All Politicians are Sociopaths, and All States Are Sociopathic By Nature

AJ asks about the rebellions in the Northeast of India, which have been going on nonstop since the birth of the state.

The imperialist state of India has no right to any of those lands. All of those places refused to join India in 1947. They only joined after India attacked them militarily or threatened to. Most of those states have been in armed rebellion ever since.

How come we never hear about it? Do you think it is because they are brown, so journalists don’t want to paint them as imperialists?

They have no right to Kashmir either.

The imperialist state of the USA, along with almost all other (objectively fascist) states on Earth, is generally opposed to separatism. Only Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and a few other places give support to any separatists.

It’s because all states stick together, and the enemy of all states is the separatists. On this line, I am with the anarchists. Most of these separatist rebellions are justified, and I support them. But no state wants to break up.

Mostly the various imperialist states of the world at best cynically support the separatism of their enemies and the often brutal of separatism of their allies.

There are no good people in politics. Most politicians are sociopathic, and most states are sociopathic by nature.

The only reasonable position is a principled one. Either separatism is generally justified or it is never justified. To support the separatism of your enemies on moral grounds while promoting the brutal suppression of separatists by your allies is the most cynical and disgusting politics. Of course a Jew gave a name to it: Realpolitik. But before Kissinger there was Machiavelli.

I will say that one great thing about Whites is that we are the only race civilized enough to break up our states on civil grounds without committing mass genocides like all the other barbarian races do. Only Whites could have broken up the USSR (one of the greatest acts of emancipation and liberation of the 20th Century), only Whites could have broken up Czechoslovakia, and only Whites are willing to break up the UK and Canada.

Only Whites!

22 Comments

Filed under Americas, Asia, Britain, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Europe, Europeans, Imperialism, India, Kashmir, Latin America, Nationalism, Nicaragua, North America, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, South Asia, USSR, Venezuela, Whites

22 responses to “All Politicians are Sociopaths, and All States Are Sociopathic By Nature

  1. Wade in MO

    “I will say that one great thing about Whites is that we are the only race civilized enough to break up our states on civil grounds without committing mass genocides like all the other barbarian races do”

    Yugoslavia?

    • There is a difference.

      In general, humans are barbarians on this question. Many Whites are also barbarians, true. Look at the Yugoslavs. Though Slovenia broke up with little bloodshed, and Montenegro broke up with zero.

      So the difference between Whites and the barbarians is that Whites actually have whole nations full of majority civilized folks. Sure we have barbarian nations too, just like the barbarians.

      The barbarians have 100% of their nations full of majority barbarians. In no case do they have a nation or a state at least that is non-barbarian and civilized.

      Whites states can at times be civilized.

      Non White or barbarian states can at no time be civilized!

      • johnUK

        Well seeing how you don’t know anything about the Yugoslav war it became bloody because foreign states mainly Germany, Britain and the US were supporting anti-Serb separatist factions including Islamic terrorism and Osama Bin Ladin and was targeted by Germany since the 1970’s as revealed in German BND documents and in the 1980’s under Reagan.

  2. AJ

    “Only Whites could have broken up the USSR ( one of the greatest acts of emancipation and liberation of the 20 th Century )” The breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Soviet Citizens were the best educated in the world, (Russia has thankfully kept the Soviet style education system) there was no sexism, classism, racism, or ultra-nationalism. Soviet Citizens enjoyed a higher standard of living than the majority of the world’s population, second only to Western Europe and the US(basically other white people), and the Soviet Union over 20 million good Slavic men to defeat fascism, a sacrifice that has gone unacknowledged in the West. The Soviet Union united Russian, Ukrainians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Kazahks, Asians, Caucasians, and various peoples under the banner of Socialism. Ethnic Russians were only 50% of the population. It was a workers paradise, the worlds first. The Soviet Union had a critical role in the American Civil Rights Movement, anti-colonialism, anti-racism, anti-apartheid in Africa, and promoted sane, non-PC feminism. If it wasnt for the Soviet Union, the civil rights movement would not have happened in the US. Blacks would still be segregated, and would not be able to vote. The Soviet Union brought 100% literacy to remote Asian villages, and to the Slavic people, who were serfs and frequently derided as backwards, or savages, or barbarians, or dumb Slavs. Within a few years after the Revolution, the USSR started rolling out tanks, warplanes and became an industrial power. Since the US-orchestrated collapse, racism and ultra-nationalism has exploded. As has Muslim extremsim and terrorism, rape, gang violence, the oligarchy, starvation, poverty, crime, pollution, alcoholism, heroin addiction and general societal and moral collapse. Is this liberation?

