among Hindus. Among Hindutvadis and on Hindutvadi websites, hatred for European White Christians and their civilization is quite extreme. I have even seen some of it in Indian nationalist Sikhs (most of the Sikhs in my town are actually strident Indian nationalists, not Punjabi nationalists).

I treat Indian people the same way I treat any other human. I thought they were extremely cool for a long time until I finally started to figure out what was really going on with these people, and since then, I have been less than impressed.

The most arrogant of all Indians around my town are surely the Hindus. They are much worse than the Sikhs. They have a strange attitude. They really do think they and their civilization is superior, but on the other hand, they are not going to tell you two words about it, and if you ask them anything about it, they get suspicious and hostile and act like they think like you are an enemy spy, and they clam up and shut down.

What you have here are people who have extreme pride in one of the backwards, barbaric, and reactionary civilizational structures known to mankind. From a Left POV, that is nothing to cheer about.

Then you look at the country they have created, or really destroyed, and you start to put it all together. This throwback socio-religious culture has created one of the most outrageous and pathetic civilizational trainwrecks and failed states on the Earth. Of course the civilizational pileup we see on the ground was created cognitively and emotionally by the barbarism inculcated in the Indian mind. The two must be connected.

As long as backwards barbarism continues to rule the Indian mind, we will continue to see the smoking ruins on the ground.

Alt Left: Pakistan: A Muslim Country with a Serious Overlay of Indian and Hindu Culture

SHI: I envy the Pakistanis, they got their own country back in 1947. They don’t have to put up with this shit circus.

I would still say that Pakistan is  messed up. Their statistics are better than India’s but not a whole lot better. If Pakistan was only Islamic culture it would be a lot better off, but it is Islam imposed on a huge Indian and Hindu substrate which is still very much alive, so this has limited how much Pakistan would have been improved vis a vis India due to Islam. Any Hindu country will improve in some ways if it takes up Islam, but Pakistan never got rid of the Hindu layer.

Pakistani culture is somewhat Indian and Hindu too because they inherited Indian and Hindu culture. Granted there was an overlay of Islam which reduces the toxicity of Indian culture by ~50%, but Pakistan is still one of the most dysfunctional countries in the Muslim world.

For instance, this is a Muslim country that actually practices caste, obviously not permitted under Islam.

There are also whores everywhere, unusual for a Muslim country.

Women are terribly mistreated in a manner much worse in some ways than how they are treated in other Muslim countries. For instance, it’s almost legal to rape a Pakistani woman, whereas in other Muslim countries, rapists are in for a real hard time.

Almost all of the land is owned by a few people in semi-feudal system complete with modern versions of lords and serfs. Semi-feudalism was eliminated in the (Arab) Muslim world at least 60-70 years ago, granted it existed prior.

1/3 of Pakistanis don’t have a toilet to shit on. One wonders where they go to shit?

In a sense, Pakistan has the worst of both worlds or both of the two religions that formed its culture. It has Indian and Hindu culture, one of the worst cultures on Earth and Islam in a very toxic version complete with hudud laws unknown in much of the Muslim worlds. Pakistan is the worst of Islam combined with the worst of Hinduism. Not a good combination.

Alt Left: The Muslim World Is for the Most Part Virtually Socialist

Semi-feudalism was eliminated in the (Arab) Muslim world at least 60-70 years ago; granted it existed prior.

It was fairly easy to take out semi-feudalism in the Arab World because it is very hard to justify such a system under Islam. The semi-feudalists had used distorted readings of the Koran to justify their oppression. For instance the fact that Mohammad said that some are rich and some are poor and this is a normal thing was given as an excuse for semi-feudalism.

Most Muslims knew intuitively that this excuse didn’t fly well in an Islamic sense, so the new Arab nationalist (mostly socialist) regimes found it easy to dismantle semi-feudalism.

I know that Palestine was semi-feudal in the 1930’s, and Iraq and Egypt were in the 1940’s. Massive land reforms in the 50’s Egypt and Iraq took out semi-feudalism. But it lingered elsewhere. In  the early 60’s, your average peasant in Yemen had a picture of Nasser on his wall. Nasser was seen as a great hero of the Arab working and peasant classes.

When the Arab nationalist and socialist Ba’ath Party came into power in  Syria and Iraq, one of the first things they did was a land reform. It was easy to do as the semi-feudal system was hard to justify Islamically, and a more equitable or socialist economics was very easy to sell in an Islamic sense.

This is because if you read the Koran, you can see the Mohammad, for all his flaws, was basically a socialist. This is why even hardline Islamist organizations like Hamas are virtually socialist. When the PLO ran Gaza, Hamas ran the social services that should have been but were not run by the state. Now that Hamas is in power, they have a huge social safety net.

Semi-feudalism will be seen as very un-Islamic nowadays, except in the case of Pakistan, where a huge substrate of Indian and Hindu culture virtually neuters whatever socialist advantages Islam may bring.

Alt Left: The Latest Lies about the Attack on the Saudi Oilfields

Here.

Some complete nonsense here coming out of the US and Saudi Arabia.

In one of the most dramatic acts in the four-year war between the rebels and the Saudi-led coalition, the Houthis claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry on 14 September.

The attacks on Saudi Aramco’s plants in Abqaiq and Khurais, some of the kingdom’s biggest, caused raging fires and significant damage that halved the crude output of the world’s top oil exporter by shutting down 5.7 million barrels per day of production.

However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.

According to the WSJ, in the days following the attacks, an internal Houthi rift expanded between those who wanted to distance themselves from Iran, whom Western powers say was behind the strikes, and those who wanted to strengthen ties with Tehran.

Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.

Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.

Official Houthi spokesmen have rejected any suggestions that they disavowed their initial claim or warned Riyadh about future strikes by Iran, the WSJ said.

Iran says it is not arming the Houthis, who deny being puppets of Tehran and say they are fighting against a corrupt system.

The group did not immediately respond on Friday to requests from the WSJ for comment.

First of all, it’s staggering that this publication Middle East Eye publication is even reporting this  garbage. This publication is known to be anti-Saudi, anti-UAE, pro-Qatar and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE and Saudi Arabia both absolutely hate the MB, not for doctrinal reasons necessarily but more for mundane political ones.

The MB, the Saudis, and the UAE are all hardline Islamists and there’s not much light between their positions. But the MB wants to seize power in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Saudis and the UAE hate Iran but so does MEE, so that’s not a motive. Qatar has good relations with Iran, so that part doesn’t make sense.

But I am sure that the Muslim Brotherhood absolutely despises the Shia, as the MB are hardline Arab Sunnis from Arabia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Egypt

So it’s possible that this being a MB publication is why they are printing this outrageous anti-Iran nonsense – because they hate Iran as much as the Saudis and UAE do.

You want to know where all those cray ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. Islamist rebels in Syria came from? They all came out of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Incidentally, the genesis of Al Qaeda occurred in the 1980’s when MB preachers and teachers came from Syria and Egypt to work in Saudi Arabia. Many worked in schools. Their ideology mixed with the already toxic but relatively quietist Wahhabism of the Kingdom, and the result was explosive – Al Qaeda.

The Syrian MB was behind the rebellion in Hama in 1983 that was put down viciously by Bashar Assad’s father, Hafez. The US had no problems with this crackdown at the time as, we were not anti-Syria yet.

The crackdown lasted a month or more, levelled an entire city, and killed 30,000 people, mostly civilians and MB fighters. The fighting went underground into tunnels and sewers, and it got absolutely brutal. There were reports of the state resorting to mass executions and even the use of poison gas.

That may well be true – Hafez Assad was one brutal SOB, and he would definitely resort to poison gas. On the contrary, Bashar Assad, to my knowledge, has never used poison gas a single time in this war. All of the “Assad chemical attacks” were false flag attacks by the rebels.

Bashar is not a very nice guy, and he has been utterly vicious in how he fought this war, but he doesn’t use chemical weapons. He has other ways of killing people, mostly by arrest, torture and execution in military prisons. Chemical weapons are just not his style.

Anyway let’s break this garbage down here.

However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.

Background. The European countries are the three American stooges called UK, France, and Germany.

  • Simple fact. All of these US vassals are lying their fool’s heads off. This is disinformation straight from the CIA. It’s hard to believe that the UK, France, and Germany fell in with this, or maybe not.
  • The UK is now ruled by the Tories who follow the US Republicans on foreign policy, so no surprises there.
  • France has a government led by Macron, a hardcore neoliberal Zionist who was actually installed by the Rothschild Jewish billionaires and world-controllers in the UK. He’s made France much more pro-Israel and pro-US. He’s not even on the Left – he’s more of a Centrist, and he is to the right of most European Social Democratic parties who themselves are already cucked by neoliberalism to the hilt. Macron’s cucked even worse than they are.
  • Germany is probably the most Jewish-cucked country on Earth, maybe even worse than our benighted land. Merkel is not on the Left. She’s not a Social Democrat. She is a Christian Democrat, and the CD’s have never been progressive anywhere. In Latin America, they have been either fascists (the AD in  Venezuela) or “let’s split the difference with the fascists and give them half of what they want” (Duarte in El Salvador in  the mid -80’s) types. In Europe they have been the most conservative ruling parties on the Continent, particularly in terms of economics.

However, Saudi, US, and European officials have rejected the claim, saying the Houthis have neither the weapons nor the skills to carry out such sophisticated strikes.

About the idea that the Houthis had neither the weaponry nor sophistication to carry out the attack – that’s not true! The operation was carried out via 10 drones, not 18 drones and 7 cruise missiles as the CIA is lying. The Houthis’ drones have already proven to be within range of those refineries.

How did the Houthis pull this off? I read journalists who are very close to the ruling elites in Iran, especially the IRGC and Iranian intelligence. Their reports on Iran can be reliably taken as the truth about Iran’s beliefs,  behaviors, and objectives.

Via these posts, I can tell you how they did it:

How about if I told you that all Houthi weapons are developed from Iranian prototypes and then modified somewhat? How about if I told you that Hezbollah – master engineers, experts and rockets, missiles, and drones, help the Houthis build these weapons?

How about if I told you that Iran ramped up its support to the Houthis four months ago and poured a lot of resources into planning this attack with the Houthis? How about if I told you that at the same time, Iran dramatically ramped up its technology transfer to the Houthis, resulting in a shocking improvement of Houthi weaponry in a very short time?

Now does it make sense?

According to the WSJ, in the days following the attacks, an internal Houthi rift expanded between those who wanted to distance themselves from Iran, whom Western powers say was behind the strikes, and those who wanted to strengthen ties with Tehran.

Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.

Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.

First, the Wall Street Journal is as kosher as a news organ gets. It’s has close to New York Times-level of Jews on its staff. The ownership used to be Jewish, and a very large number of the editors and writers are Jews. And they’re all conservative Republican Israel-firster Jews too.

Look, there was no rift between the Houthis and Iran. The Iranian sources above reiterated that the attacks were fired by the Houthis from Yemen but said that Iran had helped plan the attack over a period of months. They also said that not only were the Houthis sending their own obvious message to the Saudis, but the Iranians were too. Iran’s message in this attack was clear: There will be no peace in the region until the sanctions on Iran are lifted.

There are no pro-Iran and anti-Iran factions among the Houthis. Originally they were not even closely tied to Iran, but no one else would support them, so they turned to Iran.

Some Houthi leaders privately disavowed the group’s claim of responsibility for the attacks, according to two Saudi officials who spoke to the WSJ and asked not to be identified.

These mysterious Saudi officials are simply the Saudi intelligence agency, which planted this fake story – this disinformation – in the media. Notice how all these “officials”, “diplomats”, “sources within X country’s intelligence”, “administration officials”, etc. are always anonymous?

Any time you see BS sources like that combined with an unlikely story that smells like it was made up you are dealing with disinformation that is being planted in the media by one or more intelligence agencies.

If Iran really did this attack, my Iranian sources above would have heard about it by now and written about it. After all, these journalists affirmed the first tanker attacks, and so did internal IRGC organs.

But the information from the Iranian Deep State is that while indeed the Houthis did conduct this attack from Yemen with their own equipment (albeit made with Iranian models), Iran was absolutely involved in the detailed, months-long planning and preparation for the attack.

Houthi officials also told foreign diplomats that Iran was preparing a follow-on attack, said one of the officials and other people familiar with the evolving plans.

This is some dangerous nonsense. This is also disinformation planted by an intelligence agency, probably the CIA.

The diplomats are anonymous, obviously. They have to be. Most US diplomats are more or less spies and employees of the CIA anyway. In any US Embassy in any hot part of the world, ~50% of the embassy employees are actually connected to the CIA in one way or another. Of course they have their fake cover jobs at the embassy to cover up their spying.

An earlier version of this CIA tall tale said that Iran was planning a second attack, and they planned to blame it on the Houthis. Well, Iran did not do the first one, so how is it going to do a second one? It can’t. This story only makes sense if you buy the “Iran shot the flying weapons from Iran” CIA lie. But that didn’t happen. It’s just disinfo BS. So if the first part of this story was a lie, clearly the second part is a lie also.

Now the part about Iran’s plans to do the attack and then blame it on the Houthis. In my lifetime I have never encountered a state that conducts its attacks from its own soil and then has allied guerillas in another country claim the attack. Guerrillas don’t claim attacks that they don’t do.

Those wicked Iranians are going to do another attack from Iran and then get the Houthis to idiotically take the blame again! How dastardly! Of course the Houthis are starting to rebel against this Wicked Witch of the West level of evil! Oh, poor Houthis!

This is nonsense. States don’t order guerrillas do claim attacks that they didn’t do so the state can do the attack and then blame it on the guerrilla. Sure, it’s plausible, but I have never heard of a single case in my life.

The underlying message of this latest CIA lie is ominous. If there’s another attack, obviously the Houthis are going to do it. Sure, Iran might help them, but it will be launched from Yemen with Houthi weaponry, not from Iran with Iranian weaponry.

But look at how the story sets up the future. The message from the US and the Saudis is telling Iran that any future Houthi attacks similar in scale and targeting are going to be blamed on Iran no matter who does it.

So if the Houthis attack another oil refinery, the US and Saudi Arabia will accuse Iran of a second attack. The message? Any future large-scale Houthi attack on the Saudis will seriously endanger Iran, as it will be blamed on Iran no matter who did it, and Iran may well be attacked on the basis of this attack.

The logical move for the Houthis? Don’t do anymore large scale attacks on the Saudis. Their Iranian patron will be blamed and may well be attacked on the basis of Houthi attack.

The logical move for Iran? Tell the Houthis to not do any more large scale attacks on the Saudis. The next attack will be blamed on Iran and Iran may well get attacked. Iran doesn’t want to get attacked.

In other words, the Houthis and Iran are being set up ahead of time for any future attacks. Get it?

See how sneaky these American and Saudi rats are?

Official Houthi spokesmen have rejected any suggestions that they disavowed their initial claim or warned Riyadh about future strikes by Iran, the WSJ said.

This is laughable. Why on Earth would the Houthis contact their deadly enemy, Saudi Arabia, and warn them that the Houthis’ ally, Iran, was going to attack the Saudis? So in war you typically contact the enemy to warn them that one of your allies is going to attack them, right? When has that ever happened? It’s insane right out of the dugout.

Iran says it is not arming the Houthis, who deny being puppets of Tehran and say they are fighting against a corrupt system.

Well, Iran does arm the Houthis, but not many arms get in. I discussed this in a previous post. The seas are so well patrolled that the Iranians cannot get much weaponry in there. Instead Iran can give them Iranian technology and Iranian expertise in planning attacks because that doesn’t have to be smuggled in. The IRGC is already in Yemen advising the Houthis. They’re the ones who give the Houthis Iranian tech and help the Houthis plan attacks.

The part about the Houthis being Iranian puppets shows that this is a hit piece coming from the Iran-haters.

The group did not immediately respond on Friday to requests from the WSJ for comment.

And why respond to some outrageous bullshit lie? When you respond to this sort of thing, you give the lie and the liars publicity and in defending yourself, your opponent just twists your words around so you end up digging yourself even deeper in the hole you are in. It’s like protesting that you don’t beat your wife or molest children. The denial sounds suspicious because if you were innocent, why would anyone ever accuse you of such a thing in the first place?

Alt Left: The US: All Guerrillas We Don’t Like Lack Agency and Are Simply Pawns and Puppets of an Enemy State

In guerrilla wars nowadays, all guerrilla groups who the US says are enemies are labeled by the US as being pawns of some dastardly foreign power. The revolutionaries themselves are deprived of all agency and reduced to mere puppets who carry out orders from some large state sponsor. The puppets probably don’t even want to do these attacks! They’re probably being being forced to by their diabolical patrons!

In the Latin American revolutions of recent years, all of the revolutionaries were deprived of agency and reduced to mere puppets, first of Satanic Cuba and ultimately from the Devil itself, the USSR. Of course these revolutions were not started by internal politics, vast differences between the rich and poor, grotesquely unfair systems, murderous death squad states who torture and murder any dissidents on the Left!

Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Colombia were all wonderful countries. There weren’t any starving masses living in tin shacks with no water, sewage systems, jobs, or access to medical care, education, transportation or even money to buy food or anything like that!

You see, all the countries got let off the hook, and the US got to say that it wasn’t the horrific conditions inside the far rightwing country that were producing the obvious armed Left guerillas that such states often logically produce. The guerrillas were just idiots, useful ones to be sure, or even puppets on a string. Everything’s fine in these countries, and not one single progressive change needed to be made.

Instead this was just Castro’s Cuba – boo, hiss – exporting revolution to these poor innocent Latin American countries who are trying their best to serve their people! Oh, poor countries! These sad, pathetic, ignorant guerrillas are being made into pawns and puppets of malign Commies against their will! Oh, poor guerillas!

And ultimately of course the revolutions were all coming from the USSR. The motive was always nothing  more than Soviet expansionism. The Soviets were trying to export Communism all over the world to every country, rich and poor, leftwing and right, those who served their people and those who left them to die without a nickel! Bad Soviets! They were so mean!

In other words, all leftwing revolutions had nothing to do with the objective conditions inside the country. They were all caused by the deplorable Soviets exporting their depraved Communism the world over.

By saying that the Houthis are just Iranian puppets, useful idiots, and fools without any gripe who are mercenaries on the payroll of the Iranians, we are saying that conditions are just fine in Yemen, and the Houthis took arms for no reason.

According to the US and various Sunni Arab states in the region, the Houthis are revolutionary pro-Iranian crazies who are trying to take over the country as part of a sneaky Iranian project to take over all of the Arab countries, oppress and lord it over them, steal their resources and leave them penniless, and worst of all, force all of them all to convert to Shiism.

