Category Archives: Conservatism

That Does It, I’m Voting for Marie Le Pen

Ok, let’s see. You live in France.

You can vote “Right” and vote for protection of workers, state social programs for workers, pro family policies, environmental protection, promotion of small business at the expense of big business, and national protection of workers from multinational corporate Great White sharks.

Or I can vote “Left” and vote for gay pride parades, six different types of genderqueer, tax cuts for corporations and austerity.

Tough choice, huh?

A rare voice of sanity over at Moon of Alabama, where sanity is served up in heaping portions daily.

These are indications of the emergence of a new political paradigm in Europe. It is notoriously the case that many of Le Pen’s votes come from former Red strongholds and that the working class is, for very understandable reasons, turning to nationalism as an antidote to neoliberalism.

 

There is no reason why the immigration issue should not be part of a debate on planning the economy. Now that Trade Unions have been stripped of their powers to regulate wages, unemployment levels and working conditions, it is very reasonable for workers to turn to the state to protect their interests, though the chances of this happening without a revival of class institutions are slim.

 

So long as social democrats and the feckless left is going to back the neoliberal business agenda by opposing immigration controls as racist, the right wing will pile up their old voters. By the same token so long as “the left” confuses globalized capitalism with internationalism, and US hegemony with human solidarity, it will be rushing towards political oblivion.

 

Much of the program of the “right” in Europe is correct. Nor, given the efficiency with which neoliberalism has smashed working class institutions, does it have the appeal, for industrialists, of being able to discipline the workers. In fact the European ruling class is fading away into a memory as its members become mere junior partners in the imperial system.

 

The social basis for fascism in Europe is becoming increasingly narrow, driving the European right into radical courses to justify its existence. Racism is not enough for it. And any popular economic program is going to be socialistic. There is much less to fear from a Le Pen victory than from another Hollande or Sarkozy victory.

 

What is needed is to prevent such people as Le Pen from getting away with the demagogy of supporting Israel and Islamophobia which together are two of the causes of the wars which Europe supports and whose most obvious consequence is a flood of, very reluctant, immigrants pouring into Europe because Europe will not allow them to live at home in peace.

 

And, this of course, involves pointing out that Europe is led by a political class which is content to follow US orders despite the fact that to do so is to condemn Europe to penury and irrelevance.

I recollect more than thirty years ago proposing a nationalist and a socialist future as the alternative to Thatcher’s neoliberalism. I was of course immediately denounced as a NAZI, as if Hitler had ever introduced anything resembling socialist policies.

It was the alternative which dared not speak its name, such is the revulsion that people have been taught to have towards nationalism.

 

Today, as economic “reforms”, sponsored by globalized institutions, threaten living standards, the notions of job protection, social solidarity and national sovereignty have a latent appeal which is bound to lead to success for the parties which embrace them. Parties yet to be formed, I suspect, whose militants and supporters are currently as likely to be on the right as the left.

A while back, I went to Wikipedia and read over the “evil fascist” Marie Le Pen’s political program. I kept nodding my head as I read down the page. When I got to the end, I let out a huge sigh. None of it made sense. Her project was pro-working class, anti-rich, anti-elite, anti-corporate, anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-French imperialism, pro social spending, pro welfare state, pro union, pro family, pro French culture, and opposed to importing boatloads of unassimilable future criminals from that continent south of the Riviera. How is this evil? Even more, how is this fascism?

Golden Dawn, for all of its horrors, is very pro-worker, anti-corporate, anti-rich and pro-welfare state. In fact, they run clinics for the poor, give out free meals every day, run job and day care centers…in other words – they’re socialists!

So the only socialists left in Europe are the “fascists,” then, correct? Where’s the competition? Social Democracy used to mean socialism, but it’s meant anything but in recent years. I cringe every time another Socialist Party or Social Democratic Party type wins in Europe. I figure it’s time for layoffs, budget cuts, tax cuts for corporations, shutting down public services, wage cuts, attacks on labor and of course that socialist favorite called austerity.