  3. AJ

    btw, to clarify, when I say racism, I mean all racism. The majority of racist violence in Russia is committed by minorites, not Slavs.

  4. BigMoeMiami

    I dunno, whites have been pretty genocidal about dividing their societies along racial and ethnic lines. Which barbarian societies are you referring to? The usage of the term “Barbarian” derives primarily from Roman Latin society descripiton of foreign invaders primarily Teutons and Celts from the north who were largely seen as brutish and uncivilized. What have all the wars in European history been about other than divisions along ethnic differences by these very white people? Look at Hitler and Nazism. To say only whites can divide their countries without genocide is not borne out by history, in fact the opposite is quite true, whites have been the most warlike of peoples with regard to ethnocentrism and tribalism, Jews, gypsies, Armenians, slavs, Poles, Irish, blacks and many other ethnic and racial groups give testimony to this fact. Many of the genocides perpetrated in non-white society such as that between the Tutsis and Hutus in Africa may have been initiated by the influence of whites in those societies.

    • The only people in recent history to divide their countries and allow for separatist movements to create new states have been Whites.

      The only countries now that even allow for the possibility of dividing their countries and allow for a separtist creation of a new state are Whites.

      The non-Whites are too much of barbarians to do such a thing. Where separatist movements occur in non-White societies, the state meets them with intense repression at best, or war and genocide at worst. It’s like Nazism all over again. Turkish Nazis, Chinese Nazis, Russian Nazis, Sinhalese Nazis, Burmese Nazis, Indonesian Nazis, Indian Nazis, Syrian Nazis, Iraqi Nazis, Moroccan Nazis.

      The only way separatism has succeeded in these barbarian locales is via mass violence an genocidal wars, as in Eritrea for instance.

      • johnUK

        What the fuck are you talking about Russian, Chinese, Iraqi Nazis, etc LOL!

        What BS the Chinese and the Russians at least are fighting the Nazis especially Russia which is fighting something worse than Naism. Wahabaism.

        • Cyrus

          Yes, because the Wahabi assholes actually have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding at world domination, right?

          I mean, with their bad-ass command of technology, and their massive industrial base…Watch out!

        • johnUK

          @Cyrus

          Seeing how they are supported by the Saudi and Mid East regimes and NATO and the countries in the alliance I would say they have a good change given that they have already won in Bosnia, Kosovo, North Caucasus 97-2000 and Afghanistan.

          “I mean, with their bad-ass command of technology, and their massive industrial base…Watch out!”

          Yes because Saudi Arabia is such a backwater isn’t it.

        • Cyrus

          Seeing how they are supported by the Saudi and Mid East regimes and NATO and the countries in the alliance I would say they have a good change given that they have already won in Bosnia, Kosovo, North Caucasus 97-2000 and Afghanistan.

          They are “supported” by money from various citizens of the GCC regimes. NATO? :D

          So what, and that is it.

          That is all they have going for them. Their idiotic and mindless tactics have brought about military defeat everywhere the have offered their “support.” They are mindless fanatical terrorists, and nothing more. They show up in a place like Chechnya, where the locals won their independence, and RUIN IT!

          You, like many paranoid reactionaries here in the U.S, put them up on a pedestal they do not deserve, but surely appreciate.

          Yes because Saudi Arabia is such a backwater isn’t it.

          Yes, it is. It has no technological or industrial base. It is nothing without it’s oil, and the West to mine it.

          You live in fantasy land if you think Saudi Arabia is comparable to anything but a very lucky banana republic.

  5. AJ

    Russian Nazis? LOL, Russia has historically helped little countries. Americans are the Nazis, they inade the world, and invite the world. They have bases everywhere! WTF! Russia helped Abhkazia and South Ossetia fight for their independence from Georgia, which is a US colony. Im tired of all this neocon drivel about Chechnya, too. Would America let some Muslims form a Sharia state from US land? Chechnyans are savage animals, who cant handle independence, cuz they go all Islamofascist and shit their pants. Why doesnt America let Texas secede? Why did America kill so many people instead of letting the South secede? And then America has the balls to talk about Chechnya! LOL! Chechnyans are the Muslims that conservatives like, LOL! All so they can bash Russia! Im hoping that libertarian New Hampshire, the Vermont Republic, the Republic of Texas, and Califonia and Alaska all secede. Then Russia can criticeze the US for oppressing their states, LOL!