See how this “puppets of X regime” nonsense plays out? It’s usually nothing but a flat-out lie. Most civil wars happen for a reason. What sort of reason? An internal reason based on the objective conditions in that country, conditions that the guerrillas think are wrong or unfair – that’s what reason. Of course guns don’t grow on trees, and most guerrillas need to have state sponsors in order to acquire their weaponry. They have to buy them somewhere.

Alt Left: Terrorism, a Garbage Word with Absolutely No Meaning Whatsoever

Of course Wars on Terrorism are retarded wars packaged for idiots and dunces. So why do people keep falling for it? Why is the other side always made up of terrorists? Why is your side never made up of terrorists? The word terrorism belongs in a trash can. It literally has no meaning anymore.

This idiot word terrorism is new to us. Before we had other dumb words, not that any come off the top of my head at the moment.

Any non-state guerrilla actor who has taken up arms against you is automatically a terrorist. All armed groups that the US doesn’t like are terrorists. A few countries have been put on the supporters of terrorism list for no conceivable reason at all, as they don’t support any actual terrorists. They might support a few non-state armed groups, but so what? People actually believe that all armed non-state actors are terrorists?

And now even countries are “terrorists.” The IRGC, which is a branch of the Iranian military, has been listed as a terrorist organization by this idiot administration. IRGC is the Iranian government itself, so apparently the Iranian government itself is a terrorist organization!

The groups we don’t like all get called terrorists, and the ones we don’t like don’t get the designation and often get guns instead.

Furthermore, captured rebels are very frequently tortured by state armies.

Nowadays almost all states treat guerrillas as terrorists and try them in civil or military courts under terrorism statutes, mostly because they do not want to abide by the rules of war and treat them as POW’s. That’s if they don’t just out and out execute them. For instance, Syria may have executed 40-50,000 Syrian rebels at military prisons around Syria. And I say that as a supported of Assad.

Even the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are for the most part POW’s. If they’re not, then charge them with terrorism and try them in civilian courts.

The Bush Administration didn’t want to do that because they thought that civilian courts would let the jihadists go free. Bush also wanted to torture those in Guantanamo, probably to get more information out of them in order to prevent future attacks.

Hence a completely fake bullshit category called “illegal combatants” was created in order to accomplish this goal. I spoke to one of the country’s top experts on this, and he laughed and told me that there is no such thing as an illegal combatant under international law, and it was just some fake category the Bush people made up.

Alt Left: The War on Terrorism – Stupidest War Ever?

The whole idea of a War on Terrorism was stupid and insane from the very start. It’s hard to believe how many tens of millions of retards fell for this bull.

How on Earth was the Iraq Invasion party of a campaign to fight terrorism? There were no terrorists there, no Al Qaeda anyway, and Saddam was supporting any terrorist groups of note that mattered to the US.

I actually encountered quite a few people who told me that Bush and the Great US Military was going to end terrorism for all time on this planet. Yeah. Americans actually believed that crap. Anyway, here we are, 16 years later and are we any closer to wiping out terrorism than we were when this inane war started?

how can you wage war against a behavior that’s not even an entity? It’s like a War on Murder or something. Sure, it’s a great idea, but you know it’s going to fail because humans will always kill each other. And humans have always committed terrorism and will probably commit terrorism into the forseeable future. So it’s a war you are doomed to lose. So why fight it?

Hindutvas, White Nationalists and Trump Supporters: Some Similarities

The White nationalists are obviously out and out fascists and it is not an exaggeration to say that the Hindutvas are too. The Trump supporters are not so much fascist as they are Muslim haters. Anyway there are some similarities among the three.

SHI: I think there are fundamental differences between USA right-wingers and the Hindutvadi morons. Completely apples and oranges.

While the former is mostly about anti-immigration and against big corporations, the latter are plain and simple crazy bigots and 100% mini-fascists, with Islamophobia being their only agenda. That’s what I find very distressing. The level of hate they have for Muslim persons and Pakistanis is insane. Ironically, many of them don’t mind Hindu Indians working in the Middle East because they send remittance money home.

Since 2007-08, India was in news for Hitler-themed coffee shops and Mein Kampf selling like hotcakes. I thought it was just a sick joke, and the people are just stupid, but the worst nightmare became a reality. It’s like suddenly I woke up one day to Nazi-era Germany.

The real Nazis might be laughing at these brown-skinned posers but there is REAL CAMARADERIE between the neo-Nazis of Europe and America and the Hindutvadi Nazis. There are blogs like Bare Naked Islam and in Breitbart itself where you will find the two ideologies pump each other up.

With American White Nazis, I suppose there is still a way to reason with them. I mean they just describe themselves as race realists, which would have been just fine.

But, then you go to Breitbart, you have the other loonies to deal with: climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, anarchists, female psychopaths, potential mass shooters, and of course, the honest two-bit racists.

I joined Breitbart for a while. I don’t think this crowd does you any favors.

WHERE ARE THE NORMAL PEOPLE? LOL

Alt Left: Have Any of These People Ever Met One Actual Muslim?

SHI: But, then you go to Breitbart, you have the other loonies to deal with: climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, anarchists, female psychopaths, potential mass shooters and of course, the honest two-bit racists.

I joined Breitbart for a while. I don’t think this crowd does you any favors.

Oh they banned me very quickly. I only posted for a couple of hours before I got a ban. And I wasn’t even saying anything liberal. I was just saying a bunch of non-interventionist type stuff. But I was defending Iran, Hezbollah, Palestinians, Muslims, etc., so maybe that did it.

At least on that one thread the hatred for Muslims was absolutely off the charts. And that’s just the Alt Light. So I think a lot of these Trumpies would get along well with the Hindutvas. I was reading that thread and I was thinking, “You know what? Any Muslim who votes Republican is out of his damned mind.” Like a Black voting for segregation and Jim Crow, something like that.

And it was obvious to me that many of them had never met or known an actual Muslim person. They kept saying all Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that, bla bla. And quoting the stuff the jihadis believe. But they are maybe 10% of Muslims. And here in the US I haven’t met a jihadi type yet.

I got to know some Palestinian Muslims who were openly bragging to me about how Palestine was always the least religious and most secular place in the Middle East. 28% of Palestinians describe themselves as “nonreligious.”

Plus these Palestinian guys were perverts. They were talking about women like they were dinner appetizers, which is about the way I talk about them. It’s about the way all men should talk about them, honestly.

And I got to know some Yemenis at the local market and got on famously with them. They never said one single bad thing about me. The older man was my age and befriended me. I was like a superhero to them because I was a single guy without a nickel, and I still managed to get hot women, have hot women staying at my place, etc. I had brought different hot women in there a few times. Because in their society you just can’t do that.

The old man was a total pervert. Every time he saw me, he pulled me aside and asked, “Getting any pussy?” Well, White men can’t even say that stuff anymore because it’s sexist and objectifying and misogynistic, and you will actually get fired for talking like that. But thing is, that’s the way a lot of guys talk.

And women talk like that too. I have actually heard modern women ask each other, “Getting any cock?” I had a close female friend for a year and she would say, “Damn! I’m so horny! I need some cock right now!

I knew a group of older single women who would cheer for each other if one of them had some sex. They would say, “She got laid!” and a huge round of cheers and applause. That’s probably illegal and misogynistic for men to say too now because it’s objectifying and treating women like meat and the sex act like some expendable thing.

What the Hell man? Both sexes objectify the living Hell out of each other. What of it? It’s called the sex drive. You know, that evil thing the feminists hate that keeps our species going?

Anyway these Muslims were the nicest people I ever met. They never insulted me, never said anything about infidels or kufr or non-Muslims.

The older guy found out I was going to Mass, and he was very happy. If they think you are religious at all – even Christian – they almost like you better because they respect anyone who is religious. However, on that basis he also saw me as a possible convert and invited me to their Muslim prayers. I guess you can go to the prayers if you are a non-Muslim?

Every now and then I would bring up jihadis, and they had nothing but contempt and hatred for them. They would say, “That’s not the real Islam… They’re giving us a bad name… We don’t believe in that crap, etc.”

I think I liked the Palestinians more than they did. I would say stuff like, “You Arabs need to stop fighting against each other and all get together and fight the Jews. They’re the real enemy.” And this Yemeni guy looked at me like, “Dude I cannot believe you are saying that.” Not that it was an outrageous thing to hear, but when do you hear that from a non-Muslim White guy in the US?

From all I could tell they had no hatred or even dislike for non-Muslims, they had no desire to convert us or take over and put in Sharia, and didn’t support any of the jihads going around – they barely even supported the Palestinians!

Every now and then I would bring up some of the more objectionable parts of Islam and they would act like they’d never heard of what I was talking about. Or they would just say, “Yeah, we don’t believe that crap.” Your average US Muslim is a really cool person, doesn’t support jihadism it all, has not the slightest dislike for non-Muslims, etc.

All these crazy Muslim-haters out there have obviously never met or gotten to know a single real Muslim. I even think Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch has never met or gotten to know one real Muslim, even though I guess he has.

Alt Left: More on the Framing of Iran for the Houthi Attack on Saudi Arabia

Is Iran Responsible?

In a way, Iran is responsible for the attack but only in a roundabout way. Obviously the Houthis did it from Yemen. God knows how they pulled it off. The Houthis are absolutely able to pull of this sort of thing.

In recent months, Houthi drone technology has absolutely exploded. I believe that in the past few months, as the US tried to stop Iran from exporting oil, Iran has radically ramped up the supply of technology to the Houthis. Because their technology has exploded in a short period of time.

Under Obama, Iran wanted to keep a bit of distance from the Houthis due to the nuclear deal. Trump blew up that deal and Iran had no reason to keep distance from the Houthis anymore, so they ramped up support for the Houthis. Iran absolutely exports weaponry to the Houthis. I am not sure how much gets in. It comes in on small boats. It starts on large boats but around the east end of Oman at the end of the Straight of Hormuz they shift to small boats.

With the drones I understand that Iran may be actually flying them in from boats off the coast of Yemen! There are probably some Iranian advisors working with the Houthis on the battlefield. I have no idea if Iran is helping the Houthi build the rockets.

However, there is now a unified command center in Iran consisting of IRGC, Iran, Houthis, Iraqi militias, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Not sure if Syria has a seat too. So Iran probably heard about the operation and said fine.

The Houthis are not really proxies. They do what they want. Earlier Iran ordered them not to take Sa’ada, but the Houthis told Iran to stuff it and took the city anyway. On occasion they do carry out orders from Iran. One was to hit a ship off the coast of Yemen with a missile. I doubt that this refinery attack was due to an Iranian command or order.

The Missing Link – Hezbollah

When you think of Houthi technological capabilities, there is a part to the equation that is being left out. Because we are talking about not “Houthi” abilities but “Houthi + Hezbollah” abilities. I guess you could argue that some attack or manufacture is beyond the Houthi, but is it beyond Hezbollah?

Because I know how those drones are made, and they are all made in factories in Yemen.

An Iranian prototype is supplied directly by Iran for most models. The rocket and missile builders are none other than Hezbollah. Hezbollah are now experts at building missiles and rockets. Hezbollah builds drones, rockets, etc. for the Houthis using the Iranian prototype, but it is always modified somewhat, often in an ingenious way.

For instance the Saudi display included a Quds-1 which is a Houthi cruise missile built off the prototype of an Iranian Soumar cruise missile. According to the US lie, Iran fired two Houthi cruise missiles from its base in Iran to attack those refineries. How likely is that? Why would Iran have Houthi cruise missiles in their arsenal and why would they launch Houthi cruise missiles from their own territory? That makes no sense at all.

After the initial prototype is built, I am not sure if Hezbollah makes new ones or if the Houthis just use a schematic.

There are also Hezbollah advisors advising the Houthis on the battlefield.

This attack surely came from Yemen. The US is lying through its teeth that the attack came from Iran. It’s Iraqi WMD all over again. There are various reasons for blaming Iran which you may be able to figure out yourself.

The US States that Somehow West = North

The US says the attack came from the north. Nope, it came from the west. Everyone who looked at the damage photos and saw the damage said the damage showed that the attack came from the west. Furthermore there are Youtube videos out there of Saudis living to the west of the oil refineries where you can hear the sounds of the drones coming in. The Saudis state in these videos that they can see the drones coming in from the west due east towards the refineries.

In the later photos presented at the Saudi press conference, the compass on the map was actually changed to make north point towards the east so the west-facing damage would appear to be north-facing damage. They actually changed the position of their compass on the photo!

Drone Sirens are Not Cruise Missile Sirens

Also the whine you hear in the attack videos is a drone siren, not some other type of siren. It’s activated in a drone attack. It would not be activated in a cruise missile attack.

No One Shoots a Gun at a Cruise Missile

You can hear gunfire of Saudi forces shooting at the attacking objects. This proves they were drones because you can shoot at a drone with a gun. You can’t shoot at a cruise missile with a gun. No one does that. It’s on top of you as fast as you see it.

Possible Casualties in the Refinery Attack

Also Reuters reported that a witness stated that there were 15 ambulances at one refinery that was attacked, so the Saudis may be covering up some casualties.

The Saudis Point Their Radars away from the Real Threat

The US says the radars were turned to the south and west, so they did not see the swarm. Nope, they were turned towards the north and east, towards Iran. Why on Earth would the Saudis turn their radars away from their worst enemy of all, Iran, and point them towards the Houthis, whose air force the US and Saudis claim does not have any planes that are capable of attacking as far as the objects those radars are protecting?

Iran Has Stealth Technology No One Else Has, and Billions of Dollars in US Radars Are Worthless

If Iran launched 27 missiles at Saudi Arabia from their land, they would have been seen on the some of the 50 US and countless Saudi radars that are pointed right at Iran. Unless Iran has some stealth technology for drones and cruise missiles, this didn’t happen. And no one has that tech.

The US Can Hear Everything on Earth – They Even Have a Spy in Khameini’s Palace

The US says Khameini approved of the attack with the qualification of deniability. How would we know? We have spies right next to Khameini in his palace? Forget it. Obviously we have no spies next to Khameini or anyone in the Iranian leadership and we have no idea what any of them are saying anytime.

American Spies Can Hear when People Are Plotting Attacks, but They Are Somehow Unable to Warn Anyone Ahead of Time, Stop the Attacks before They Occur, or Even See Them When They Happen

Also if we are monitoring the Saudi leadership all the time with spies, wiretaps, or bugs, and we heard that they were planning this attack, why didn’t we warn the Saudis or the media or even attack the base from which they were to be launched? If we knew the attack was coming because our spies heard about it, why when Iran launched the attack, did none of our 50+ best radars on Earth see the missiles and drones? None of this makes sense.

Mike Pompeo Can Figure out Who Did Any Attack  Immediately after It Happened before any Investigation Has even Begun

Pompeo insisted that this was an Iranian attack very soon after the attack before he could have possibly known such a thing. You can tell when the US is trying to frame an innocent party for an attack someone else did (and we do this sometimes) because the patsy nation or group is blamed almost immediately after the attack, before anyone could possibly have known who did it, before any investigations. They are working off a script.

The CIA Speaks out of Both Sides of Its Mouth: Disinformation to the Media and State for the Sucker American Citizens and the Truth Internally

Lies for the people; truth for itself. The disinfo may be cooked up by the CIA. Quotes from “US intelligence sources” may be from CIA people sending disinfo to their sources in the media.

The CIA itself says different things. Internally they want to know what really happened. They don’t want to believe lies or crap. I am sure that they know that the Houthis launched this attack.

Internal CIA knowledge is sometimes leaked to a few select journalists such as Seymour Hersch. For instance, Hersch’s CIA sources told him that half of the CIA thinks a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the M-17 jet in Ukraine, and the other half thinks it was a missile shot by Donbass rebels but not a Buk missile as the fake lie narrative goes. That is because the CIA says the rebels never had any Buk missile in Ukraine. So that is what the CIA believes internally.

But the CIA put out disinfo about this attack almost instantly after it went down when Kerry started saying the rebels shot it down with a Buk missile supplied by Russia. This was the lie story that was supposed to go out. So the CIA talks out of both sides of its mouth.

The US Can’t Keep Its Story Straight and Keeps Changing It all the Time

Another thing a fake patsy US lie to frame someone does is it often changes too fast. Pompouseo said the attack came from Iraq at first. Then he met with the Iraqis, and the story changed to launched from Iran.

When a criminal suspect keeps changing their story, we know they are probably lying or at any case their story is not to be trusted. When a victim keeps changing their story, we know that this person is either lying or at least is an unreliable victim. Typically this results in a non-prosecution of the case.

US Evidence is Vague, Unsourced, and Ultimately Never Released

Also the “intelligence material” is typically very vague and often never released. The intelligence confirming that the Donbass rebels shot down the jet has not been released to this day. That’s because there is none. Predictably the US has no evidence in this refinery attack.

Delays in the US Story Are Because They Are Fabricating a Story, and That Takes Time

Also a delay in evidence is often due to a US lie frame story. The US is “trying to find the evidence to connect Iran to this attack.” Really they are trying to fabricate the evidence that Iran did it. This often takes a while, hence the long delays in confirming the evidence.

No One Does Attacks and Tells Other People to Claim Them and No One Claims Attacks That Others Do

A few other things. Iran has never conducted an attack and then had one of its proxies claim it. Iran claims all of its attacks and denies all false claims of attacks directed at it. The Houthis have never taken credit for an attack that was actually launched by Iran. In fact, no Iranian proxy has ever claimed an attack that was launched by Iran. The proxies claim their own attacks, and they claim all of them.

Cruise Missiles Manufactured in Yemen Are Actually Iranian Weapons Made in Iran

The photo of the wreckage of a Quds-1 cruise missile in the Saudi desert appeared mysteriously on the net soon after the attack. No one knows who put it up or what it is. Houthis have used Quds-1’s to attack Saudi Arabia in the past.

Attacks That Happened a Year Ago Really Happened Yesterday

They were not used in this attack, so the photo is from earlier attack. The Quds-1 wreckage in the Saudi display being called an Iranian weapon is not an Iranian weapon but a Houthi weapon. I know the Quds-1 and the Soumar and how to tell them apart. That is absolutely a Quds-1.

Houthi Weapons Are Made in Yemen and then Smuggled back into Iran to be Fired from Iran

The Quds-1 is a Yemeni cruise missile manufactured only in Yemen in Houthi factories. According to the US a Quds-1 was used in this attack, and a Quds-1 is an Iranian weapon. That’s false right there. For this story to be true, the Houthis would have had to have made a Quds-1 cruise missile in Yemen and then Smuggled it out of Yemen and into Iran so Iranians could use it in an attack. That scenario is so absurd it is ridiculous.