Well good God. If you’re going to go through all the trouble of voting for a rightwing agenda like that, why fake it and vote Socialist? Just vote for a real rightwing party like the Christian Democrats and be done with it. I’ve always preferred real people to imposters anyway.

People keep telling me this Marie lady is a Nazi, a fascist. I read over her program, and I didn’t see it other than the fact that she doesn’t think a lot of Muslims in France, which is logical as they are tearing the place apart and setting it on fire on the weekends. They’re unassimilable anyway.

I really don’t care what she is. They can call her anything they want to. I don’t care if she’s a Nazi or a fascist or flying purple people eater. If I’m in France, dammit, I’m voting for this bitch.

All this Right-Left stuff is starting to blur together anyway to where it doesn’t even make sense. When the socialists are pushing brutal austerity and the only real socialists anymore are the “fascist” nationalists, you’re got to wonder if terms like Right and Left even have a meaning. Terms like Right and Left are supposed to represent a a polarity – black and white, 1 and 0, on and off – but instead political terms are starting to resemble the Heisenberg Principle.

7 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Fascism, France, Government, Immigration, Labor, Left, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Socialism, USA

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, “Everything America Says Is a Lie”

Paul Craig Roberts, who is basically a paleocon, shows why America is the enemy of mankind. Washington is threatening to blow up the world again. It won’t be the first time. The Shining City on a Hill has threatened to use nuclear weapons many times since 1945. You just never heard about it in the Free Press (TM).

Everything America Says Is a Lie

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The 100th anniversary of World War I is upon us. And the folly that caused this war is being repeated. WWI destroyed a civilized Western world, and it was the work of a mere handful of scheming people. The result was Lenin, the Soviet Union, Hitler, the rise of American Imperialism, Korea, Vietnam, the military interventions that created ISIS, and now resurrected conflict between Washington and Russia that President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev had ended.

As Stephen Starr has pointed out on my website, if merely 10% of the nuclear weapons in the US and Russian arsenals are used, life on earth terminates.

Dear readers, ask yourselves, when has Washington told you anything that was not a lie? Washington’s lies have caused millions of casualties. Do you want to be a casualty of Washington’s lies?

Do you believe that Washington’s lies and propaganda about the Malaysian airliner and Ukraine are worth risking life on earth? Who is so gullible that he cannot recognize that Washington’s lies about Ukraine are like Washington’s lies about Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, and Assad’s use of chemical weapons?

Do you think that the neoconservative influence that prevails in Washington, regardless of the political party in office, is too dangerous to be tolerated?

4 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Eurasia, Europe, Imperialism, Iran, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Paleoconservatism, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, USA, War, World War 1

New Interview with Me Up

I just did a new interview with Robert Stark. I think you will like it. It goes over a lot of pretty important subjects. The sound quality should be much better on this one. Stark now does interviews straight over the phone. The sound quality is much better than it was with Skype. The poor sound quality of previous interviews was entirely the fault of Skype.

Here are the topics:

  • Why Robert stands with Putin
  • Why much of the Hard Left Is with Putin
  • Why Robert does not view Putin as an imperialist
  • Russia as a bulwark against American imperialism
  • How the US is selective in its support for separatist movements
  • Oligarchs and how income inequality has reduced under Putin
  • How Robert views Putin as being in between a Russian Nationalist and an Atlantic Integrationist
  • Some Ridiculous Anti-Russian Arguments
  • The lie that Russia has no allies in the former East Bloc or in the former USSR
  • The Jewish view toward Russia
  • The geographical history of the Ukraine
  • The Ukrainian Regime’s Nazi Policies
  • Russia’s alliance with Syria and Iran
  • The Project for a New American Century
  • How Robert views America and Israel as one monolithic country
  • Robert’s assistance to the Israeli organization DEBKA
  • How Robert’s Beyond Highbrow leaked the picture of the dead Israeli soldier
  • The recent Israeli conflict in Gaza and why Robert basically takes a neutral stance
  • Sunni vs. Shia Islam
  • The Lebanese Civil War
  • The Arab Baathist Party
  • Why Robert is willing to ally himself with fascists against American imperialism
  • Why the Progressive Project is the assimilation of the Jews from the ghetto
  • Patrilineality and the tribal instinct to sleep with women of other groups while safeguarding your own
  • Roissy’s Stupid PUA Site and how unregulated sexuality mirrors right wing economics