    • johnUK

      @AJ

      Chechnya is a puppet vassal state just like how they were used during WW2 to secure US/British hegemony in the North Caucasus and eliminate totally historic and contemporary Terek Cossack presence.

      There was a Russian documentary called “Plan Caucasus” detailing after the fall of USSR in 89/90 western intelligence conspired with Chechen leaders giving them training, passports and crime networks and routes from Moscow and St Petersburg.

      I don’t know if you have seen it? It’s only in Russian though.

      In 97 British intelligence interests actually became part of the new government and helped establish oil contracts with British and US oil companies and further expand well establish terrorist routes from Europe and the Mid East and British intelligence front NGO’s like Halo Trust to secretly train Chechen militants.

  6. AJ

    johnUK, are you a Scottish man living in Scotland?

  7. johnUK

    “They have no right to Kashmir either.”

    Why? Off course they do after the independence of India and the new state of Pakistan the Indian controlled region of Kashmir opted to join India. It is since then that Pakistan has been supporting separatist/terrorist groups in the region especially after 89 when they ethnically cleansed about 300,000 native Kashmiri natives (forgot the name of the actual ethnic group) supporting Islamic terrorism ever since.

    Pakistan itself was committing genocide against East Pakistan now Bangladesh when they opted to become a separate state with the help of Uncle Sam and the Brits and the Pakistani controlled Kashmir region is under Taliban like rule.

    “The imperialist state of the USA, along with almost all other (objectively fascist) states on Earth, is generally opposed to separatism. Only Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and a few other places give support to any separatists.”

    LOL!

    The US and Britain foreign policy for decades and in the case of Britain for over 100 years is to support fascist separatist terrorist groups around the world along as it supports US/British interests.

    Since the end of WW2 Britain and the US has supported the Kleptocracy in Tibet and Nazi affiliated nationalist groups in Eastern Europe.

    US/British support for groups like the Contras in Latin America is well known as is Cuban exiles attacks against mainland Cuba.

    Britain supported the Confederacy in the South in the civil war.

    Since the time of Catherine the Great Britain working through Turkey have been supporting separatists in Russia’s North Caucasus especially after the collapse of Communism and Islamic terrorist/separatist groups around the world in camps in Afghanistan in CIA/ISI camps in the early 90’s and under the Taliban in 96/97- 2001.

    In most parts of the world separatists/militant groups are supported by western countries like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Burmese group harboured in the bordering Thai border involved in the Asia drug trade, etc.

    • Cyrus

      The Kashmiris really don’t much want to be apart of either Pakistan OR India. They really do not have much in common with either.

      That is probably beyond your level of comprehension though, John.

  8. AJ

    “How did you know I was Scottish ?” I am a KGB agent and hacked your computer. I know everything about you johnUK, or should I say “Jack”. That MoeMiami guy or whatever the fuck his name is is a real jerk. He has a racist agenda against white people. So its white peoples fault that the Armenians were slaughtered?! What the hell man? Why dont you go to some synagogue and tell them that the Holocaust was their own fault, while youre at it? Were Pol Pot and Mao Zedong and Robert Mugabe and Osama bin Ladin White people? We are human beings, not some evil devil-people, grow up.

  9. AJ

    oh, and MoeMiami, Whites are the most warlike and ethnocentric? LMWAO!! Yeah thats why Africans all hold hands and get along right? Africans invented racism. Where would someone rather live, a white country or a black country or a yellow country or a brown country? Case closed.

  10. James Schipper

    Dear Robert
    Henry Kissinger didn’t coin the term Realpolitik. It was already used in Germany during Bismarck’s time. It doesn’t mean political amorality either, only political realism. Here is how my Duden (the German Webster) defines Realpolitik: Politik, die vom Möglichen ausgeht und auf abstrakte Programme und ideale Postulate verzichtet. = Politics which limits itself to what is possible and renounces abstract programs and idealistic postulates.

    Cheers. James

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s