Drones Used in Attacks in May Come back to Life and Are Used Again in Attacks in September

That black drone in the front of the display is apparently from a Houthi attack on a pipeline back in May. I know because there are photos of the drone used in that attack and it is this very drone. I believe the rest of the wreckage is simply wrecked drones from past Houthi attacks recently.

Alt Left: The Iranians Are Behind the Rapid Development of Drone Technology by the Houthis

From the excellent Moon on Alabama blog.

It occurs to me that the Houthis started the rapid improvement in capabilities around the time they disposed of Saleh and resolved their internal disputes. Very rapid improvement since then. It would be interesting to get to know the people behind that, making it happen. Is Seulimani in there somewhere? Nasrallah and his minions? I’ll bet.

The tech is coming directly from Iran which has dramatically ramped up their technology transfer in recent months. Hezbollah takes the new tech and helps the Houthis build drones and missiles out of it or modifies existing flying weapons.

The critical factor was the US threats to Iran. Under Obama Iran had a vested strategic interest in keeping at arms distance from Yemen – any overt help to Yemen would result in strategic threats to Iran; the risk to Iran would be too great.

After Trump pulled unilaterally out of the JCPOA and threw back ever more and mare sanctions on Iran, the strategic interest of Iran in holding off Yemen was transformed into a strategic interest in assisting Yemen as a way of putting pressure on the US.

Once the US put really high pressure on Iran and tried to cut Iranian oil exports to zero, the steady stream of technology flow to the Houthis suddenly became a mighty river, quickly leading to a huge surge in capability.

With every turn of the screw against Iran, we can clearly see step-wise advances in technology, quality, quantity, range, and performance of Houthi weapons. The timeline of Houthi advances set against the US pressures on Iran shows this with crystal clarity.

Beyond question, if Trump had never withdrawn from JCPOA the Houthi attack on Abqaiq would have been impossible.

Exactly. The only reason that refinery got attacked in the first place was due to the United States.

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

God patriotards are morons.

Have you noticed that ~70% of Americans are full-blown, drooling, ranting, wild-eyed, bloodthirsty, warmongering, arrogant, believe- anything patroitarded fools?

One thing I like about Blacks and Hispanics is most of them are not patriotards. Patriotards are almost all White people. I don’t blame Black people for not being patriotards. This country has not been very kind to them. Why love a nation that has treated you so cruelly?

Alt Left: The US Is Lying through Their Teeth about the Refinery Attacks in Saudi Arabia

After the attacks on the Abquaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia by a drone swarm claimed by the Houthis in Yemen, the US immediately said that Iran did it. But they didn’t have any evidence. That’s because there wasn’t any because Iran didn’t do it. They said they would have to wait to gather the evidence. That means it will take a little while to manufacture the evidence, which is pretty much all we ever do when we blame an enemy party for attacks anymore.

The US and Saudi Arabia Israel are lying through their teeth about this attack trying to pin it on Iran and saying it was launched from Iran.

So far, the French, the Japanese and the Saudis themselves all state that the attack did not come from Iran. So the US is all alone with that lie. The Saudis are simply saying that Iranian weapons were used. Even that’s not true. The weaponry was probably all Houthi, albeit knockoffs from Iranian prototypes.

This is fake. Think The Maine. Think Gulf of Tonkin. Think babies on Kuwaiti incubators. The Iraqi WMD’s. Think the endless fake chemical attacks in Syria. Think the M-17 shootdown, immediately blamed on Russia-linked rebels but actually a false flag attack by Ukraine.

Most wars are started by fake attacks or false flags or falsely blamed attacks, all sort of the same thing. They need these fake attacks to have a casus belli for a war since most countries aren’t stupid enough to attack another nation in such a way as to give a casus belli for a war.

First the attacks came from an Iraqi militia base. Then after Pompouseo talked to the Iraqi government, that fake story had to be dropped and a new fake story had to be made up.

The attack changed to a launch directly from a base on Southwestern Iran. There is supposedly a satellite photo of IRGC getting ready to launch the attack from this base. It is almost surely faked.

Also they are trying to reconstruct the path of the missiles post-attack. Hey fakers, it doesn’t work that way. How about tracking the attacking objects in real time with real radar data.

In addition, the US said that Khameini approved the attack but said there had to be deniability. Well, how do they know that? They have spies next to Khameini? I doubt it.

Next we have a video a what is said to be a cruise missile flying over the head of a Kuwaiti fisherman. You can hear the sound and see the trail of what indeed does appear to be a cruise missile. The cruise missile footage could be anything. The Houthis said they did not use a cruise missile.

Next there are vague reports from the US government of Kuwaitis seeing cruise missiles flying south.I believe them. But no attack was spotted on radars from the north. Would a launch of 10 cruise missiles from Iran not have been seen by the 50 radars we have in that area and the countless Saudi radars?

Also everything was hit from the west, and the damage was rather minor. We would expect a lot more damage with a cruise missile. The US insists that the attacks came from the north. But all of the damage is on the west side.

Further there are a number of videos from Saudis who live west of the refinery. They show the sounds of drones coming in from the west. These witnesses report that they saw drones flying in from the west headed east towards the refinery. The Saudi radars all point to the north and east towards Iran which makes an attack from the west likely.

Next there is a report that the Saudis shot down one of the cruise missiles. No word from the Saudis on that, so that’s dubious.

Next we have mysterious footage of a downed cruise missile in the desert of Saudi Arabia uploaded by unknown persons. First of all, that’s a Houthi cruise missile, not an Iranian cruise missile. And no one knows who put those pics up or even when they were taken. I think they are from an earlier Houthi attack.

More importantly why would Iran use Houthi cruise missiles to attack Saudi Arabia? That’s just stupid.

Next we have a display of what are supposedly Iranian weapons by the Saudis. There is a lot of wreckage of what looks like drones in that footage. No one, including me, knows that that wreckage is a picture of. They’re drones, but they could be anyone’s drones.

In the rear there is the wreckage of two cruise missiles said to be Iranian cruise missiles. I assure you 100% that that and the wreckage in the desert and in the Saudi display is from a Houthi Quds-1 cruise missile, not an Iranian Soumar cruise missile. Houthis make Quds-1 cruise missiles from an Iranian Soumar prototype. I know both of those missiles well, I have seen media comparing the two, and that is absolutely a Quds-1.

First of all, Iran is not stupid enough to do an attack like that. They would have to be insane to do something that suicidal. Also Iran does not do attacks and then have its proxies claim them. Iran claims its attacks. The proxies claim their own attacks. The proxies never claim attacks that Iran really did. It hasn’t happened once.

I will tell you though that a unified command has been set up in Iran recently with Iran, IRGC, the Houthis, the Iraqi militias, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. I am not sure if Syria has a seat at the table. So in a sense they are all one organ. An attack by one of them was sort of done by them all in way. But I doubt if Iran had much of a direct role in this attack in any way, shape, or form. Maybe they knew it was going to happen and signed off on it. The Houthis do whatever the Hell they want. They don’t take orders from Iran.

Here is how it works, ok? All of those Houthi missiles and drones were originally built from Iranian prototypes. They take the Iranian weapon and modify it somewhat. Who modifies it? Hezbollah! All of those weapons built on Iranian prototypes are being built in Yemen by Hezbollah who have a lot of drone/missile experts. Hezbollah work alongside the Houthi to make these missiles.

All of these drones, missiles, rockets, etc. are made right in Yemen. Keep in mind that the Houthi is really the Yemeni military. 70% of the Yemeni military went over to the Houthi because they were pro-Saleh. The Yemeni military had its own Missile Division. They had a lot of Scud missiles that they had imported from North Korea, and they were building them themselves also.

Hezbollah advisors may also be helping the Houthi on the battlefield. Iranians are probably not helping to make the missiles, but they are smuggling the prototypes in via small boats. Also the drones can be launched from these Iranian boats to fly into Houthi territory and land, delivering them in that way. There may be a few Iranian advisors on the battlefield.

After the initial models are made, I am not sure if Hezbollah continues to make the subsequent models or if the Houthis operate off a schematic. These models are being modified and perfected all the time, surely with the help of Hezbollah.

Everyone is looking the wrong way. When you think of “Houthi capabilities”, you have to add in “Hezbollah capabilities” to that equation. “Houthi capabilities” are actually “Houthi + Hezbollah capabilities”.

The Houthi immediately claimed this attack and provided massive details about how it was done. They had previously launched 100 attacks on Saudi Arabia.

Occam’s Razor says the simplest and most elegant solution is that the Houthis did it exactly as claimed. There’s no need for far-fetched conspiracy theories such as the US and others are putting out about these attacks.

Alt Left: 53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

It’s disgusting how the minute you say the phrase false flag, people grab their foreheads and start groaning. All false flags are automatically conspiracy theories and they’re all pathetic nonsense made up by the tinfoil hat crowd. Granted a lot of so-called false flags never happened and instead were actual attacks carried out by whoever claimed responsibility for them. This is particularly true with Islamist terrorist groups.

Their attacks often terribly brutal and aimed directly at civilians. Many of their attacks in the West have been called false flags, but none of them were. It has also been common for a long time to ascribe most of the worst Palestinian terrorist attacks to Israeli false flags.

The truth is that the Palestinians, like the Islamists, are quite depraved enough to do their own horrific terrorist attacks. Their attacks are depraved enough that Israel has no need to fake depraved attacks to frame the Palestinians.

But as you can see, false flags definitely occur. I never thought that the US government did these attacks very much, but we and the rest of the West (NATO) have been going on a wild false flag spree ever since NATO’s war on Russia started heating up.

It’s been one false flag after another and one attempt to blame Russia and pro-Russians for atrocities willfully committed by the other side. This is different from a false flag. In this case, Party A attacks the enemy, typically enemy civilians, or a shell goes astray and there’s an atrocity. 

Instead of admitting that they did it, they blame the enemy who they are fighting, usually for committing an atrocity against their own supporters, which of course makes no sense.

There were many such attacks like this in the Syrian Civil War when the Free Syrian Army committed massacre after massacre of villagers who supported Assad and then turned around and blamed Assad for each and every one of these crimes. 

As it turns out, Assad did not commit any of these civilian massacres because that’s just not his style. His forces don’t rampage into villages, even of rebel supporters, and slaughter civilians in brutal fashion one by one.

If they think a civilian needs to be dealt with, Assad’s forces simply arrest them and may well put them in a military prison, where they could well be tortured and mistreated until death or executed. I’m not saying Assad is a nice guy; it’s more that his style simply does not include savage massacres of entire villages or chemical weapons attacks for that matter.  When it comes to depravity, Assad has his own style.

I can’t believe that number of attacks falsely blamed on the enemy and out and out false flag and fake attacks that the US did in Ukraine and Syria. We seem to be entering into a new era of warfare where false flags are the normal ways to fight wars.

It’s appalling and terrifying because foolish Americans insist that these attacks never happen. By believing that they give their own government carte blanche to do as many false flags and false blaming of the enemy of allied attacks as they wish. And the government knows that in any fake blames or false flags the US or its allies pull off, they know that they can count on the support of every corporate media outlet in the US to go right along.

In fact, every mainstream media outlet in the West period is on board with any false blaming or false flags the West wishes to pull off. In that sense the entire media of the West is completely controlled by the states of the West, their militaries, state departments and intelligence services. It’s downright terrifying.

53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published in February 2015.

Not Theory … Admitted Fact

There are many documented false flag attacks where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

In the following 53 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admitted to it, either orally or in writing:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931 and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident.”

The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that under orders from the chief of the Gestapo, he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles to justify the invasion of Poland.

(3) Nazi General Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933 and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 while blaming the attack on Finland as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian President Putin, and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940 and falsely blame it on the Nazis.

(6) The British government admits that between 1946 and 1948 it bombed five ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the pseudo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see thisthis and this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece, also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey, and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(11-21) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO with the help of the Pentagon and CIA carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this).

Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred. And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include by way of example only the murder of the Turkish Prime Minister (1960), bombings in Portugal (1966), the Piazza Fontana massacre in Italy (1969), terror attacks in Turkey (1971), the Peteano bombing in Italy (1972), shootings in Brescia, Italy and a bombing on an Italian train (1974), shootings in Istanbul, Turkey (1977), the Atocha massacre in Madrid, Spain (1977), the abduction and murder of the Italian Prime Minister (1978), the bombing of the Bologna railway station in Italy (1980), and shooting and killing 28 shoppers in Brabant county, Belgium (1985).

(22) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro].”

(23) Official State Department documents show that in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(24) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes) and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

See the following ABC news reportthe official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(25) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(26) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(27) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964… manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(28) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign, the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(29) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look, the general said, “I am giving an example.”

(30) The German government admitted (and see this) that in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(31) A Mossad agent admits that in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya, which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(32) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force), approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident,” thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(33) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, “French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit against Author”).

(34)    The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces  updated in 2004 recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars.” And see this.

(35) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998 and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked.”

(36) Senior Russian military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(37) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(38) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(39) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered seven innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police in order to join the “War on Terror.”

(40) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that in July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa they planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(41) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks as shown by a memo from the defense secretary as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq War.

Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties.

Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq War was really launched for oil…not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government.  

(42) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the White House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(43) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(44) United Press International reported in June 2005:

U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers.

Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

(45) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(46) Quebec police admitted that in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(47) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plainclothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(48) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(49) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(50) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, says that the head of Saudi intelligence Prince Bandar recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(51) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government, and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(52) The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others.

(53) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

So Common…There’s a Name for It

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.

The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s Strategy of Tension.

The use of the bully’s trick is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago. The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.

Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for navalair and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

“A history of false flag attacks used to manipulate the minds of the people! In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.”
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war… But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.”
– Josef Stalin


Alt Left: Assad Never Gassed His Own People: A Summary of the False Flag “Chemical Weapons Attacks” in the Syrian Civil War

Assad is not a very nice man, but he never gassed his own people.

Every single one of those gas attacks were false flags and little gas was released and nobody killed or even injured in any of the attacks. The dead were civilian hostages that the Islamists took from Assad supporting villages. They then murdered them, apparently with carbon monoxide, and presented their bodies as gas attack victims.

As far as the first attack in Ghouta in Damascus that everybody talks about, none other than the US CIA says that Assad did not carry out that attack. They got that information from the British MI5. That’s why Obama blinked on the crossing the red line thing and did not attack Syria.

The US DIA helped plan that attack and John Kerry knew it was in the works before it happened and even said so on video. Only a few people had sarin in their system, and the levels were so low that they would not even hurt the person.

Also no one saw the supposed gas canisters launched. Despite our own CIA stating that Assad did not do this attack (really there was no chemical attack at all, as in all cases), the media continues to rant about Assad doing this attack.

The Khan Sheikhoun attack was also a false flag. The US military believes that Syria bombed a warehouse where various chemicals, possibly chemical weapons, were stored. We have direct quotes from the military on that.

The bomb hole supposedly caused by the gas cylinder has been proven to be caused by a bomb from a bombing raid. Also gas attacks are never carried out by aircraft. Also the CIA told Trump that the gas attack never happened, but Trump went ahead and attacked Syria anyway! Despite the CIA telling Trump that the gas attacks were faked, the US media continues to rant on and on about this gas attack.

As far as the latest East Ghouta attack, it is now proven to be a false flag. Scott Ritter also says it was a false flag. British intelligence helped carry out that attack with the Islamists. The dead were killed in a Syrian bombing raid.

We have many interviews of civilians who were there at the time saying that they were forced by the Islamists to participate in a false flag gas attack and that the Islamists had been planning the attack for days beforehand.

Also a report by the UN’s Office on Chemical Weapons Control which visited the site proves that the attack was faked. However, this corrupt organization said Assad did a gas attack even though their own report shows that it was faked! That’s how corrupt the UN is! Despite the fact that the UN report proves the attack was faked, the media continues to rant on about it being real.

We now have ~40 White Helmets members stating on video that they faked all of those gas attacks as false flags. You can go check it out yourself.

The other sarin attacks also never happened.

No “gas victims” have ever shown any signs of sarin poisoning. Instead they were either murdered, gassed with carbon monoxide, or they were killed in bombing raids.

The many chlorine gas attacks also never happened. No chlorine has ever been found at these sites and the victims never show signs of chlorine poisoning. Instead they are always infants and they appear to have been shot up with some opiate morphine like substance.

Alt Left: Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

A most interesting text out of the UK but a group calling itself Alt Left. Though I don’t agree with them on everything, in a broad sense what they are arguing for is more or less within the broad scope of what I had in mind when I founded the Alt Left. This group calls itself Alt Left Publishing.

I had to cringe at some of the more rightwing things this group wants Labour to do, but the fact is that Labour needs to win elections, and if they have to be a bit more conservative to do that, well so be it. As long as we are not electing Blairites, Labour will always be much better than the Conservatives, and UKIP doesn’t look very good either (sort of neoliberal Trump Republicans-lite).

As usual with the Democratic Party here, the Left is shooting itself in the foot with massive overreach by being wildly SJW in ways that the majority of people do not support, and by being fantatically anti-immigration when 70% of the British public want a slow-down on immigration.

Labour is getting massacred on this issue, as many working class folks are anti-immigrant and feel that immigrants are taking their jobs and in addition, these people feel that they are losing a sense of their country.

Working class Labour voters are left on economics while being rather socially conservative, and that’s the Alt Left right there. What’s the point of alienating working class voters, screaming racist at them, shoving hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants down their throat, and bombarding them with SJW extremism that most of them reject as too radical?

As the piece points out all this is doing is making more and more of these socially conservative working class Labour voters defect to UKIP, mostly over the immigration issue.

Labour is also alienating people by being openly unpatriotic. I’m not a patriotard myself, but I do want the best for my country, so I suppose I love my country more than a corporate types who deliberately harm our country. I certainly don’t want to do my country any harm! I may disagree with domestic and especially foreign policy, but I’m not so angry about it that I want to screw the country over. I mean I have to live here too you know.

At any rate, the people around Corbyn are openly unpatriotic and do not pay proper deference to national symbols and institutions. Most British people are patriots, particularly socially conservative working class folks.

While I love Hezbollah myself and even have a soft spot for Irish Republicans, most British people despise both Hezbollah and in particular the IRA. The latter is heavily due to anti-Catholic sentiment in mostly Protestant UK, a tendency that goes back to at least the 19th Century to “anti-papist” and “anti-Romist” sentiment at that time. At any rate it does no good when Corbyn lauds these groups. All it does is create more UKIP voters.

What’s the point? Politics is after all the art of the possible.

While I love Jeremy Corbyn of course, most British people dislike him, and Labour has been shedding votes since he took over. It doesn’t matter whether I love Corbyn or not. What matters is that most British people hate him. And a leader hated by most of the population should definitely go in favor of someone more popular.