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Gender Studies, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Man World, Middle East, Political Science, Regional, Religion, Russia, Syria, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, USA, Vanity, War

Major Post: Alpha Game Rebuts My Roissy Takedown

Here.

I do not mind this Vox Day fellow so much (he is much better than the repugnant Roissy or even the less scary but still frightening Roosh), and although he doesn’t believe it, I am actually a reader of his site. And I even take notes. I am not so much of a Game Enemy as I am part of the Loyal Opposition.

He accuses me of not understanding Game, but I understand it very well.

My critique remains the same.

Obviously, according to Game Theory, 20% of men are going to monopolize most of the best women. These women will be content to share an Alpha’s harem. These 20% are the Alphas. They are attractive to most of the women most of the time.

60% of men are the Betas. Despite the despicable hatred in the PUAsphere for these salt of the Earth, sincamisas (shirtess ones), Ordinary Joe, guy next door types, Betas are average, ordinary men. They are attractive to some of the women some of the time, which is simply normal. In the past, due to religion and institutionalized marriage, almost all Betas married and had children. Now many are not. Nevertheless, most of the Beta types around me have a girlfriend or wife.

Omegas are the ~15% of men who are attractive to hardly any of the women almost all the time. The castaways and by-catch. Nevertheless, quite a few eventually marry or get a girlfriend.

According to almost all PUA sites, the only worthwhile men at all are the men who fall into the top 20% of all men. Since according the new system, the 20-60-20 rule is pretty much the way things go, the men who monopolize the best women and who are attractive to most of the women most of the time are the top 20% of men. These are the only worthwhile men in the whole world, PUA’s tell us. The other 80% are ridiculed and showered with spitting, frothing contempt on all PUA sites, but particular hatred is reserved for the Ordinary Man, the Regular Guy, the Beta.

So in a rigged system where only 20% of men can win and 80% must lose, the PUAsphere says that the only valuable men are the 20% winners, while the 80% losers (who must lose, now have you, no matter how hard they try, due to the rules of the game), are contemptible garbage virtually unworthy of life. Roissy is one of the worst offenders here. He constantly encourages his fawning street gang of sociopaths to pour contempt of the despicable Betas and anything resembling Beta behavior, whatever that is.

If Alphas are the men who rank 1-20 on the 1-100 scale, the low Alphas would be men who rank 13-20. High Betas would be men who rank 20-40 on the scale. According to Roissy’s commenters, even low Alphas and High Betas are disgusting failures to be mocked and jeered. I guess the only men who are worthwhile in society are the top 13% of all men. The other 87% are all untermenschen deserving of death.

All over this insane PUAsphere, we are told over and over that the only worthwhile women are the “top-notch” women, apparently those women who rank 9-10 on the scale of 1-10. Even 7’s and 8’s are hideous dogs that no man would give a second glance to. Acquiring any woman who is less than a model type means failure.

Realistically, 10% of women are in each category – 10% are 1’s, 10% are 2’s, 10% are 3’s, 10% are 10’s,  10% are 9’s,  10% are 8’s. Get it? On the 1-10 scale, only 10% of women fall into each category.

The only worthwhile women are the top 20% of hotties though, say PUA’s, and all the rest of them are ugly muglies. Any man who has a girlfriend or wife, or maybe even a date, who is less than a 9 is a complete loser, unworthy of even saying hello to.