There are other good suggestions here about being tough on crime and the causes of crime. This is an issue near and dear to socially conservative working class voters, and Labour, like the Democratic Party, suffers from a soft on crime problem. That’s not necessary and anyway, crime hurts the working class.

This is a very long document, 12,000 words and 25 pages. I edited it quite heavily. The Alt Left Publishing website can be reached by clicking on the title below.

Happy reading!

Labour Isn’t Working: A Radical Program for the Party to Reacquaint Itself with Victory

Labour Isn’t Working in many ways lays the foundations for the Alt-Left. It establishes fundamental principles like the importance of group identity, the need to restrain the free market, and rejection of radical social justice.

It’s my view that whether your interest in politics is keen or fair-weather, you’ll be intrigued by the book, though I do recommend it particularly strongly to Labour party members and to those interested in the Alt Left and what it stands for.

The transcript can be read in full below, or alternatively downloaded for free here.

If you’d like to purchase the text in E-book format you can do so here.

T. James

Cover JPEG

Preface

The modern Labour party is out of touch with the working class whom it exists to represent, and many of whom turn increasingly to the Tories and UKIP for answers. Labour has been too scared to address immigration, too complacent to address jobs and too divided to address Europe.

The working class is dead. Long gone are the days of the Welsh miners’ choir and the workplace union meetings. The flat cap is worn now by avant-garde members of the rural middle class, men too old to shake a habit, and metropolitan hipsters.

Blackface isn’t the inevitable consequence of a day spent hewing coal from the center of the earth, but is now a racial faux pas. Where once a hard day’s work involved forging world-class steel, for many it’s now manning a call center in order to best resolve Mrs Smith’s broadband issues.

The modern economy necessitates that even the bricklayer has his own local advertising, Facebook page, and website. He doesn’t consider himself part of a homogeneous working class, but instead an entrepreneur, and rightly so.

The production and harvesting of real resources has been shamelessly outsourced to third-world countries. We allow the rest of the world to grow our food, forge our steel, and sew our shirts, and in doing so, we not only deprive our own people of work, but we impose it on others without the benefit of health and safety, a minimum wage, regulations, or any semblance of automation.

Britain’s economy is overly reliant on the financial sector, leaving us vulnerable to the next U.S.-born crash. Where people once took pride in their work as builders, now they are resigned to employment in this coffee chain or that.

Nationalism now rises in tandem with uncontrolled migration leading to names like Le Pen, Wilders, and Farage taking the establishment by storm. What appeared to be a consistently declining level of global violence has begun to reverse itself in recent years, as the wildfire of extremism continues to ravage the Middle East, prompting the worst migrant crisis yet seen in human history.

Humanity is on the precipice of upheaval, there are new questions, and few answers. Left-wing parties across the West are struggling to rally support, caught between the relentless march of globalization and the toll it takes on workers the world over.

The British Labour party is no exception to this trend, and its inability to mount a competent opposition to the government is enabling a period of unchecked Conservative rule. Exerting scrutiny on the executive is essential to ensure that its policies reflect national needs and not self-serving ends. Thus it is in the interests of both Conservative and Labour supporters that the Labour party resurface as a government in waiting and not persist as a party of protest.

In the wake of the 2015 shock general election defeat, long-time backbencher and maverick Jeremy Corbyn, assumed power in the Labour party. Propelled by an anti-establishment appeal and left-wing policies thought to have been consigned to history, he easily defeated his three opponents.

His unprecedented victory prompted a surge in party membership, from some 200,000 to over 500,000, making it notable for being the largest left-wing party in Europe. It appeared that the man to reverse Labour’s fortune had made himself known.

Yet at the time of writing, far from arresting the party’s decline, the Corbyn administration has only exacerbated it. Polling shows Labour now trail the Conservatives by as much as 18%. The 23rd of February 2017 marked a historic by-election defeat for Labour, not just because they had held the seat of Copeland since 1935, but also because it was lost to the governing party.

Owing to resignations, the shadow cabinet is more of a skeleton crew, much of it manned by newly elected and inexperienced MPs.  The vast membership, which was seen as the formation of a campaigning vanguard, has since been shown to be in large part idle, indicative of a niche opinion in the country, and a thorn in the side of the parliamentary party.

That’s not to say that Jeremy Corbyn killed the Labour party. He merely sits atop its coffin. The party has been in a state of managed decline since de-industrialization stripped it of a clear reason to exist. The program detailed herein will therefore not lay blame exclusively at Corbyn’s door, though it will do so where appropriate, but instead will lay blame where deserved, and offer remedies where needed.

It’s not enough to insist that the electorate are deficient or suffering from a false consciousness when they reject you time after time. Nor is it good enough to abandon the values upon which the party was founded in order to pursue public opinion at the expense of all else.

Instead the party must align its core principles with the will of the people, conceding ground on either side where necessary. It’s essential that in order to recover, the party enter a period of reflection, and in doing so it must produce a meaningful answer to the question so many are asking: “Just what is the Labour party for?”.

If it’s to defend the NHS, then that’s an insufficient reason for the electorate to eject a sitting government. No doubt the creation of the NHS was Labour’s finest hour, but to relentlessly invoke its name at every public rally like a war cry is to cement in the mind of the public the idea of Labour as a one-trick pony.

If it’s to be a nicer version of the Tories, this too is inadequate. Aside from the fact that the Liberal Democrats already occupy that ground, the public at large will always opt for competency over compassion.

It’s vital that should Labour ever seek to win again, it must first rediscover its identity. It should reforge its raison d’être from an anti-Tory think tank to a government in waiting, able to steady the nation through what promises to be a turbulent future. Drawing from various tendencies within the party, significant research, personal experience, and observable reality, what follows is a detailed roadmap for Labour’s return to government.

Chapter I – The New Working Class

Labour once had a core demographic on which they could rely: the working class – a monolithic block who worked almost entirely in heavy industry. Commonly united in tight-knit communities centered on a factory or pit, they were class conscious and proudly so.

To inherit one’s father’s job was not just an expectation but a de facto right. The membership of the Labour party and consequently its leadership still holds to these antiquated views of what it means to be a worker. So long as they fail to recognize the nature and needs of modern workers, they will fail to produce policies that appeal to them.

This isn’t a failure exclusive to the left of the party. After all, Blair did once assert that, “We’re all middle class now”, a view still manifest among those of his ilk who exist in substantial number within the parliamentary party.

It’s not so much that this view denies the existence of the poverty-stricken or the manual worker but that it sidelines them. It relies on those people to vote for Labour consistently and is unconcerned when they stay at home, since most such people live within Labour safe seats won on a minimal turnout.

This leads us to a divergence in approach: one that caters to a romanticized and now largely deceased working class and the other which overlooks it entirely. To portray the party as these two schools of thought and nothing but would be disingenuous, but they do have the most to say on the subject. The so-called ‘soft left’ offers little thought on the matter, and the Kendallites have been too preoccupied with plots in recent times to set out any clear views at all.

In order to identify those whom Labour must bring into the fold, we must first establish those who vote for it currently:

Old Labourites. Blue-collar chaps for whom the memories of Thatcherism are still all too vivid. Formerly miners and manufacturers, many now live in the deprived post-industrial communities of Wales, the Midlands, the North, and Scotland. Increasingly, their inherent social conservatism and skepticism regarding immigration has led them to vote Conservative and UKIP in increasing numbers.

Londoners. Labour enjoys ever-growing support within London, a crowd often misidentified as being part of the ‘metropolitan elite’. While much of this demographic could be characterized by the sort of person who hangs a picture of Marx in their parents’ Kensington 4-bed, such people are a minority. Labour’s London support base can be differentiated by its social liberalism, particularly in its concern for LGBT rights, feminism, and police practices.

Public sector workers. Over 56.5% are unionized and the Tories have been slashing their wages for 7 years. They vote Labour consistently, although they do so in worryingly declining numbers. Guarantee a wage rise above inflation and increased expenditure on our public services, and these voters are locked down.

Ethnic minorities. This demographic can be more or less divided between those of African and Asian descent. The black British demographic is concentrated predominantly in London and Birmingham, the product of a generation who were invited to the UK to rebuild in the wake of the Second World War.

Now living in overwhelmingly deprived communities, over 70% vote Labour. Similarly, Asians of both Islamic and Sikh denominations vote by a substantial margin in favor of Labour[i],  despite having (in common with the Black British community) a deep social conservatism and entrepreneurial spirit that would perhaps more naturally put them in the Conservative camp.

As these groups continue to move out into the suburbs and expand their businesses, it’s likely their transition from being staunch Labourites to reliably Conservative will only accelerate.

Entryists. Often hailing from Trotskyist outfits, their influence is at a peak within the Labour party since the days of militant expulsions. Such people are self-professed associates of groups such as the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party. Though not great in number, it seems Tom Watson had it right when he suggested there are some “old hands twisting young wrists”.

This coalition cannot win elections; it lost in 2010, 2015, and it will do so again in 2020, if not before. Where previously Labour had a clear platform that spoke directly to workers the country over, they have so far failed to adapt to the new nature of work in the 21st century.

Talk of workers’ rights to the 4.6 million self-employed[ii] means precisely nothing. When Jeremy Corbyn gives speeches about Keir Hardy, he might as well be reading from Istanbul’s phonebook for all the relevance it has to the voters he’s attempting to reach.

This sort of rhetoric would suggest that Labour now stands on a platform of reviving heavy industry when in fact no such plans exist. It’s evident that such populist polices are not incompatible with electoral success in modern times.

We can look to Donald Trump’s rise to power as evidence of this. A campaign punctuated with the cry – “We’re gonna put the miners back to work!” – roars which carried the rust belt states and Trump himself to an electoral college victory.

While such an agenda should never constitute the headline of a Labour campaign, there is room for it to form a fractional element of a wider economic plan. With the benefits of automation and clean coal, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create new jobs in coal, steel and manufacturing: industries whose revival would be predicated on a new regime of tariffs and public infrastructure spending.

Though Labour are often happy to ingratiate themselves with the attendees of events like the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ Festival and the Durham Miners’ Gala, they have nothing substantial to offer on the issue of heavy industry yet are content to bask in the romanticism of it.

While the decline of the British steel industry predates recent governments, it now faces a crisis that threatens to end its very existence. The proximate cause of this crisis is China dumping its own steel at below cost price on the world market. This is comparable to a supermarket opening next to a corner shop and offering loaves of bread for 10p.

Inevitably, the former will put the latter out of business, and then, when it’s free of competition, it is able to raise its prices with impunity. Similarly, if we surrender ourselves to a reliance on Chinese steel, we’ll face higher prices in the long run. Failing to protect them would deliver a coup de grâce to the last bastions of our national manufacturing industries, prompting the decline of communities and our capacity for self-sufficiency.

It’s for these reasons Labour would do well to adopt policies to the effect of the following:

  • Introduce tariffs on Chinese steel to such a point that it becomes unaffordable in the UK.
  • Lobby other European nations to form a steel block, not dissimilar from the Common Agricultural Policy, which will allow for free trade in steel amongst nations with comparable wage levels and health and safety standards.
  • Legislate that all public works must use British steel with appropriate caveats (e.g. certain types of steel are not produced in the UK).
  • Cut the disproportionately large foreign aid budget from 0.7% and put some of that money into retraining post-steel communities and investing in new technology for existing plants

As the supply of steel drops, the free market will necessitate investment leading to the construction of new steel plants, not only in the UK but across Europe. It’s an excellent example of triangulating socialism with capitalism and reaping the rewards of the free market in the 21st century.

Now, I don’t suggest that such policies should be the focal point of a Labour manifesto by any means, on the contrary, they should be towards the bottom of the list, but they most certainly should be on that list.

Such a policy, though necessary, is not an election winner, and speaks only to a specific group of people. It should be brought about in tandem with policies that resonate with the 4.6 million self-employed individuals who are in dire need of strong representation.

These people are more inclined to identify as entrepreneurs than as part of the working class. Mechanics and carpenters are now business people not proles. They don’t care about the history of struggle, or talk of how the EU is essential because it ‘protects workers’ rights’ which is nonsense in its own right, but they do want to have constant work with good pay and little else.

Indeed, until pressure from the Tory-supporting press prompted a u-turn, the Chancellor meant to levy upon self-employed people an even higher tax rate. In the wake of such a clear display of contempt towards the self-employed by the Conservatives, no better opportunity exists for Labour to launch an appeal to white van men the country over.

So, what problems do self-employed people face, and what policy platforms can appeal to them?

By definition they don’t have an employer from whom they can claim sick, maternity, or paternity pay, their work can be inconsistent, and they must continually reinvest their earnings to facilitate the survival of their trade or business.

Such policies should include:

  • Cutting taxes for the self-employed, allowing them to free up income they can use to cover the cost of sick pay and other work-related benefits (alternatively, introduce self-employment working tax credits where feasible).
  • Lowering VAT so that consumer spending increases, thus pushing up demand for new wardrobes, landscaped gardens, vehicle modifications, and so on.
  • Forcing the banks that we taxpayers bailed out to provide loans where feasible to self-employed individuals at a special low interest rate for the purpose of buying tools, refurbishing workshops, or taking on trainees.
  • Sending apprentices to work with the self-employed rather than with huge multinational chains, where they exist as little more than wage slaves.

Again, such policies won’t provoke a landslide electoral victory, but they are essential to attract to the Labour cause the sort of voters who are not only needed to win an election but whose interests lie in the Labour camp; the clue is in the name, after all.

But policy isn’t enough. We can’t expect people who work two jobs and maintain other responsibilities besides to read complex manifestos and pay attention to policy documents – to do so would be an unreasonable burden. Instead we need to talk in a language that ordinary people understand. That is to say: we should speak like normal people.

In 1917 the Bolsheviks condensed a complex economic program into three simple words: ‘PEACE, LAND, BREAD’. It was a message that was understood by every echelon of Russian society without exception. This is no means to advocate Bolshevism, but it serves to demonstrate that exactly 100 years ago, without the benefit of social media, YouTube, spin doctors, and hashtags, it was possible to create easily digestible slogans that summarize a policy platform.

Yet somehow the modern Labour party is entirely incapable of developing a slogan, sentence, paragraph, or message of any length or format that appeals even remotely to its core vote or to those it needs to incorporate into it.

In 2015 Labour produced “A Better Plan for a Better Future” as its campaign slogan. This inspired precisely nobody and means exactly nothing. Given that unemployment in 2015 was 1.9 million[iii], how about this: “Labour Will Give You a High-paying Job”. Or with a little more finesse “Higher Pay, More Jobs”.

At the end of the day, despite the Twitterati’s various obsessions, jobs are the primary concern of most voters, and they have been and should continue to be at the forefront of any Labour campaign. Moreover, nobody speaks the language of the 60’s union bosses or the Marxist Politburo; talk of ‘comrades’ and ‘struggle’ should be consigned to the dustbin of history unless in the context of a historical discussion.

This chapter has thus far dealt with the need for and the avenue by which the traditional northern post-industrial vote can be shored up, and how best the 4.6 million self-employed can begin to be brought across to Labour in greater numbers, as well as a brief mention of language and communication which will be dealt with in greater depth in a subsequent chapter.

With all that said, there remains one ever-growing and crucial voting block who cannot bring themselves to vote Labour for reasons easily condensed into one word.: Immigration.

Blue-collar blokes are sick of being called racists for daring to criticize immigration. There is nothing left wing or liberal about the free movement of people; to the contrary it’s a right–wing, neoliberal idea that disproportionately favors employers.

The Labour party has no need to become radically nationalist, but by God it should be patriotic. It should fly the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross at every speech and every office, and the same for the Welsh and Scottish flags. But above all, Labour should call for a points-based immigration system that guarantees people the world over get a fair shake at entering the country on the basis of having the skills we need in the economy.

Let’s take India’s best scientists and China’s best students and do so on the understanding that they will commit themselves to the country for a specific amount of time. Let’s not feel obliged to take unskilled workers, of which we already have a surplus, in order to further drive down the wages of construction site laborers, baristas, and private hire drivers.

So, here’s a ‘radical’ suggestion for a slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” the words of one Gordon Brown as recently as 2007. This is the sort of slogan that should be plastered so thickly on the walls that they begin to be structurally integral to the building they occupy. Like communication, immigration will be dealt with in detail in a subsequent chapter, but in relation to appealing to the forgotten working class, it must be a cornerstone.

Over 900,000 people are apprentices[iv], mostly young women – an  ideal demographic for Labour voters. Since an apprentice in their first year is entitled to a below-subsistence wage of £3.40 an hour, and those most likely to enroll in an apprenticeship are poorer to begin with, it’s a total no-brainer: Labour should be promising every apprentice in the country a pay rise.

To those who suggest this would be irresponsible spending, we’ll be enjoying the benefit within two years of not having to send the EU hundreds of millions of pounds a year, of which a fraction could be spent on improving apprentices’ pay.

Here’s another groundbreaking slogan “A Pay Rise for Apprentices”. It’s time the unions with their multi-million bound budgets and 6-figure wage packets stopped resting on their laurels and actively began unionizing young apprentices the nation over. An offer of free membership for a year would be hard to refuse.

Others talk of an ‘anti-boss’ brand of populism, but as well as being counterproductive, since we absolutely want bosses to vote for Labour, time has rendered it irrelevant. We now live in an age where peoples’ bosses are oftentimes a relative or a friend, where this isn’t the case, it’s rare that employees don’t know their manager or supervisor outside of the workplace on a casual basis, at the very least as acquaintances.

Any anti-business or anti-boss talk cannot be part of a modern Labour party’s rhetoric or policy. Where there is room for populism, it’s anti-corporate populism.

Let’s make sure Google, Starbucks, and Facebook pay the taxes they’re duty bound to, given that without a taxpayer-funded education system they would have no employees, without the NHS they would have to provide insurance, without public roads they would have no means of haulage, and without internet and phone-line infrastructure they would have no means to even exist.

From the gains made by appropriating the correct levels of tax owed by such corporations, let’s move these profits into delivering tax cuts for small business owners, incentivize them to take on new employees, and expand their trades. It’s by means such as these that Labour can successfully convert traditional Conservative voters simply by offering them a better deal.

We can also reach the middle classes. For the first time in their history, junior doctors went out on strike, and did so on several occasions in the wake of Jeremy Hunt’s punishing reform proposals. Legal professionals are in the process of a mass exodus from the legal aid program, with Scottish wages having dropped over 20% from 2007/8-2013/2014 and trainee barristers earning salaries as low as £12,000 per anum (with training costs of £17,000)[v].

While an opportunity clearly presents itself to launch an appeal to traditional middle class Conservative voters, the Labour party is too embroiled with internal affairs to mount any effective effort.

On this point of traditional Conservative voters, it’s time to speak to farmers once again. We will soon have control over farming subsidies, let’s outbid the Tories on this issue and in addition offer an innovative rural apprenticeship program in order to train future generations in the ways of agriculture, while also aiding overworked and beleaguered farmers.

Furthermore, let’s force supermarkets to pay a fair price for dairy, meat, and vegetables, while subsidizing the cost to the consumer, paid for by an equivalent tax on sugary foods in order to ensure farms thrive while still protecting consumers and simultaneously improving the health of the nation.

Once free from the Common Fisheries Policy, let’s put our fisherman back to work and become the fishing capital of Europe. It makes no sense to subsidize corporations through working tax credits. Labour should promise an increase in the minimum wage and use the welfare savings to fund new infrastructure in our now-decrepit seaside towns.

Through this dual approach, we can not only increase the quality of life of those left behind by globalism while once again making British seaside towns worthy tourist attractions, but also bring back into the fold voters who have long since deserted Labour for UKIP.

Through these methods, we can expand our ever-shrinking coalition to include people from all walks of life, while still staying true to Labour values in a modern and relevant way. Let’s go forward in lockstep with farmers, fishermen, carpenters, shopkeepers, laborers, dockers, lorry drivers, and lawyers.

Some may ponder, then, might this not alienate the metropolitan middle classes, who as of this moment form the last bastion of the Labour bloc vote? Well, the biggest genuine issue for such people is the absurdly high house prices which keep people off the property ladder to middle age, and some of the highest rents in the world.

All the while we spend £25 billion every single year on housing benefit[vi], money which goes straight into landlords’ pockets, (not that we don’t want landlords to prosper).

It’s time to announce a national house building program that takes the money straight out of the housing benefit budget and puts it into building 250,000 homes a year until the housing shortage becomes a surplus, at which point the free market will dictate rents, house prices will return to affordable levels, and the UK will once again become a home-owning democracy.

This is how we can offer concrete solutions to clear issues that will resonate with the 8 million people who live in London. Such a program would also lead to the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, prompting a higher tax revenue and increased spending in local economies throughout the country.

In summary, in order for Labour to properly construct policy that appeals to the working class, it must first understand how the working class has evolved over the past century. It should adopt a dual approach that halts the decline of traditional manufacturing and shores up our export market, while simultaneously engendering job growth in emerging markets, with an eye to appealing to those whose new nature of work leaves them without a natural party to vote for.

This program should incorporate the good work done by Ed Miliband in formulating policies to re-introduce security into the workplace, particularly in dealing with ‘zero-hour’ contracts, while also acknowledging that such policies do not have a broad enough appeal amongst swing voters. Labour must push for full, proud, and secure employment. By these means, Labour will rally all elements of the modern working class to their cause. 

Chapter II Foreign Policy and the Military

Foreign policy is not an election winner. Even when Blair’s hated decision to invade Iraq prompted the largest marches ever seen in the UK, the Labour government comfortably held on to power in the 2005 elections.

However, it’s important to remain principled and strive always to do what is right and best, both for the people of our nation and for those abroad but never at the expense of either. Moreover, Labour faces challenges from the left, notably the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, whenever it assumes an overtly pro-war posture.

There is scarcely a sentient being on earth who still believes Iraq, Libya, or Afghanistan were successful interventions, and for all the times it’s been said, it’s clear we haven’t learnt the lessons of the past. The Labour party should make it clear that they will not involve themselves in foreign military entanglements that do not directly concern the security of the United Kingdom and its allies.

British blood should not be expended to remove a foreign dictator only for that nation’s people to find liberation give way to an unimaginably worse kind of tyranny as has happened when ISIS filled the vacuum that Western bombs created.

Having said that, it is crucial that Labour demonstrate that it does not take security lightly, and its commitment to having first-class armed forces should be clear to everyone.

We have a Conservative government that has sacked soldiers before they could claim their full pensions, moved hundreds of thousands of positions into the reserve army, has aircraft carriers that we can’t land aircraft on, and now, most bizarrely, is offering troops the option of not serving in combat zones in return for a pay cut.

In uncertain global times, Labour should put itself forward as a patriotic party committed to the primary duty of the state: the protection of its own people. It’s essential that a commitment to at least 2% of GDP on defense be made in line with NATO requirements as well as a commitment to nuclear weaponry.

The latter is contentious, particularly within Labour circles, but there are some universal truths on this matter. Firstly, Trident has been commissioned, and should Labour win power, they will inherit the system no matter what their policy is. Secondly, the majority of the population are in favor of nuclear weapons, and confusion on the issue only allows the Tories to portray Labour as a threat to national security, philosophical arguments about MAD aside.

It’s also right that we reverse the horrible mistreatment suffered by our veterans. No individual who has laid their life on the line for the nation should be allowed to sleep on the streets, and as part of the aforementioned house building program, there should be guaranteed homes for veterans with subsidized mortgages, a cost to be taken from the 2% of GDP mentioned earlier.

There should also be jobs in the public sector reserved for them, particularly in the police and border forces. It’s my view that the treatment of veterans is a legitimate use of the term ‘military spending’.

Our foreign aid spending is disproportionate, badly allocated, and unsustainable. We are running a budget deficit of £40 billion, and continue to borrow more money to spend abroad, often sponsoring foreign militaries in proxy wars, or putting money into the pocket of despots to secure exploitative trade deals.

After the United States of America, we are the second biggest foreign aid donor on the planet in real terms. We spend $18 billion compared to the U.S. spending of $31 billion[vii]. That is over half of their expenditure despite being significantly less than half the size of their economy.

There are many cases in which it is not only right but morally incumbent upon us as a nation to send funds and resources abroad, to combat Ebola as a recent example.

But setting an annual target of 0.7% of GDP and dispersing that money across the globe, borrowed money in the first place, only exacerbates the economic conditions this country currently faces, and in the long run will prevent us as a nation aiding other countries to our fullest capacity, since our economic growth is constantly hampered by this gross cost.

Foreign aid does a lot of good, and where it does so it should continue to do so, but where reasonable savings can be made, this is exactly the course of action that should be pursued. The liberal, Guardian–reading, mocha-sipping elites will tweet furiously in response to such a suggestion, as if there’s something essential about the budget being set at 0.7% rather than 0.6%.

It’s important to ignore these people, whose numbers appear  more significant online, as they represent a minority as has been shown time and time again, with only 1 in 4 supporting the current foreign aid policy[viii].

For those who suggest that giving money to space-program-pushing India will somehow engender good relations with developing countries, I’d suggest we could better build relations by ceasing to hinder their economic growth through climate regulation (with caveats) and ending the practice of Western and Chinese companies exploiting the developing countries’ natural resources.

We currently face the worst refugee crisis the world has yet known, and as a party, people, and species, we have a duty to help those in need. In the immediate future, we should accept lone child refugees and house them with willing volunteers in the UK.

Subsequent to this, we should quiz every local council in the country and see what facilities they can spare to house other refugees, prioritizing families. However, there are 60 million displaced people globally and counting. The UK cannot effectively double its population by accepting every single individual – even 5% of that number would bring the country’s infrastructure to its knees.

Thus, longer-term solutions must be found, and they begin with rich Middle Eastern countries which have so far allowed the burden to be shouldered by their neighbors like Lebanon as well as Western nations, namely Germany.

It is time we lobbied Saudi Arabia, to whom we sell jets and whose pilots we train in order to better fly them, we gave a free ride when they invaded Bahrain, and continue to do so as they fight in Yemen killing civilians with British bombs, and whose disgusting head-chopping record gives ISIS a run for their money.

This is not a suggestion to cut ties with the Saudis or the UAE, but given the support both militarily and diplomatically that we provide for them, it’s reasonable to assume we can make demands of them: and if ever there was a need to, it is now. These countries should be taking in great numbers of refugees. They have the infrastructure; they just lack the will.

Further to this, the foreign aid budget should be used to contribute to a wider transnational program to build U.N.-protected safe zones across the Middle East, to prevent refugees making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, which in itself will save thousands of lives but also to keep them safe from terrorism and keep them fed, watered, and sheltered until such time that they can return to their country or region of origin.

The geopolitical landscape has suffered a seismic shift in the past year alone, and upcoming European elections look to continue that trend. The long and short of the matter is that we have distanced ourselves from our European neighbors so long as their current rulers last anyway, and thus we must move closer to our historic allies in the U.S.

However, Jeremy Corbyn (perhaps out of some need for the adoration of the echo chamber of his cult of no personality) is making a frequent habit of attacking President Trump vocally, viciously and publicly. He’s joined in such attacks by other high-profile liberals, notably the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

When the Cameron government shamelessly courted the Chinese into buying out our public infrastructure, John Bercow was front and center in welcoming Xi Jinping to address both houses of Parliament.

Yet in a stunningly hypocritical fashion which must require Olympic levels of mental gymnastics to justify, Bercow has come out against Trump addressing Parliament and intends to block him from doing so, all the while being supported in these efforts by the leader of the Labour party. Part of the problem is the disingenuous hysteria around Trump that you’ll find in the Guardian, Mirror or indy100.

But putting that aside, even a blind man can see that it’s absolutely within British interests to foster closer cooperation and trade with the U.S.A., the biggest economy in the world, which also has in common with us in language, culture, and history.  In fact, for anybody who considers themselves on the left, a closer relationship with Trump can only be a good thing for world peace, given his thus-far successful moves towards détente with Russia.

On this point, there’s no need to paint Putin as the eternal bogeyman. There are elements of his governance which we can all criticize from one angle or another, but to invoke the words of a separate J. C. for a moment, “Those without sin should cast the first stone”.

The domestic policies of Russia are entirely an issue for the Russian people, and continuing to burden Russia with ever worsening sanctions not only destroys diplomatic relations but is mutually harmful for both our economies. Let’s work with Trump and Putin to defeat ISIS, and in doing so we will position ourselves closer to their ears to best influence them on any human rights issues we find significant.

We claim ownership of an island over 7,000 miles away from our shores on the basis that its citizens voted in a referendum to remain British. This is no bad thing and we should continue to respect the right to self-determination.

However, when those in Crimea, who are 65% Russian by ethnicity[ix], vote overwhelmingly to join the Russian state, the Western political class sees this as grounds for a proxy war in Ukraine.

This is made even more bizarre by the fact Crimea was part of Russia as recently as 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and now over 60 years on, it’s reasonable that its inhabitants would rather unite themselves to a superpower rather than a failed state.

Some will surely cry ‘appeasement’ to the idea that we should improve relations with Russia. To those people, I say: compromise is essential in international relations, we can’t preach to the world how they should live and operate, and it’s arrogant and pseudo-supremacist to try and push our liberal democratic model on every culture and people of the earth.

That’s not to mention that Putin did little when we invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, supported French action in Mali, and imposed sanctions against their Iranian allies, yet liberals appear indignant at any suggestion that the Russians be allowed the same freedom in their international actions.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t assume a strong posture – we absolutely should – which is one of the reasons this text has hitherto advocated the maintenance of Trident and spending of 2% of GDP on defense.

Working closely with our American allies, we should aim to maintain peace through strength, but this is by no means mutually exclusive with closer cooperation with Russia, with whom we should be seeking to strike trade deals, closer ties, and better relations. In short, we should make allies, not enemies, wherever possible.

Most people aren’t concerned with international relations. They want food on their table, a roof over their heads, and enough disposable income to live a good life. However, it will never be the case that Jeremy Corbyn could be elected Prime Minister on an anti-American ticket.

It’s a simple truism that the U.S. is a crucial ally, and to worsen our relations in the context of Brexit would leave the UK essentially isolated. Trump’s lewd comments about women are not a hill Labour should be dying on, nor a hill they should have even assumed a position atop in the first instance.

Instead Labour should have a foreign policy that doesn’t indulge in 3-dimensional chess and virtue signalling but instead sends a very clear message. Labour will be second to none in defense of the nation, second to none in rebuilding relations, and unwilling to expend British blood or treasure in foreign wars that do not concern us.

In Europe, let’s form bilateral trade agreements and maintain the same standard of intelligence sharing as exists today, both of which are perfectly possible without power sharing in a technocratic bureaucracy.

The upshot of this in messaging terms is that Labour should state loud and clear that Labour will keep you safe, prioritize our own citizens, and maintain a humanitarian outlook on global affairs. Little else is necessary, and Corbyn’s famous hand-holding with the IRA and Hamas are enough to set him up for a decisive defeat in any British election.

Chapter III – Immigration

Immigration became a taboo subject in the realm of political discourse with the dawn of the Blair Age. Conversation on the matter was shut down, and dissidents were branded racists, outcasts, and forced into silence. A mixture of concern and outrage boiled up amongst those left behind by New Labour, leading to the return of two British National Party candidates in the European Elections of 2009.

Fortunately, both of those vile individuals have since lost their seats and faded into obscurity, with those voters now opting to side with the far more moderate UKIP. Nigel Farage single-handedly put immigration at the center of British politics, and his influence led to a vote to leave the European Union, within which the primary concern amongst Out voters was immigration.

This had been a sleeping giant for some time, and Farage was able to awaken it. However, even now in a post-Brexit world, the issue of immigration is still taboo for many, particularly in the mainstream media. It’s rare that anyone advocating a merit-based immigration system as opposed to no controls at all isn’t branded a racist by a ‘Question Time’ panelist or political opponent.

It’s an issue that’s particularly pernicious on university campuses and in inner cities. In the former, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the issue is considered Hitler’s earthly avatar, and in the latter, it’s a common occurrence to find your trip through Central London punctuated with stalls of the Socialist Workers Party distributing leaflets that read along of the lines of ‘Let all refugees in now! Stop racism!’.

Speaking of the SWP, whilst Labour seems curious about its own credibility gap, meanwhile its own shadow chancellor is giving interviews to the SWP[x], so whoever is running the Labour PR machine should enjoy the ‘benefit’ of instant dismissal.

The fact that the views of a tiny vocal minority are over-represented on television and online media makes people scared to air their true opinions, only taking action within the security and anonymity of the ballot box. Over 70% of the country believe immigration controls are not tough enough[xi], and this is a figure Labour leaders should be more concerned with than the number of retweets a platitude about multiculturalism can receive online.

Overwhelmingly, the country is dissatisfied with current levels of immigration. This includes Black and minority ethnic voters of all stripes who believe the number of immigrants should be reduced, and they do so by sizeable majorities[xii].

It’s pertinent to mention that immigration is disproportionately a concern for the working classes, and many of them have fled Labour, leading UKIP to be the main challenger to Labour in a great many constituencies in the 2015 election. Although it’s proven difficult for UKIP to directly take seats from Labour, there are two problems that this bleeding of voters poses.

The first is that it will lead the Labour vote in northern communities to be split with UKIP, thus allowing a Tory candidate to take a seat with as little as 30% of the vote. The second problem is that these UKIP voters distance themselves so far from Labour when they look at its middle class-centric tone that they jump ship to the Conservatives, and if that happened in large enough numbers, a Labour general election victory would be inconceivable for a generation.

We are in the process of leaving the European Union, and thus we will no longer be shackled to the free movement of labor which has given every citizen of the EU the right to live and work in the UK. However, neither the Conservatives nor Labour have made clear the path ahead.

What better opportunity then for Labour to appeal to its forgotten voters, take back the defectors, and win over Conservatives by proposing a strict points–based,Australian-style immigration system. Let’s legislate in order to ensure that only immigrants who possess the skills and resources we need have the ability to settle and work in this country.

Let’s mandate that immigrants should have an excellent grasp of the English language, not just because such a skill is essential (particularly in the medical profession) but also because it will ensure universally beneficial integration.

At the same time, we should make it clear that this country already has enough unskilled workers, unemployed, and disabled people who are struggling to cope as it is, and it should not be incumbent on the country to take more such people in.

It’s here the points-based system comes into its own: for example, if there is a shortage of unskilled labor, we can adjust the requisite points for entry and mandate that people who enter under such circumstances have jobs waiting for them.

Some suggest a migration system based on merit is xenophobic, and to those people it’s worth mentioning that we’ve applied a points-based system to non-EU citizens for years, and as members of the EU, we were giving preference to European migrants who were predominantly White over Indian and African migrants.

A points-based system is totally equitable and accepts people based on ability, irrespective of skin color, creed, or nationality. This is entirely in keeping with the sort of values that led to Labour’s foundation and should remain at the forefront of any respectable leftwing movement.

There is a myth that there is something ‘left wing’ or ‘progressive’ about uncontrolled migration, or that it would be desirable to have an unlimited number of unknown individuals entering the country every year.

Let’s be clear: the free movement of labor is a rightwing, neoliberal, capitalist policy, not dissimilar to the free movement of capital. It’s a symptom of an anarchic free market system that serves the elites extremely well; it drives down the price of labor for corporations, affords the middle classes cheap gardeners and nannies, and perpetually rigs the job market in the employers’ favor.

It’s a fundamental leftist belief that the free market is not infallible, requires regulation, and this regulation should pertain not just to levels of taxation and regulation but also to the distribution of workers.

This is not advocacy of immigration control on the basis of electoral populism, or economic philosophy, though it would indeed be popular, and it does follow philosophically; instead it’s an advocacy on the grounds of basic math.

Plainly, the UK cannot sustain the number of immigrants coming into the country every year. 300,000 is the rough annual net migration figure to the UK per annum. Many point out rightly that a large number of these people are students, and they’re right to do so.

However, whether student or worker, they still take the same toll on transport, health, and social infrastructure.  As a nation, we are building around half the number of houses we need every single year, at around 135,000[xiii], creating a clear deficit in housing availability. That’s not to mention that our own domestic birth rate is over 800,000 per year[xiv].

We already have a dangerous housing bubble which threatens to collapse at any moment, pulling our entire economy down with it, and it’s only exacerbated by such migrant numbers. Of course, part of this problem is that we don’t build enough houses, and issues pertaining to that were detailed in the first chapter.

However, the costs of building such enormous numbers of houses and providing the associated infrastructure would be to say the least prohibitive, and even if it were feasible, it would not be desirable.

Aside from housing there are huge costs associated with the NHS, when people who have never contributed arrive able to take full advantage of it without question. This is one of the factors that has led to a record NHS deficit of £1.85 billion[xv]; although of course underfunding remains the direct cause of this crisis, immigration serves to aggravate it.

You’ll hear from Labour politicians and often to the thunderous applause of their echo chambers, the following platitude: “You’re more likely to see an immigrant working in the NHS than using it”.

Aside from being disingenuous, since it’s entirely determined by happenstance and geography, the point they are trying to make is that because immigrants work in the NHS, we should allow an unlimited number of immigrants to enter the country, as if the former warrants the latter, which is a total non-sequitur.