All of this toxic nonsense reminds of me of rightwing economics, which honestly says that the only worthwhile members of society are the rich and the upper middle class (the top 20% wage earners) and all of the rest of us are filth, useless eaters, not even human beings, expendable.

Noting the comparison with rightwing economics, it is fascinating that almost all PUA’s are political reactionaries, although Roosh may be a more progressive guy.

This never made sense to me because all down through history, all the playboys have been liberal, progressive people. When I was growing up it was the same way. Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione and Larry Flynt were all liberal, progressive men and so were their magazines. Most of the players I knew growing up were leftwing hipsters of one sort or another with a joint, a surfboard or a pair of skis in one hand and an endlessly rotating series of hot babes in the other. They were my models, and this is how I lived my life as a young man as a surf bum – ski bum – pot dealer.

When I was growing up, conservatives were dorks, idiots, neckbeards, Omegas. They were “squares” – starched buttoned up clothes, voted for Nixon, refused to smoke weed, looked like they hadn’t shit in a month and of course could barely get laid, or if they could, they only got with equally square, uptight, lame rightwing chicks who most of us disparaged as “the square girls.”

Now it’s all turned around. The reactionaries are the wild playboys (Huh?). Liberals and hipsters are soft, wimpy feminist Betas.

So the whole universe got turned upside down in my lifetime.

Going back to economic analogy, in an unhinged, unregulated economy, 20% of men will be upper middle class (Alphas) and 20% will be lower class (Omegas). 60% will be some species of middle class (Betas). No matter how hard anyone tries, the outcome will always be like this. 20% will inevitably win, and 80% will inevitably lose.

Saying that only the upper middle class are really human, and the rest of us are failures is rightwing ruling class politics, but lo and behold, what economics does the PUAsphere push? This very same rightwing ruling class  economics, now called Libertarianism, in other words, Economic Game.

And just as I figured, Vox Day, who I previously thought was a decent guy (but I was suspicious as hardly any PUA’s are decent human beings) has authored a book on Austrian Economics. Austrian Economics is the craziest of all the crazy Libertarian free market fundamentalist philosophies of economics. The Austrians are the most Libertarian of them all. Austrian Economics trends into Minarchism (Let’s Go Back and Live in the Middle Ages Economics), Anarchocapitalism (Somalia Uber Alles Economics) and other winner take all, loser die in the gutter, screw you, let em eat cake economic systems.

There is nothing special about economic systems like this. Read any book about 1700’s Europe. The rich were partying up while the cities were full of horrific slums, starving working people, and the worst of misery. Peasant and worker rebellions were regular occurrences.

So it turns out Vox Day is a serious asshole after all (the Austrians are on my list of “human beings I refuse to even speak to). He’s proposing winner take all, let em eat cake sexual economics, and he’s promoting (Who woulda thunk it?) winner take all, let em eat cake monetary economics.

Aren’t there any sites we can talk about this Game stuff while avoiding all these foul reactionaries?

You connecting the dots here? PUA’s say that only the 20% of us men who are winners, sexually or economically, have any value. The rest of us, the 80% who will lose no matter how hard we try because the game is rigged as all contests are towards those finishing towards first place, those finishing in the middle and those finishing at end, are worthless worms, failures, losers, men to be stomped into the ground like bugs on sight.

If they only advocated this it would be bad enough. But the PUAshphere is delusional. The PUAsphere more or less says all men can Alphas. All you need to do is read Roissy and buy all of Roosh’s books and videos (and I do mean all of them, don’t leave out even one of the $139.95 package) and you will get Game. Getting Game means becoming an Alpha. The unspoken (or maybe even  explicit) argument here is that all men can be Alphas if only they just try (and don’t forget to write Roosh that $150 check!).

In other words, all men can be in the top 20% of all of the men. All men can monopolize all of the best women. All men can be the top 20% of attractive men who get all the hot chicks. Are you laughing yet? It’s like Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average!