Yes, we have a large number of migrants working in the NHS, and that’s a good thing to. Let’s keep them there and continue to allow medical professionals into the country in line with demand. Having controlled immigration and having Indian doctors are not mutually exclusive; in actuality an equitable points-based system will incentivize and drive up the number of highly qualified migrant workers relative to unskilled workers.

The people are crying out for a credible party to come out strongly on immigration, and if Labour did so, they would take the country by storm.

Chapter IV – And the Rest

Regarding inertia

As of this writing the most commonly seen Labour slogan is “Working together for real change”. The problem is the party is not working together, and presents no change. The conflict within and between the constituency and parliamentary Labour parties is wreaking havoc on Labour’s public image, and as the well-known adage tells us, voters don’t vote for divided parties.

However, this text will not attempt to dissect the intricacies that have led to this point; instead suffice it to mention a couple of key issues.

Jeremy Corbyn will never receive the support of the current MPs and therefore must go. The only alternative would be to begin a process of deselection across the country –  a sort of Trotskyist Night of the Long Knives, which would only leave the party’s reputation in tatters and replace experienced MPs with amateurs.

There is a divide within the parliamentary party between those representing constituents who are socially conservative working class and middle class social liberals. While Labour has always been a broad church that has incorporated numerous factions, the divisions now seem to be intensifying like never before.

Party loyalty is at record low rates, and people are now more likely than ever to throw out of office the candidate of their forefather’s choice and often on the basis of a single issue. This is more contentious than ever post-Brexit, given that some Labour MPs represent constituencies that voted overwhelmingly to Remain and others the reverse. Inevitably MPs jostle with one another to represent their diverse constituents.

The remedies are imperfect for both issues. For the first, Corbyn must go, which is easier said than done; and secondly the Labour party must support the will of the people and push for a real Brexit that rejects freedom of movement. Neither solution is ideal, but both are necessary, not least because the majority of the country hate Corbyn, and the majority of the country voted for Brexit.

On to the second, and more important, element of the slogan: “Real Change.” The most obvious change that has taken place in the last couple of years is the transformation of the Labour party from a party of government to one that wallows in political oblivion. Change is an important message to transmit, but the kind of change needs to be clear, and Corbyn’s Labour has thus far advocated very few changes indeed.

In fact, in my research for this work, I wanted to see exactly what policies Jeremy Corbyn had promoted in order to deal with them individually. However, when I tried to access Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘priorities’ on his website, it returned an error page reading “Unfortunately the page you were looking for was not found”, which is so patently ironic that no explanation is needed.

Further hunting will lead you to an article in the Mirror listing several flagship policies, which range from unpopular and bizarre like abolishing the monarchy to leftist clichés like ‘tax the rich’, and standard Labour talking points like re-nationalizing rail.

An eager hunter will find a more exhaustive list in a Telegraph article, which is pretty damming for the Labour party PR machine when the right-wing pro-Tory paper gives more policy detail than Labour themselves do. Eventually, one will stumble upon the ‘Jeremy for Labour’ page detailing ten broad policy positions. A brief glance is enough to know it’s a slight rewording of Ed Miliband’s 2015 manifesto combined with some broad meaningless jargon.

“We will build a progressive tax system so that wealth and the highest earners are fairly taxed, act against executive pay excess, and shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid – FTSE 100 CEOs are now paid 183 times the wage of the average UK worker, and Britain’s wages are the most unequal in Europe. We will act to create a more equal society, boost the incomes of the poorest, and close the gender pay gap.”[xvi]

Do we not already have a progressive tax system? What rate should the highest earners pay? Will you cap executive bonuses? How will you boost the incomes of the poorest? How will you close the gender pay gap?

Such questions could be the only reasonable response to reading such general non-offensive meaningless milk-and-honey talking points. Anyone who feels the media hasn’t given Corbyn’s Labour a fair shake and has undertaken to do their own research will only be doubly disappointed when they discover that in the two years of his leadership, there’s scarcely a new policy to speak of.

For those who seek out concrete information, they should be rewarded with definitive and detailed policy proposals signed off by renowned economists, think tanks, and financial organizations.

Such policies should include pledges to build huge tidal power stations taking advantage of the fact that our nation is surrounded by water, to build offshore wind farms (including specifications on how many of them, at what cost and where the money is coming from), and to build new motorways, detailing how many people such a project would employ and projecting the economic benefits it would bring to this city or that. Alas, nothing of the sort exists.

Not to harp on about political antiquity, but Harold Wilson talked of the ‘white heat of the technological revolution.’ It’s not something that was ever truly delivered on, but it’s a phrase that stuck. What better time than now is there to renew the scientific and technological revolution? In the age of drones, self-driving cars, nanotechnology, and interstellar rovers, the modern Labour party has very little or nothing to say about it.

As a people we have the potential and as a country we have the need to host research and development facilities for the world’s leading technology firms and to have factories producing technology for the modern age. Labour Shadow Ministers should be meeting with Tesla and Microsoft, putting out press releases and winning support amongst the firms of the future, letting them know Britain is open for business.

In tandem with this we need new and forward-looking training schemes. The youth vote is overwhelmingly Labour but also the least likely to turn out.

Labour councilors, MPs and its half million members (Where are they?) should be knocking on every door of every council estate, meeting the unemployed, disenfranchised youth, and giving them a clear, concise piece of paper offering them a world-class training program that Labour guarantees to introduce if it wins the election.

Give these people something to aspire to and something to vote for outside of the Blue and Red tribal dichotomy which means very little to most people.

AddendumI have returned to this section to note that shortly after the time of writing, the Conservative government has unveiled so called ‘T-levels’, which promise to train youngsters in the practical and technical fields of the future. Once again, Labour has been too slow on the draw and attempts to do so now would appear to be a derivative imitation.

Put before people a plan that they can understand and offer them a future: through training programs, scientific advancement, industrialization, automation, pay rises, and tax breaks. Talking points must give way to the tangible.

What matters to most people when all is said and done is the food on their table, the money in their pockets and the roof over their head. Naturally, a sense of community drives many voters, but elections cannot be won through street marches in aid of the NHS. It’s an established truism that Labour will best serve the NHS, and people understand that all too well, but it cannot rely on this one-trick pony to carry it through to government.

Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime

Possibly the best thing to come out of the Blair era was the acknowledgment that the great mass of Labour voters were not ultra-liberal, as the Westminster establishment would have you believe but are in fact deeply socially conservative. As such, it’s crucial not only for the execution of justice, but for the electability of the party that Labour are seen to come down hard on criminals and serve justice to victims.

This should come in tandem with core Labour values about alleviating poverty, which we know to be the leading cause of crime since the devil will find work for idle hands to do. Any attempt to crack down on crime must do so heavily and stringently on perpetrators, while simultaneously delivering a revolutionary jobs program to put those idle hands to work.

As a consequence, such people will be able to sustain a family and home, thus giving people a stake in society they would be unwilling to discard with wanton criminality. The Tories have shamelessly cut back the numbers of police to levels last seen in 2003[xvii]. Prisons are being sold to private companies and the conditions that occur within them as a result is nothing short of disgraceful.

Prison guards are striking, and criminals are forcibly taking control of their own prisons, if such a thing could be believed to be true in 21st century Britain. Not only is this a national crisis that warrants an urgent response, but it’s a political opportunity Labour has thus far made no move to exploit.

It should call for and develop credible plans to introduce an increase in police numbers, prison reform, and higher wages for those on the frontline keeping our streets safe. Labour should be tough on crime because it’s the working class who suffer disproportionately at the hands of criminals without the benefits of gated drives and suburbia to protect them.

The Labour party has thus far failed to make political capital from any of these issues. It should go forth hand in hand with the police unions and declare that Labour will be second to none in its commitment and strength of purpose to cut down crime and clean up our prisons. Labour will serve the interests of victims and not criminals once again.

Corbyn’s irreparably damaging comments that he was ‘unhappy’ with the shoot-to-kill policy have done nothing to reduce the idea that Labour are soft on crime. The party needs to push the message night and day until it’s accepted as a truism that under Labour the streets will be safe again. 

Speaking to the People

Many in the Labour party have become totally removed from the voters they serve. Famously, Emily Thornberry poured scorn on a white van man for daring to hang the English flag on his own home. She was roundly attacked by people living outside the ultra-liberal Westminster bubble and was forced to resign from her then position as Shadow Attorney General, though since then Corbyn has secured her promotion to even greater heights.

It’s no surprise that working-class people continue to turn to UKIP in such numbers, when Labour’s North London elite mocks anyone patriotic or traditional in outlook. The voters of Rochester and Strood where the comments were made had nothing in common with Emily Thornberry and the beliefs she manifests, yet she felt perfectly entitled to go there and belittle the very people whose support she should have been trying to secure.

Unsurprisingly, Labour came 3rd in the constituency, losing over 10% of their vote share on the 2010 election. Seats like these are essential to take in order for Labour to have any hope of winning a general election.

Such events are symptomatic of a wider problem, which at the moment is embodied within the Labour leadership. The public watched in outrage as Jeremy Corbyn failed to sing the national anthem during a Battle of Britain commemoration. The papers made hay when Corbyn made a half-hearted bow at the Cenotaph, and did so, by the way, in a tatty suit. When the Red Flag is sung, it brings a smile to activists’ faces but confusion to the country at large.

Corbyn is known to be a republican. There is no problem with that. But he must understand that the vast majority of the country are in favor of the British monarchy because it speaks to their patriotism, is synonymous with their British identity, and is associated with the wars from times gone by and those lost in them.

Any leader of any party should sing the national anthem with gusto, and do so in the finest black suit with the boldest red tie. A refusal or failure to engage in the traditions that venerate the nation and honor our war dead sends a clear signal to the working class of this country that Labour is not the party for them. Indeed, many in the country view Corbyn as directly ‘anti-British’ given his close ties to IRA figures and his now infamous comments calling Hezbollah his ‘friends’.

Some will suggest that the aforementioned are merely superficial issues. In many ways, they are an issue of presentation, but the image the Labour party and its present leadership is not a secondary or tertiary concern, it should be the primary concern for any party seeking to win power.

It’s all well and good having an excellent manifesto, but if no one reads it or gives it credence because they believe its authors are intrinsically unpatriotic, then the manifesto is entirely useless.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader is essentially a job interview with the British people at large. He must win their approval in order for them to grant him power. Yet he can’t be bothered to wear a decent suit, which in the opening days of his leadership campaign was endearing and charming, but at this point marks him as an unprepared amateur.

The Labour party has a war coffer of funds at its disposal, including membership subscriptions of over 500,000 individuals, a long list of big private donors, and a great deal more cash donated by trade unions. Yet for all these resources, there isn’t a single advisor who can tell Corbyn not to wear black suit trousers with a blue suit jacket during Prime Minister’s question time. When members of the public go for a job interview, they dress to impress, and they expect their leaders to do the same.

We need a leader of the Labour party flanked by the Union Flag, bellowing the national anthem, and embracing patriotism the same way the people do. Sadly, it appears the liberal elite feels shame and embarrassment at any suggestion of national pride.

There are people who understand this. Andy Burnham makes a particularly good example. A working-class lad who graduated from Cambridge, he returned to his home town to represent Leigh as a member of parliament, where he notably worked to secure justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster cover-up.

From a cold reception in a speech at the Anfield Football Grounds in 2009, he returned after five tireless years of fighting for justice to a well-earned hero’s reception. He wasn’t afraid to speak about that which for so long Labour had considered taboo, namely immigration, and during his bid for the leadership in 2015, he did just that.

Burnham rightly acknowledged all the good that immigration brings, from economic growth to cultural enrichment, while at the same time talking about those left behind by uncontrolled immigration. He talked of a factory worker in his constituency who sat alone during lunch times as he was the only English-speaking worker.

He rightly identified that immigration had disproportionately taken a toll on Labour’s industrial and post-industrial heartlands, and since his failed campaign, he has become even more vocal on this issue.

Alas, for some reason he lacked a certain spark during the campaign, though that aside, he spoke directly to the country, but yet it was the niche Labour party membership who had for the first time the total say on the new leader. Consequently Corbyn won. Burnham has moved out of the front line of national politics towards a campaign to be the mayor of Manchester. Let’s hope that he and his fellows plan a return in the near future.

Chapter V – Conclusions

There absolutely is a place for social liberals within the modern Labour party. The Labour party has a history of pushing through excellent liberal reforms from Barbra Castle legislating equal pay for equal work between the genders to the introduction of civil partnerships under Blair.

Throughout its history, Labour has been at the forefront of liberal reforms that have liberated people of all stripes, and it’s a good thing too. It’s also right that the Labour party platform deals with discrimination against transgender, gay, and black and minority ethnic individuals, but it should not do so at the expense of all else.

Too often, Labour party circles have discussion dominated by issues that (while important) effect .01% of the population or less. The cry of ‘racist’ or ‘transphobe’ is too often an excuse to shut down freedom of speech, particularly on university campuses and by individuals associated with Labour at a student level.

How can it be that lifelong gay activist Peter Tatchell, feminist icon Germaine Greer, and the left-of-Labour George Galloway have all been no-platformed or attacked on our university campuses. The attitudes that lead to such absurd action are rife among Labour party members and less often to be seen amongst the general populace, for whom these individuals would be considered far left, not something-or-other-ophobic.

There’s a false equivalence between parties like UKIP, a liberal isolationist organization, on the one hand, and fascism or racism on the other, and the comparison between them is consistently pushed by groups like Momentum, the Alliance for Workers Liberty and the Socialist Workers Party, all of which are groups operating with or within the Labour party.

Here’s an excerpt from the SWP publication the Socialist Worker, which I have seen distributed by Labour party members outside meetings and talks:

“And in Stoke Central the racist UKIP party, which came second there at the last general election, wants to whip up racism to take the seat from Labour. Socialist Worker is calling for a vote for Labour in both elections. They will be seen as referendums on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour—and Corbyn could be forced to resign as leader if Labour does badly.

The racist right will feel ecstatic if UKIP leader Paul Nuttall wins in Stoke. Labour has rightly attacked Nuttall for his previous statements supporting privatization of the NHS. But Labour’s official campaign has not challenged UKIP over its racism. Labour will be most effective if it both attacks the cuts and also confronts UKIP divisive racism.”[xviii]

It’s simply not enough to shout ‘racist’ and expect to win an argument. In fact, at this point it’s no longer even a case of diminishing returns, but it’s actually backfiring, making people more inclined to vote for UKIP when their concerns about migration are met with insult by leftists. We on the left should be trying to win debates, not shut them down.

This isn’t an appeal to the SWP to change their tactics. They are free agents and can do as they please. But the fact that the Labour party leadership meets with them, gives them interviews and is commonly seen marching alongside them is indicative of the sort of attitudes that fester in Labour and also appears to be a soft endorsement of such views.

It’s part of a wider problem where certain social liberals are going so far in their anti-racism campaigns that they shut down free speech within the media, on university campuses, and on the streets, more often than not targeting people who were never racist in the first place.

In short, these liberals have become the very illiberal people they believe they’re fighting against. Such people are fooled into believing the rest of the country is on their wavelength, buoyed up by thousands of retweets and Facebook likes, yet they do not appear to understand that their online presence is an echo chamber. The more their preaching is welcomed by the converted, the more steadfast they become in their initial beliefs.

Most people in the country are not anything close to this level of ultra-liberal, and such attitudes do not resonate with them. The great mass of people are patriotic and socially conservative, and their concern with politics extends to ensuring the system provides them with a safety net and the opportunity for employment.

That doesn’t mean the country at large doesn’t have a sense of and desire for social justice. Of course it does. But the best way to ensure it is to first establish economic justice. When Labour party figures engage in extended diatribes about intersectional feminism, which to most people of both genders means nothing, it turns the public off.

Liberalism is a welcome element of the Labour coalition, but it cannot continue in such an extreme form, nor can it override concern for the economy and for jobs. Labour need to talk less about rules surrounding transgender usage of bathrooms in North Carolina, and more, much more, about jobs.

Corbyn’s position is untenable. He has had second chance upon second chance and failed to rehabilitate his image or reform his party. His name is toxic and his leadership destructive, and for these reasons, he must go.

In his place, we need a strong man or woman who understands the patriotism that stirs within Labour’s core vote, who understands the nation’s deep social conservatism, and who is prepared to meet the electorate’s demands for homes and jobs. Perhaps an Andy Burnham, a Gisela Stewart, a Dan Jarvis, a Richard Burgeon, or someone else entirely.

Labour must overcome its misconceptions about the people’s wants by breaking free of both Westminster and its online echo chambers.

The public are not shocked or angered about cuts to the benefits bill, in fact it’s a popular position[xix]. On this, let’s deliver the biggest benefits cut yet seen, and let them fall on the corporate welfare that now costs over £50 billion a year between working tax credits and housing benefit alone.

Let’s force corporations to pay a living wage, and put the working tax credit savings into a jobs program that will mop up any collateral unemployment. Let’s build houses until prices fall and housing benefit drops to record lows. Let’s cut old-age benefits for the very richest pensioners who have no need of them, and distribute that money to the needy elderly according to their ability and means.

Over a million food parcels were distributed by food banks to hungry citizens throughout the country in 2015[xx], evidence if any more were needed that our infrastructure, welfare, and employment programs are totally failing the British people.

Unfortunately, the people accessing these food banks are the least likely to turn out in a general election. Let’s take Labour’s mass membership and send it to deprived communities to knock on doors and win support from those who have never voted before. Such an effort should be supported by its hundreds of MPs, thousands of councilors, and hundreds of thousands of trade union affiliated members.

Labour’s war coffers are full enough to help out its members when they sacrifice their time for the party. Travel and other associated costs should be subsidized in such campaigns.

Let’s take a strong message into the heart of the country, into Scotland, Wales, the Midlands and the North, that Labour will deliver British jobs for British workers.  It will carry through to the agricultural areas which the Tories presume to sit upon since time immemorial and deliver a program to get British farms working again.

Let’s go into London and make clear that Labour is the party for social justice, and that begins with housing. Guarantee the construction of at least 250,000 homes every year and provide credible plans on how it will be done because whether you’re Black, White, trans, gay, straight, male or female, your primary concern is shelter, of which there is currently a dire shortage.

Let’s spark off a renaissance in 21st century manufacturing, now with the benefits of automation and renewable energy. Take to the public a message that cuts in the foreign aid budget will deliver a program of nuclear, tidal, wind, and solar energy expansion that will not just create innumerable high-paying jobs but will have the added advantage of saving the climate.