This post attempts to address this major complaint of mine, but honestly fails in that Vox Day doesn’t even answer my question. Many of the commenters get my point in one way or another though, and there are some superb comments on that thread. I hate to say it but this is one of the most intelligent and insightful threads I have read on a PUA site in a while.

16 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Man World, Political Science, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex

The Patriotard Mindset of the Average American

Number One Douche (great name for a typical American) says:

Of course the world doesn’t like us, we’ve been kicking their asses around like it’s no big deal and then just have to sit there and EAT IT! Sucks for them. It would suck for us it their opinion really mattered all that much.

I cannot tell you how many Americans I have met with exactly this attitude. All conservatives think like this, but you would be shocked to find out how many Democratic Party liberals think exactly like this too. And the end of the day, most Americans are patriotards. Great big douchey patriotards.

I am curious though. What % of the population do you think really thinks like this guy in one way or another? Surely over 50%. 60%? 70%? 80%?

The number must be very high because I hardly ever meet an American who doesn’t think like this in one way or another. This thinking seems to be part and parcel of the American mindset and personality.

My response: But that’s not a very good attitude now is it? Did we kick Iraq’s ass around? Did we kick the Taliban’s ass around? The Baath is still extremely strong (in fact they just took over all of Sunni Iraq), and the Taliban have never been defeated. We have pretty much failed in both countries, most spectacularly in Iraq.

I do not think it is an intelligent attitude to think that you are the bully on the block who has been kicking everyone’s ass for so long that there is nothing anyone can do it and you don’t even care how your victims think. Nothing lasts forever. If all you do is make enemies, that’s not a helpful way to go through life. People who fight everyone around them don’t have long life expectancies.

Our enemies sure have been killing and wounding a lot of Americans in recent years, haven’t they. Furthermore they have bled us dry spending treasure trying to beat the unbeatable.

9 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, US Politics, USA

In the Ukrainian Conflict, the West Is Lining up with the Nazis Against the Antifas. Why?

In the Ukrainian conflict pitting the Nazi Ukrainian regime against Novorussian antifa separatist self-defense forces in the East, all of the West is has lined up with the Nazis, oddly enough. This is really a re-run of the times right after WW2, when much of the West supported the Banderist Ukrainian nationalist Nazis fighting the USSR in the Ukraine. The Nazi nationalist forest fighters of the Baltic states such as Latvia and Estonia also received a lot of Western support, as did the rightwing death squad regime in Greece.

It didn’t take long after the Nazis were defeated that the West rallied with their old Nazi pals. Many Nazis were spirited away from the prison cells that loomed before them to South America and even to the United States. The US helped many of these Nazis escape because the CIA realized that Nazis were some of the most savage anti-Communists of all, and the CIA wanted to use these Nazis in order to fight the USSR.

In the early days of Hitler’s regime around 1933, many in the West were quite smitten with Adolf. The Jewish-owned New York Times even ran long articles lauding the Fuhrer for his staunch anti-Communism. This shows that the rich Jews will always side with Capital no matter what form it takes, even when Capital is against the Jewish people. Big Money Jews will choose Mammon over Israel any day of the week and will sell out the tribe for the price of a piece of silver with barely the blink of an eye.

The US of course is fanatically pro-Nazi. Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are supporting the Nazis in this conflict. Is there a reason for this except that US foreign policy has always supported rightwingers?

The UK is also extremely pro-Nazi now. What is the reason for this? Why would the UK be supporting the Nazis in this conflict? The truth here may be that the UK is an “Atlanticist” state. Atlanticism is a political philosophy popular in Western Europe for a while now. Atlanticist European states line up with the US on every foreign policy issue due to some unfracturable alliance. They don’t even think of the morals of the issue at stake – they simply do whatever Uncle Sam does. It’s follow the leader. It is considered to be an unbreakable alliance, and the Atlanticist states simply cannot refuse to do whatever the US does. A case of ideology trumping sense.

Spain is very pro-Nazi, but the Spanish ruling class never abandoned fascism, and further they are worried about secessionism in their own land. After the fall of Franco, the fascists never went away. Instead, they slowly folded into the ranks of the Conservative Party which has ruled Spain for more than a few years lately. Although that party is not actively fascist, at the very base of the party is deeply connected to movements with fascist roots. The party is not so much fascist as fascist-allied, and even that is mostly covered up in an ivy of subterfuge.

The Spanish state ran a fascist “anti-terrorism” group that assassinated figures in the Basque guerrilla movement for a number of years. This group operated outside of the military or the police purportedly as another illegal armed group, albeit a rightwing one, even though they were controlled by the security forces. This was for all intents and purposes similar to the CIA’s rightwing death squads of Latin America.

Germany is strongly pro-Nazi now. This makes sense in a lot of ways. Merkel is a Christian Democrat, and that is a party with deep fascist roots. At the end of WW2 although a de-Nazification was said to take place, it never really happened. A few Nazis were removed and even tried, but mostly the whole charade was over in a few years.

The reasons are painful. In order to do a true de-Nazification, you would have to had to imprison or sanction almost the entirety of German society. Nearly everyone was guilty at some level.

In East Germany, they did a much better job of this, and although the East German regime ended up being staunchly antifascist, this transformation never happened in the West.

Many former Nazis simply recycled their way into political parties, and the conservative Christian Democrats were the party of choice as the Social Democrats were anathema. The problem was even worse in industry and finance, where sanctions and prison sentences were few, and the German junkers, industrialists and banksters simply cycled their way back into power at the throne of German industry. The West German elite has been heavily former-Nazi for decades now. It’s a dirty little secret, one hardly anyone but Gunter Grass dares talk about.

The Netherlands is one of the most pro-Nazi states of all in Europe. I don’t get this, except that the Netherlands is one of the strongest Atlanticist states of them all. The tail on the American dog. They follow American orders.

France is taking a less pro-Nazi line than the rest. Most Frenchmen still hate the Vichy Regime, and all forms of Nazism and fascism are seen as repellent and against the moral values of the Republic.

Italy seems to be very much pro-Nazi. I am not sure if I get it, but an Italian friend told me that fascism is still popular among the Italian rich, especially in certain cities such as Rome. The young men of the Italian upper class are especially prone to this deviation. My friend said that fascism simply never went away in Italy. Indeed, some suggest that Berlusconi may have fascist ties.

The Strategy of Tension during the Days of Lead in the 1970’s was a terrorist campaign run by fascist gangs who were supported by the Italian state, the military and the rich. These gangs set off bombs all over Italy, focusing especially on places where large numbers of civilians gathered. The state and state-controlled press always blamed the armed Left (which was small but active) for the bombings, but they never carried out even one of them. Every one of these attacks was documented as a false flag attack. The purpose was simply to create chaos and terror so that the people would feel that they had nowhere to turn but to the state to protect them. Then the state put in increasingly authoritarian laws.

Norway is coming out very strongly for the Nazis, both the press and the vast majority of the people who are apparently brainwashed. I do not get this one either, but Norway surrendered immediately when attacked by Germany, and they promptly put in an ass-kisser named Quisling whose name has gone down in infamy. At the time though, nobody much minded him. What this less that spirited defense says about the Norwegian people, I am not sure.

Australian media is incredibly pro-Nazi. The Australians are part of the Anglosphere which consists of the US, the UK, Canada and Australia. All are now run by fairly rightwing governments. This is considered to be a de facto alliance based on common language and culture originating in the UK. Another case of Ideology Uber Alles.

In Poland, the elite is very much pro-Nazi (Poland and Lithuania are the most pro-Nazi states in Europe) because they have aligned themselves very tightly with US neocons, much to their own detriment. Somehow they think that aligning themselves with the US and with the neocons in particular is the way to the gravy train, but I think they are wrong.