Let’s wade into the realm of the intelligentsia and say loud and clear that Labour is the party for true liberals, those who believe in rationalism, freedom of speech, and tolerance. Let’s talk to those who face the prospect of a life behind bars and deliver to them a place behind a college desk, a workbench or the wheel of a JCB.

Let us go to the people and promise them; Jobs, Homes and Health.

[i] Khan, O. (2015 May 15) Race and the 2015 General Election Part 1: Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from http://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/race-and-the-2015-general-election-black-and-minority-ethnic-voters

[ii] Monegan, A. (2014 August 20) Self-employment in UK at Highest Level Since Records Began. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/20/self-employment-uk-highest-level

[iii] BBC Business. (2015 March 18) Economy Tracker: Unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[iv] Mirza-Davies J. (2016 November 21) Apprenticeship Statistics: England. Retrieved from http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06113/SN06113.pdf

[v] Blacking, D. (2014 July) So You Want to Be a Legal Aid Lawyer? Retrieved from http://lacuna.org.uk/justice/so-you-want-to-be-a-legal-aid-lawyer/

[vi] BBC Business (2015 September 21) Why Is the UK’s Housing Benefit Bill so High? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34290727

[vii] OECD. (2016 April 13) Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/ODA-2015-detailed-summary.pdf

[viii] Leach, B. (2012 December 19) One in Four Support Britain’s Foreign Aid Policies. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9770644/One-in-four-support-Britains-foreign-aid-policies.html

[ix] Lubin, G. (2014 March 16) How Russians Became Crimea’s Largest Ethnic Group, in One Haunting Chart. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/crimea-demographics-chart-2014-3?IR=T

[x] Socialist Worker (2017 February 28) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell Spoke to Socialist Worker on the Recent By-election Results. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44161/Shadow+chancellor+John+McDonnell+spoke+to+Socialist+Worker+on+the+recent+by+election+results

[xi] Migration Watch UK (2014 November 18) Opinion Poll Results on Immigration. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/249

[xii] Migration Watch UK (2015 March 25) Immigration Policy and Black and Minority Ethnic Voters. Retrieved from https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.37

[xiii] Castella, T. (2015 January 13) Why Can’t the UK Build 240,000 Houses a Year? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30776306

[xiv] BBC News (2013 August 8) More UK births Than any Year Since 1972, Says ONS. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23618487

[xv] Dunne, P. Mckenna, H. and Murray, R. (2016 July) Deficits in the NHS 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/field/field_publication_file/Deficits_in_the_NHS_Kings_Fund_July_2016_1.pdf

[xvi] Our Ten Pledges to Rebuild and Transform Britain. Retrieved from http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/pledges

[xvii] Newburn, T. (2015 November 24) What’s Happening to Police Numbers? Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34899060

[xviii] Clark, N. (2017 February 14) Clive Lewis Backs off, but the Labour Right is out for Corbyn’s Blood. Retrieved from https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/44091/Clive+Lewis+backs+off%2C+but+the+Labour+right+is+out+for+Corbyns+blood

[xix] Wells, A. (2011 May 16) Strong Public Support for Benefit Cuts. Retrieved from https://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/05/16/strong-public-support-benefit-cuts/

[xx] BBC News. (2015 April 22) Record Numbers Use Food Banks – Trussell Trust. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32406120

8chan Is Still Up

Here ya go, folks.

8chan.

And you can even see the notorious pol board which has everyone so up in arms.

pol/.

I’m not sure how many boards either 8chan or 4chan have. I thought at one time that 8chan has ~1,800 boards, but I could be wrong. The main thing is that there is no such far rightwing board called “8chan.” No such thing. 8chan, 4chan and the rest simply host scores or hundreds of boards ranging over every possible subject you can think of. All of the problems are coming from one of those boards, pol/, which stands for Politically Incorrect, not politics like Net “experts” say.

So really the whole problem is with one single board, which is indeed a White nationalist / White Supremacist / Nazi board.

There are some other boards like b/, which stands for Random. There are some Nazi and White Supremacist posters on there, but a lot of their enemies are on there too, and there are many people talking about things that have nothing to do with that subject. b/ is not some radical rightwing racist board. It’s just a board where anyone of any ideology or belief can post whatever the Hell they want to.

But there are other boards dealing with everything under the sun. In addition, there are quite a few Leftist or liberal boards, and they absolutely hate pol/ and want it shut down. But if you shut down 8chan, you shut down all those anti-fascist Leftist boards at the same time. Get it?

Even pol/ is rather misunderstood. Yes, posts have been made announcing attacks on there, but posts have also been made on Facebook announcing attacks. I suppose you can announce a coming attack anywhere you wish on the Internet.

All such posts are taken down by 8chan quickly, and this post was taken down 15 minutes after it was posted. 8chan also cooperates fully with law enforcement in terms of turning over IP’s of anyone doing anything seriously illegal on there. That was a condition of them staying up. 8chan is run by some guy in the Philippines who has no particular politics at all other than hating the government and an absolute commitment to free speech.

I saw the post that was taken down. There were several responses, all attacking the poster for his post announcing the attack. Most responses were saying “Hello FBI” or calling him a Fed.

There were a few pol/ threads after the attack that I looked over. Probably 80% of the responses were either condemning or criticizing the attacker or calling each other feds or Jews. ~20% were supporting it in some way or another, but often in a rather subtle way, like, “A Jew killed 20 Mexicans. I think I like Jews a lot more now.” This was based on a mistaken idea that the shooter was Jewish.

Criticisms of the attack included people saying that they opposed murder, that the shooter killed 20 “nobodies” when he should have been killing those responsible for replacing the White race, how stupid it was for a 21 year old White man to throw his whole life away on something this stupid, how this will backfire and just result in more deplatforming and and victories for the other side, how they should be trying to convince people of their argument rather than murdering people, etc.

There were a few posts saying, “Kill feds. Kill Jews. Kill Muds.” These posts were generally mass attacked as being posted by either feds or Jews.

Others were saying, “Hey look, we are in a war now whether you like it or not. You need to pick a side. You’re either with us or with our enemies.” These posts got a lot of criticism.

This wildly conflicted and somewhat subdued response was in marked contrast to Brandon Tarrant’s shooting at the mosque in New Zealand  which killed 47 Muslims. The pol/ response to that attack was wide cheers.

As you can see, the responses to these attacks even on the virulent pol/ board are all over the place, and the vast majority either condemn the attack or call other people feds.

8chan went down a few days ago, but then it came back up for a while. What you see now is a somewhat archived version of 8chan, as the last post on any board was 8 AM August 5, not quite 48 hours ago.

They will obviously come back just like The Daily Stormer did. Incidentally, the Daily Stormer has a new policy that anyone directly advocating violence gets an instant ban. It’s still a ferociously racist site, but it’s not openly calling for any violence.

To me shutting down these sites is a fool’s errand. These people are under the mistaken impression that you can kill an idea. It should be obvious to anyone that you cannot kill an idea.

Speaking philosophically, ideas are not even objects, a constant source of discussion in philosophy. So they’re not even real, actual things that you can see, hear, touch, hold in your hand, etc.

One wonders if ideas even exist at all. They are simply these nebulous things, not even objects, that float around in human brains, often going from brain to brain. They’re not even on the level of an electron or quark. We can actually see that those things exist on some level.

We have no idea if an idea even exists unless some human with a brain tells us it does. Can you see, hear, touch, or hold an idea in your hand? Nope. In fact it is very hard to tell if an idea even exists at all except that someone tells us they have one in their brain, and there’s no way to prove even that, as they could be lying.

I really want to know exactly how these people are going to go about killing an idea. Do they have machines that search inside the brains of all of us humans, machines that can spot all of these nebulous idea-things floating about in our heads, reading and decoding them, somehow isolating the bad ones, and then zapping the bad ones with some laser ray?

What else are they going to do? Are they going to put people in jail for having an idea? They can’t. Are they going to put people in jail for propagating an idea? They can’t do that either, thank God.

If they shut one site down, ten more will pop up. They will end up with an endless game of wack-a-mole. The sites will move to the Dark Web (when you go to Daily Stormer, you are going to the Dark Web), and there’s no way to shut down anything down there or even to tell who’s running any site or who anyone posting anything even is. Even the FBI can’t crack the Dark Web, as it’s un-crackable.

There are quite a few bulletin boards up all over the Net that support the Islamic State and other Islamist guerrilla groups. People working against these organizations have chosen to leave these sites up so the groups can be easily monitored. You enemy’s not going anywhere just because you want him gone, and the number one rule of warfare is to know your enemy. That goes all the way back to Sun Tzu.

How do you kill an idea? You don’t. But you can fight an idea, and no you don’t fight an idea by shutting down everyone who has it. You fight an idea by countering its message with the opposite message, one that points out that the idea is bad and wrong and that people should abandon it for those reasons.

If White nationalism and White Supremacism, particularly in their armed forms, are such terrible things (and I do think they are wrong), the people who hate these ideas need to forcefully make the case that these concepts and ideologies are wrong and bad and should be abandoned.

There’s another silly concept floating around. It’s the idea that these armed White nationalists want to start a race war. I’ve got some news for everyone. The guys on pol/ are right. It’s too late for that by a few years already. The war’s already here. It’s already on. It’s happening right now.

You can’t stop an existing entity from starting. Is it time to pick a side? Maybe so, or you can always go neutral. I will choose to oppose these maniacs because killing people because of their race, religion or ideology is just messed up. I don’t agree with the morality of it.

Crime Rates in Black Countries, among Black Populations and in Black Cities and Neighborhoods around the World

Thinking Mouse: Many African nations have a similar homicide rate to far eastern Europe, despite having much lower incarceration rates and younger demographics.

Incarceration rates are low because the police are often incompetent and much crime is not prosecuted or even reported.
Black Africa has had some of the highest homicide rates on Earth for decades. Crime is so bad there are travel warnings against going to most of those countries. Are there travel warnings telling people not to go to Eastern Europe? I recently went through the US State Department warnings for Black Africa and in every single country in the region, there were warnings about high levels of crime and violent crime. I believe Senegal was somewhat of an exception and most of the crime there was property crime.
I would not feel frightened going to Eastern Europe. I would feel frightened in most large Black African cities except possibly in the Sahel. I have heard that Senegal is relatively low crime. There is terrorism now in the Sahel though, so it is dangerous on that basis, but the crime is not very high. Of all of the countries in Black Africa, I would probably recommend Senegal as safe enough to take a careful vacation there. I’ve also heard that it is a very interesting country. It might be nice as a human to visit Black Africa once in a lifetime.
Generally the Muslim parts of Black Africa are safer, more orderly, calmer, and have less crime than the Christian areas.
However, there is an ethnic group of 1 million people in Burkina Faso that has a homicide rate of ~1/100,000, about the same as Japan’s. So this shows that not all Black populations automatically commit lots of violent crime and homicide. But whatever environment this group has created to make such a safe culture does not seem to be easily replicable outside of that group. The group is Muslim, and study of Muslim texts is mandatory for all young people, so the group is educated. Elders are revered and respected and children fear their wrath and do not disobey them much. Elders take it upon themselves to mentor youths and young adults as a matter of course. Ethnic pride is high and members read texts about the group and participate in frequent cultural exercises.
In addition, much of the crime in Black Africa is simply not reported, as police are incompetent, corrupt, and take bribes. In a number of those countries, police set up roadblocks specifically to take bribes from motorists.
The Black Caribbean has a high violent crime and homicide rate.
I read a recent figure for the UK that Blacks were 2% of the population, and they committed 20% of the homicides. In the US, Blacks are 13% of the population, and they commit 53% of the homicides.
All of the high homicide US cities are Black. In LA, the top nine most dangerous police precincts are in Black neighborhoods.
Has the commenter ever been around large numbers of Black people? Gone to school with them, went to their parts of time, driven around in cities where there are many of them? You need to stay out of areas where there are large numbers of low income Blacks. Those areas dangerous as Hell. I taught in Black schools for years.
You had to leave school before sundown. Once I went back to see my school at 9:30 at night and it was absolutely terrifying. Basically these neighborhoods can be more or less ok in the daytime (I drove around them a lot and went out to eat a lot), but don’t go off the main streets even in the daytime and make sure you are out of the area after dark.

There Are Many Good Black People even in the Ghetto

However, having worked in those schools for years and spent some time in the deep inner city of LA (South Central LA), I will say that it is trivial to meet decent people in that area. My car broke down twice in Black areas, once in South Central and once in Compton. Both times, Black adults came out and helped me get my car going. In both cases, there was an older man in his 40’s. In one case there were some young men in their 20’s helping him. They were extremely nice people.
I dated a Black woman in South Central and though she was a scumbag crack addict, I spent some time in her barbershop talking to some older Black men in their 50’s and 60’s. They were extremely cool. One  man acted a bit strange around me and I asked my date and she said he hates Whites and has not been around them much. But he was very nice to me, although he seemed  a bit awkward around me. I think he was surprised to find a friendly, decent Black man.
Even in South Central, a lot of the older Black men from 40-60 are very good people, assuming they are not imprisoned and are still alive. Particularly if they own a home. Black culture has a way of winnowing out the worst people who tend to spend much of their lives incarcerated or else die young.
A number of the incarcerated ones get out and though they are not great people, I would not say they are bad people either. I spent a couple of hours talking to a 45 year old Black man who had done ten years in prison for robbery and attempted murder. He seemed quite a bit calmed down.
People tend to age out of crime and bad behavior anyway and even among adults, it is young adults who act the worst and commit the most crime. Even many psychopaths burn out in middle age and become depressed/alcoholic while the condition lessens and moderates quite a bit.
The Black teachers and aides at the schools I taught at were generally very nice people, although some were pretty angry. I mostly befriended Black female teachers. Some of the administrators were very cool too.
However, in the very heart of the ghetto, in deep Compton near Willowbrook, not only were the students the worst of all, but they hated Whites the most. In addition, a number of the Black female teachers seemed to hate Whites, something I never dealt with before.
Many of the older Black women even in the ghetto are very good people, especially if they are deep into religion. Even some of the Black students I taught were good people, especially if they were deep into religion. At one school, a Black female senior seemed to be in love with me and asked me out and tried to get my phone number.

Though Bad People Are a Minority in the Hood, There Are Simply Too Many of Them

The problem with these areas is not that everyone is lousy. In fact there are many decent and even good people even deep in the ghetto. However the rate of lousy, bad and out and out evil and dangerous people is much higher than in White areas. There are just too many bad people around (although they are a minority) such that it makes traveling and spending time there a dangerous endeavor.

Alt Left: Some of My Positions on Conservative and Liberal US Foreign Policy

Is it ok for me to believe in Leftist economics yet still agree on many points with the neocons when it comes (rhyme, hah) to foreign policy?
Conservative opinions I like:

  • Occupation of Palestine.
  • bombing of Yemen.
  • Invasion of Iraq.
  • Invasion of Lybia.
  • Anti Hamas and Hezbollah sentiment.
  • Pre-coup Erdogan (he has one of the rails now).
  • France´s colonization of Algeria.

Now these things aren’t perfect, but optimal compared to the other alternatives.

  • Aggression against Russia regarding Ukraine, I’d prefer to have an referendum in Ukraine about EU membership, to give NATO aggression legitimacy. The issue with this is that the European Commission isn’t clear on whether it wants Ukraine in the EU. I want to replace all of the non-White subsidies/investing (welfare for children, loans for adults) with EU subsidies and troops in Eastern Europe, LEBENSRAUM!!!.
    https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/more-than-half-of-ukrainians-want-to-join-eu-poll-shows-32735

The liberal foreign policies I agree with are:
-Legalization of drugs (affecting Latin america).
-Diplomacy with Iran (I’m a big fan of Obama s negotiations about the nuke thing.).
-Ok with leaving Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia (Ukraine would already be losing an shit ton of people to Russia anyway through emigration) as long as it leads to EU membership of Ukraine,

Sure, the fact you like my economics is amazing enough to keep you around.
My positions:
Conservative opinions I like:
– Occupation of Palestine. NOPE
– Bombing of Yemen. NOPE
– Invasion of Iraq. NOPE
– Invasion of Libya. NOPE
– Anti-Hamas and Hezbollah sentiment. NO on Hezbollah because I love Hezbollah. I don’t like Hamas too much, but the Hamas-haters are worse, and anyway they are pragmatic for Islamists.
– Pre-coup Erdogan (he has one of the rails now). NOPE. Rails?
– France´s colonization of Algeria. NOPE.
Aggression against Russia regarding Ukraine, id prefer to have an referendum in Ukraine about EU membership, to give NATO aggression legitimacy. The issue with this is that the European commission isn’t clear on whether it wants Ukraine in the EU. I want to replace all of the non-white subsidies/investing (welfare for children, loans for adults) with EU subsidies and troops in Eastern Europe, LEBENSRAUM!!!
NOPE. Not sure if I want Ukraine in the EU. Anyway, I hate the EU. Mostly I don’t want them in NATO, Hell no. Also I do not want more North American Terrorist Organization troops in Eastern Europe. Not sure about cutting the safety net either, especially racially like that.
See? Look above. Conservatives are always wrong on foreign policy. Period.
The liberal foreign policies I agree with are:
– Legalization of drugs (affecting Latin America). OF COURSE.
– Diplomacy with Iran (I’m a big fan of Obama’s negotiations about the nuke thing.). SURE.
– Ok with leaving Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia (Ukraine would already be losing an shit ton of people to Russia anyway through emigration) as long as it leads to membership of Ukraine.
ABSOLUTELY, I support the annexation of Crimea and I support the Donbass fighters. I wish Russia would just annex the Donbass. It would solve so many problems. Not sure about Ukraine and EU membershit. Anyway, I hate the EU too. EU is the economic arm of the North American Terrorist Organization.
See? Liberal foreign policy is always right.

Shia Islam Is Catholicism and Sunni Islam is Protestantism

Shia Islam is like Catholicism in that religion is interpreted by man instead of laid down in stone by God in books.
The Vatican is actually there to keep Catholicism a living religion that evolves along with society and modernizes with the times. The Vatican even has its own astronomer, and the Popes have said that both evolution and extraterrestrial aliens are compatible with Catholicism.
Protestantism instead has no central authority, so it falls victim to fundamentalism a lot more than Catholicism.
Likewise with Shiism.
Sunnism is Protestantism. It was all laid down in stone either in 700 by Mohammad or in 60 by the first church or in 1550 by Luther. We can’t change anything after that.
Even Khomeini believed in the living religion theory. The Ayatollah examined both male homosexuality and transgenderism and became convinced that transsexuals were made that way by God. True transsexuals do have very different brains that are shifted in favor of the opposite sex, so it makes some sense. He decided that gay men were just deciding to be that way, which is probably not true, as true male homosexuality looks very biological, and science has proven that male sexual orientation cannot be changed after age 15.
Anyway, the Ayatollah decided that, as transsexuals were created by God (or Nature really), they were not at fault for their condition, and they needed to be accepted as part of God’s (or Nature’s) creation. Hence the legalization of transsexuals in Iran.
Anyway, transsexuals have been legal in Iran since the days of the Revolution. A very prominent mullah, high up in ruling circles, is a transwoman and has been one for many years. I guess no one cares.
In contrast, Iran is very cruel to homosexuals, worse than most Sunni countries, which typically take a more progressive stance, as it’s so rife in their lands anyway. 6,000 gay men have been executed in Iran since the Revolution.
Many gay men in Iraq have been extrajudicially executed.
In Hezbollah’s Lebanon, they are kinder. All they do is gay bash or beat up gay men.
It’s a doctrinal thing and has nothing to with conservatism or progressivism, as Shiism tends to be more progressive than Sunnism.