A case of overreaction to their Soviet experience. They hated Communism so much that in reaction, they idiotically moved 180 degrees in the opposite rightwing direction to show how anti-Communist they were. Their hatred for Communism was so great that they lined up with the wildest anti-Communist governments of them all.

However, many of the Polish people are supporting the Novorussian antifas for some reason. This is probably because hatred for Nazism and fascism in general is still probably quite strong among ordinary Poles due to past experience.

Many East European regimes also adopted horrible neoliberal policies once again in an overreaction to Communism. In this case, they chose the most polar opposite economics of all to Communism, which would be neoliberalism/Libertarianism/cowboy capitalism.

Most East European countries who reacted in this stupid way have been seriously damaged. Latvia and Estonia have been nearly destroyed. 1/3 of the labor force of these countries has immigrated due to a financial collapse related to an utterly unregulated financial sector.

After the crash, the neoliberal regimes imposed frightening “austerity” nonsense which did nothing but kick the working people and spit on them while they lay in the gutter. Estonia actually passed laws cutting wages by 1/3. Surely the Estonian rich thought that was a great idea. Social services were eviscerated. It was like 1933 America in Tallinn the past few years. Logically, working people reacted to this extreme abuse by the rich, the capitalists and the political elite of their nations by voting with their feet.

Lithuania and Latvia issued pro-Nazi statements, but they had fascist governments when they were independent between world wars, and after independence, both Lithuanian and Latvian nationalism have had deep pro-Nazi roots. The Nazi-installed regimes in the 1940’s are regarded as the pinnacle of Baltic nationalism, and pro-Nazi fighters fought in the forests for years after the War against the USSR which had usurped their lands. Lithuania and Poland are the most pro-Nazi countries in all of Europe. They are absolutely determined to bring the Nazis into NATO. If they succeed, maybe we will have to change the name of it to Nazi Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Upon independence, all statues from the Soviet era were destroyed, Soviet street names were obliterated, and many new monuments were constructed to heroes of the Lithuanian and Latvian nationalist movements of the 1940’s and 1950’s who were deeply pro-Nazi.

Bigoted laws were imposed on the Russian minority in these countries, demanding that they learn to speak Latvian if they wanted to vote or claim benefits. Now a large percentage of the Latvian electorate, the Russian speakers, are disenfranchised and cannot vote in elections. Nevertheless, Latvia is very worried about the Russian minority in their country writhing under the Latvians’ own boot heels. There are rumblings of a secessionist movement among these Russians, but no one knows how serious it is.

Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia, Denmark, Slovakia, Ireland, Czech Republic, Romania and New Zealand – Their positions are unknown. Slovakia and Romania might want a bite out of a disintegrating Ukraine themselves. Romanian Bessarabia was annexed to the USSR in the 1940’s by Stalin.

Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Serbia may well be lining up against the Nazis and with the Russian antifas due to a common culture they share with Orthodox Russia. A large contingent of Serbian antifa fighters have gone to Novorussia to fight the Nazis.

5 Comments

Filed under Australia, Britain, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, European, Europeans, Fascism, France, Germany, Greece, History, Italy, Jews, Left, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marxism, Modern, Montenegro, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russians, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, USA, USSR, War

The Moshe Feiglin Plan for Gaza

Scary stuff.

This guy is the head of the major faction of the ruling party, the Likud. Most people do not realize it, but the Likud really is a hard rightwing party. It is nothing more than far right fascist political party, and it always has been. The roots of the party are in man named Jabotinsky, who wrote what amounts to the ultimate Likud party statement in 1921 (The Iron Wall) that has governed their philosophy ever since.

Feiglin is considered one of the real hotheads of the rightwing of this rightwing party. Some of his party is embarrassed by him. The Israeli Left hates him. While Netanyahu is a “shadow fascist” (does not display overt fascism), Feiglin is the real deal, a hardcore, hardline ultranationalist fascist of the 1930’s type. He even admires Hitler (as many fascist Zionists did) except for the Jew-killing part of course. These fascists have more in common than you think. A Nazi and a Jabotinsky Zionist might be able to get along just fine as long as they agreed to separate homelands.