Male Homosexuality Is Compatible with Conservatism and Religious Fundamentalism

Male homosexuality is certainly compatible with fundamentalism.
There is a lot of male homosexuality in Pakistan, but it’s all undercover and hidden. This is especially true in the very fundamentalist western part where the Al Qaeda / fundamentalist types exist.
Of course Afghanistan is one of the gayest countries on Earth in addition to being one of the most reactionary, so homosexuality is compatible with Reaction. Nazism was full of gay men, and Sparta was essentially a reactionary fascist state, while being one of the gayest societies known to man.

The Strange Pragmatism of the Iranian Shia Regime

In addition to its progressive stance on transgenderism, Shiism is also progressive in its temporary marriage doctrine. There is a woman who is very high up in leadership circles (can a woman be a religious scholar there?). Anyway, she is well known and as a single woman, she has had affairs with ~50 different men, including a lot of prominent mullahs.These affairs were conducted via temporary marriage, which even comes with a ceremony and a certificate! She wrote a book about it, and it was a big hit. Would you expect this in an Islamic fundamentalist country?
Also, Iran has open prostitution in Qom, the most conservative city in Iran, which is the center of religious studies for the country. They allow prostitution there under temporary marriage doctrine. There are crowds of young male religious students there around areas where a few mullahs conduct “marriage” ceremonies under temporary marriage.
There are a lot of young woman prostitutes there. A religious student grabs one of the young women and takes her to the mullah. The mullah looks at their ID’s, writes down both of their names, and does a little ceremony where they end up “married” for ~2 days.
The man and the woman go off to engage in the sex act, money is exchanged, and they do it, often in hidden public places. There are cemeteries there with a lot of fancy Shia tombs, and the “married couple” often use these places to consummate the sex act. The man then leaves, though he is still somehow married to her for the next two days.
The mullahs were also thinking of legalizing prostitution in Tehran after a number of prostitutes were murdered by a religiously motivated serial killer. If you go on the outskirts of Tehran at night, you can see women in full cloak walking down the roads. These women are prostitutes. You can pull over, get her in your car, and take her somewhere to buy sex from her.
The murders freaked out the leadership, and they were thinking of setting up brothels in Tehran to be run by madams and having the prostitutes live in the brothel. This would all be done under temporary marriage doctrine. They thought the women would be better protected under this model.
Legal prostitution is not something you would expect to find in a fundamentalist Muslim country!
 

The Strange Attitude in Iran Towards Male Homosexuality and Male Transsexualism

It is alleged that Iranian society is deeply hypocritical because they try not onto to convert gay men to heterosexuality but if that fails, they often try to get them to because transsexuals and transition. This isn’t as nuts as it sounds.
Ayatollah Khomeini allowed transgenderism because he decided that transsexuals were created by God. There was nothing cynical about the decision as many regime haters say. He simply reached this decision on solid theological grounds. However, he decided that gay men were choosing to be gay, so they had to be punished. And the punishment for male homosexuality as in other Shia societies, was ruled to be the death penalty.
Khomeini accepted transgenderism and said they should not be persecuted, so this opened the door for people to use it as an out for homosexuality.
People say that the acceptance of transgenderism while retaining condemnation of homosexuality is Iran’s way of being homophobic, but it’s more complex than that. These people don’t understand societies where clerics make religious decisions. The decisions cannot be analyzed based on logic. They are based on scriptural interpretations and are outside the realm of logic and whatnot. So Khomeini allowed transgenders as they were created by God, he said, but he said homosexuals were choosing it, so he continued to condemn them. It’s logical if you assume that transgenders are were born that way, and gay people just decide it on a whim.
After Khomeini opened the door, this allowed the regime to offer gay people the possibility of transition. That this goes against the meat of Khomeini’s ruling is no matter. People don’t understand the Iranian regime at all. Yes, they are very traditional and conservative, but they are also very pragmatic in the way that the Shia are.
Iran killed 6,000 homosexuals from the start of the revolution until 10 years ago. They caught a lot of crap for that. But the mullahs continue to say that homosexuality is a sin, and I think the official ruling is that they should be killed.
The regime is going outside this ruling by refusing to kill them anymore, probably due to outside pressure. Now they are trying to figure out how to deal with the homosexuals in their society. They can’t just accept them because there are religious injunctions against that.
So what to do? Well, as the clerics ok’d transgenderism, we can always convince the gays to transition and thereby get around this criticism we are getting for attacking gays. That it is illogical in terms of Khomeini’s ruling that they were created by God is no matter.
The regime is just trying to figure out how to deal with this problem for which they have gotten a lot of criticism while still staying within scriptural boundaries. Of course they are twisting the letter of the law, but that is what Shiism is all about. Twisting the letter of the law in the interests of pragmatism.
I have no idea how Iranians feel about transsexuals. The regime obviously likes them better than homosexuals. No one gives two damns about lesbians in Iran or anywhere else on Earth for that matter. As is the case for most homophobes, all the anger is directed at gay men. This is not some new thing. Iranian society has been homophobic forever. Gay men are called “not-men.” That’s the literal translation of the word in a society based on machismo. Homophobia is not some new thing created by the clerics.
“Look if we can get these gays to transition, then we can get out of all this criticism we get for attacking gays while still remaining true to religion.”
That’s their attitude.
 

Alt Left: Why the Rise in Self-Harm among Young Females in the West?

There is a surge in self-harming among young women in the West. One figure showed that 25% of 14 year old girls were self-harming.
Feminists argue that it is the viciousness of patriarchy in the West, the prevalence of misogynistic pornography, and the endless microaggressions that young females in the West face every day in their viciously woman-hating societies.
Ok, nice theory. But even if one acknowledges that patriarchy exists or existed, isn’t it obvious that the very vilest and most extreme versions of patriarchy (but normal in a historical context) exist in other parts of the world like Arab and Islamic World, India, Black Africa, and Latin America? Women are treated an order of magnitude worse there than in the West, where at the very least huge holes have been smashed in patriarchy, and personally I think what’s left is more like remains than a coherent hole.
In the areas where patriarchy has been dealt a serious blow and is much weaker, girls and women are cutting themselves and self-harming.
In the areas where patriarchy is alive and well, and women are seriously oppressed even to the point of femicide (Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Colombia), no women are self-harming at all. In fact, they often seem quite happy.
Now how is this self-harming caused by male oppression when it is occurring in the places where such oppression is the lowest, and women have the most freedom and power?
I work in mental health and I am not even sure we know why females self-harm.
As far as porn destroying the self-images of young women and causing them to self-harm, I assure you that young women nowadays are literally growing up watching porn, I mean from age 13 on. They loved to watch it as teenagers, and they love to watch it now. I know this because I talk to young women quite a bit, even underage girls, and I still date young women all the way down 18 and 19 year old girls. And I am 60 years old.

Identity Politics or Tribalism Was Behind Many of the Most Horrific and Genocidal Crimes of the 20th Century

Zamfir: “Having a collective interest is not the same thing as a hard and fast identity like race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or even religion.”

Okay, I didn’t understand that “identity” for you has to do with only these kinds of characteristics. But then I’d put it this way: Any group of people that share collective interests can have good reasons to organize politically in defense of their interests. It doesn’t matter whether the reason has to do with their “identity” in your sense or instead something less “hard and fast” such as economic class.

Because people who organize around more banal everyday political issues are typically not as insane and flat out deranged, homicidal, paranoid, hypersensitive and even genocidal as IP types? I mean do you see Democrats running around screaming about the Republicans “They hate us! They hate us! They’re out to kill us! We need to fight back!” Do you see environmentalists or pro-abortion people saying that anti-environmentalists and anti-abortion people, “They hate us! They hate us! They oppress us and dominate us! They’re out to kill us!”

Ordinary politics is not tribal like IP is. Few people would say they are member of a tribe called Democrats, Social Democrats, Bolivarians, Sandinistas, environmentalists, gun control activists, anti-free trade types, anti- or pro-immigration activists, liberals, workers, or poor or low income people? Hell no.

And the people in the paragraph above don’t scream, carry on, act paranoid, have a huge chip on their shoulder and accuse everyone of hating them all the time.

Haven’t you noticed that IP people are all insane? They all say my group is completely innocent and good, and we are being persecuted, oppressed and dominated by this evil other group. They’re all hypersensitive to any slights, always accusing everyone of hating them. They hate us! They hate us! They hate us! They’re trying to kill us!
And there’s often genocidal language, sometimes towards the hated group and other times it’s, “They’re trying to kill of us!” Often it’s “they’re trying to kill all of us…we need to kill all of them!”Haven’t you noticed that IP people are all insane?
They all say my group is completely innocent and good and we are being persecuted, oppressed and dominated by this evil other group. They’re all hypersensitive to any slights, always accusing everyone of hating them. They hate us! They hate us! They hate us! They’re trying to kill us! And there’s often genocidal language, sometimes towards the hated group and other times it’s, “They’re trying to kill of us!” Often it’s “they’re trying to kill all of us…we need to kill all of them!”
Before the Tutus slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis, the radio played non-stop that the Tutsis had just murdered the Hutu president and were organizing a war to kill all the Hutus. The solution? Kill them first. Remember Hitler said the Jews are trying to kill us all? Solution? Kill them first. Notice how the Israelis are always screaming that their enemies are exterminationist Nazi type anti-Semites? They’re out to kill us all! Solution? Oppress them, dominate them, wage war on them, kill their soldiers and their politicians, assassinate their leaders.
Can’t you realize that almost all of the horrible things that are going on today are all based on IP to some degree or another. In the ME, they are slaughtering each other over religion or even factions of a religion or even factions of factions.
In Turkey, this is behind Turkey’s war on the Kurds and their conquest and annexation of Syrian land to expand the “Turkish nation.” The ethnic cleaning wars of the Balkans were all wrapped up in IP. The Islamist insurgencies in the Caucasus, Turkestan, Thailand, Sudan, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Egypt, Nigeria, India and to some extent Syria and Iraq are Islamist jihads against the infidels; in the cases of Nigeria and Sudan, take exterminationist proportions.
The Hindu Buddhists wage an exterminationist jihad against the Hindu Tamils. The Myanmar Buddhists wage an exterminationist jihad against the Rohinga.
The Hindus oppress the Muslims of Kashmir and wage war on them. The Jews oppress the non-Jews of Palestine and wage war on them and conquer and annex their land. Muslims and Christians wage exterminationist wars against each other in the Congo. In Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire, Hutus, and Tutsis wage exterminationist wars against each other.
Saddam said the Persians were plotting to kill all the Arabs (and most Sunni Arabs still say that the Iranians are plotting to at least conquer all the Arabs). Solution? Kill the Iranians first. The Young Turks started their jihad against the Armenians by saying that the Armenians were plotting to kill all the Turks. Solution? Kill the Armenians. Similar things were said of Greeks and Assyrians. Solution? Kill 500,000 Greeks and Assyrians before they can kill us first.
Nazism was nothing but Aryan Germanic IP against non Aryans such as Gypsies, Jews and Slavs.
The war in Northern Ireland is a pure IP war.
Notice how all of these groups employ the IP extremism – “They’re trying to kill us all so we need to oppress/kill of them first!” Our tribe is 100% good, theirs is evil. We are defensive; they wage offensive war against us. They are haters and racists and we are not. They hate us!  They hate us! They hate us! You hate us! You hate us!
Notice how paranoid they all are and how hypersensitive they are to any slight and how they all immediately accuse you of hating them if you even look at them wrong? Notice the insane, “They hate us! They hate us!” all the while when the people screaming about people hating them are horrific haters themselves. But their hate and racism/bigotry is good and justified and the other people’s hate and bigotry is evil. We just want liberation and to be free! They want to oppress us and dominate us!
IP turns genocidal and exterminationist or at least slaughtering quite easily.

Alt Left: The Alt Left Position on Identity Politics

This really ought to be the official Alt Left statement on Identity Politics of all types in general.
The Alt Left position on Identity Politics is that in general we are opposed to all IP.
White nationalist/White IP: Non-whites deserve to be hated because physical science proves that they’re evil and inferior. Non-Whites hate us Whites! Therefore, the Non-Whites are evil and we Whites need to separate from them. Our White hatred is good and their Non-White hated is bad! The Non-Whites attack us Whites all the time. The Non-Whites are the attackers, we Whites are the victims. We Whites are innocent and the Non-Whites are guilty. We Whites want paybacks and revenge against our non-White oppressors. BLM and anti-racism is a hate movement against Whites. Non-Whites are anti-White racists.
Black IP/modern anti-racism/BLM, etc.: Whites deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. Whites hate us Blacks! Our Black hatred is good and their White hatred is bad! Whites attack us Blacks all the time. Whites are the attackers, we Blacks are the victims. We Black are innocent and the Whites are guilty. We Black want paybacks and revenge against our White oppressors. White nationalism is a hate movement against Blacks. Whites are anti-Black racists. Whites want to kill all of us Blacks.
Radical feminism/modern feminism in general/political lesbianism (radfems in particular): Men/MRA’s deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. Men/MRA’s hate us women! Our female hatred is good and their male/MRA hated is bad. Men’s/MRA’s hatred is bad! Men/MRA’s attack us women all the time. Men/MRA’s are the attackers, we women are the victims. We women are innocent and the men/MRA’s are guilty. We women want paybacks and revenge against our male/MRA oppressors. MRA is a hate movement against women. Men are misogynists.
MRA’s/incels/MGTOW’s: Women deserve to be hated because physical and social science proves that they’re evil/inferior. Feminists hate us! Our male hatred is good and their feminist hatred is bad! Feminists attack us men all the time. Feminists are the attackers, we men are the victims. We men are innocent and the feminists are guilty. We men want paybacks and revenge against our feminist/female oppressors. Feminism is a hate movement against men. Feminists are misandrists.
Gay activists: Homophobes deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. Homophobes hate us gays! Our gay hatred is good and their homophobic hatred is bad! Homophobes attack us gays all the time. Homophobes are the attackers, we gays are the victims. We gays are innocent and the homophobes are guilty. We gays want paybacks and revenge against our homophobic oppressors. Anti-gays are homophobes. Homophobes want to kill all of us gays.
Homophobes/pro-family/anti-gays: Gays deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil, decadent, and depraved. Gays hate us anti-gays! Our anti-gay hatred is good and their gay hatred is bad! Gays attack us anti-gays all the time. Gays are the attackers, we anti-gays are the victims. We anti-gays are innocent and the Gay are guilty. We anti-gays want paybacks and revenge against our gay oppressors. Gay activism is a hate movement against the family. Gays hate the heterosexual family.
Transsexual activists: Transphobes deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. Transphobes hate us Transsexuals! Our transsexual hatred is good and their transphobic hatred is bad! Transphobes attack us transsexuals all the time. Transphobes are the attackers, we transsexuals are the victims. We transsexuals are innocent and the transphobes are guilty. We transsexuals want paybacks and revenge against our Transphobic oppressors. Anti-trans people are transphobes.
Transphobes/TERF’s: Transsexuals deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. Transsexuals hate us TERF’s/Transphobes! Our TERF/transphobic hatred is good and their transsexual hatred is bad! Transsexuals attack us TERF’s/transphobes all the time. Transsexuals are the attackers, we TERF’s/transphobes are the victims. We TERF’s/transphobes are innocent and the transsexuals are guilty. We TERF’s/transphobes want paybacks and revenge against our transsexual oppressors. Transsexualism is a hate movement against women. Transsexuals are misogynists.
Muslims: Infidels deserve to be hated because theology proves that they’re evil. Infidels hate us s! Our hatred is good and their hatred is bad! Infidels attack us all the time. Infidels are the attackers, we are the victims. We infidels are innocent and the are guilty. We want paybacks and revenge against our infidel oppressors. Infidels are anti-Muslim. Infidels want to kill all of us Muslims.
Anti-Muslims: Muslims deserve to be hated because theology proves that they’re evil: Infidels deserve to be hated because theology proves that they’re evil. Infidels hate us s! Our hatred is good and their hatred is bad! Infidels attack us all the time. Infidels are the attackers, we are the victims. We infidels are innocent and the are guilty. We want paybacks and revenge against our infidel oppressors. Infidels are anti-Muslim. Infidels want to kill all of us Muslims..
Jews: Anti-Semites/Gentiles deserve to be hated because social science/theology proves that they’re evil/inferior. Anti-Semites/gentiles hate us Jews! Our Jewish hatred is good and their Anti-Semitic/Gentile hatred is bad! Anti-Semites/Gentiles attack us Jews all the time. Anti-Semites/Gentiles are the attackers, we Jews are the victims. We Jews are innocent and the Anti-Semites/gentiles are guilty. We Jews want paybacks and revenge against our anti-Semitic/gentile oppressors. Gentiles are anti-Semites. Anti-Semites/gentiles want to kill all of us Jews.
Anti-Semites: Jews deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. Jews hate us gentiles! Our gentile hatred is good and their Jewish hatred is bad! Jews attack us Gentiles all the time. Jews are the attackers, we Gentiles are the victims. We Gentiles are innocent and the Jews are guilty. We Gentiles want paybacks and revenge against our Jewish oppressors. Jews are anti-gentile. Jews want to kill all of us gentiles.
___________ nationalism: Our enemies deserve to be hated because social science proves that they’re evil. The racists hate our people! Our nationalist hatred is good and their racist hatred against our people is bad! The racists attack our people all the time. The racists are the attackers, we nationalists are the victims. We nationalists are innocent and the racists are guilty. We nationalists want paybacks and revenge against our racist oppressors. Our enemies are racists against our people!
White nationalism is not IP! Black activism is not IP! Feminism is not IP! MRA is not IP! Transsexualism is not IP! Islam is not IP! Gay activism is not IP! _________ nationalism is not IP! Being Jewish isn’t IP!