Feiglin has also made some very ugly statements about Arabs.

He has made some anti-gay statements, but lately he is sucking up to the increasingly powerful Israeli Gay Lobby.

Feiglin of course is an Orthodox Jew. I honestly think he could get along with Hamas. Hamas are Muslim fundamentalists, and Feiglin is an Orthodox Jew. One’s as religious as the other. I think on some level they respect each other as deeply religious persons. And I have always felt that the real enemies of both the Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists were their secular brethren.

Seizing Gaza and throwing out the Arabs would be nothing new. The Jews have been doing this in Palestine since 1932. It really accelerated from 1947-1949 and then again in 1967. Every month of the year, Israel steals more land and throws more Palestinians off their land. It’s as regular as clockwork. Zionism is a settler-colonial project that is still in its active settler-colonial phase. Think the US before 1890.

Steal more land!

What’s scary is that this nut is really in the Israeli mainstream now. Israel internal politics have become quite frightening in recent years. How much further to the right can they go?

3 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Fascism, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Judaism, Middle East, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Ultranationalism, War, Zionism

Yankee Go Home!

How can anyone read this and say there is no such thing as US imperialism. Yet that is what most Americans will tell you.

How can anyone read this and say there is no such thing as US imperialism. Yet that is what most Americans will tell you.

Yes, Latin Americans have ruined Latin America, but they haven’t done so alone. They had a lot of help. One of the principal problems in Latin America now for a very long time has been the presence of the United States. Working in tandem with Latin American elites, the US has, over the last 100 years, probably done more to destroy that continent than any other factor.

Others have not been so innocent. As you can see, Britain ruined Guyana. All Guyana wanted was a social democracy like the UK had at the time, but the imperialist scum in the UK ruined that. Social democracy is good enough for the British, but we can’t let our neo-colonies (our slave states) have it.

The US mentality is similar. A typical reason for overthrowing a government in Latin America is that the President raised the minimum wage. Presidents both Democratic and Republican alike have overthrown Latin American governments for the simple crime of raising the minimum wage.

Barack Obama “liberal,” overthrew the government of Honduras. The main reason was because Zelaya raised the minimum wage. Barack Obama supports raising the minimum wage in the US, but in our neo-colonies, they don’t get that option because those are our slave states. Barack is no socialist, Communist, Maoist, Third Worldist or even anti-colonialist. What sort of socialist overthrows a government for the crime of raising the minimum wage?

Reactionary US foreign policy is a bipartisan project the world over, but this is especially true in Latin America. Democrats only pursue relatively liberal politics in the USA. Overseas, our foreign policy has always been far rightwing reaction. US Presidents never work for the people of the world. All US Presidents are the employees of the large US corporations and the rich, the 1%. The 1% call the shots in the US. The President listens, takes notes, stands up, salutes, and says, “Yes, sir.” That’s called “democracy.” LOL.

17 Comments

Filed under Americas, Britain, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Guyana, History, Imperialism, Latin America, Liberalism, Modern, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South America, The Americas, US Politics, USA

Aversive Racism Versus Dehumanizing Racism

Stealth writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is pretty much typical for a lot of liberals.

Comments Off

Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Liberalism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, White Racism, Whites

VV Putin, Conservative

Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.

— President Vladimir V. Putin

I am having a really hard time understanding why the Republican Party and 99% of US conservatives hate this guy so much. He sounds like he’s right up their alley. I don’t get it.

I think I would take a social conservative like Putin who objects to a war against normality over a humanitarian bomber liberal any day.

Typical American, leader of the Free World (TM):

“Assassinate Putin! And after that, let’s go to the gay pride parade!”

Lame.

What a way to lead the planet. USA! USA! USA!

6 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Eurasia, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, US Politics, USA