Bipartisan Support for Slavery in America

Here.

This stunning article from Alternet touches on a subject that no US news outlet will touch as they are all corporate outlets: the profound and inhumane abuse of immigrants via the H-2B guestworker program. On its surface, the H-2B program has no right to exist at all. Its existence is based on the notion that for some bizarre reason, the employer cannot find any or enough Americans to fill the needed the jobs. Nevertheless, most H-2B workers work in places with double digit unemployment.

The last time I was in Yosemite, where I formerly lived, the place was swarming with H-2B guestworkers. When I lived there in 1977, there was not a single job that went open for lack of a US worker to fill it. Now that corporate criminal Delaware North has taken over concessions from the more fair though still abusive Curry Company, many to most of the positions are filled with H-2B guestworkers, easier to abuse and mistreat.

The list of jobs in need of H-2B guestworkers is utterly amazing. One of them is “welder.” In shipyards all up and down the US Gulf Coast, thousands of welding jobs formerly filled by proud American workers are now filled by hyper-exploited H-2B guestworkers. Apparently, “welder” is one of those jobs that Americans just won’t do.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush Administration quickly passed a directive allowing enforcement-free mass importation of immigrants, legal and illegal, to do cleanup and rebuilding work in New Orleans. That there were countless able-bodied Blacks in New Orleans was overlooked, or maybe it wasn’t. This directive was passed for one reason and one reason only – so that corporations exploiting the rebuilding process would not have to hire New Orleans Blacks, or any Americans for that matter, to do the work. Instead, tens of thousands of post-Katrina jobs that could have gone to the desperate Blacks of New Orleans went to 25,000 illegal alien criminals.

Scarcely a single word was heard in protest of this directive. All Democrats and all US liberals will fall all over themselves to do anything to worship the Illegal Alien and Immigrant God that they prostrate themselves over. Conservatives will not say a peep because immigrants, legal and illegal cheaply replace costly US workers, On both sides of the aisle, on the Left and the Right, the polarized sides of the political chamber fall all over themselves to beat the US worker to a bloody mass of a pulp.

And it is true: If liberals and Democrats could replace the vast majority of US workers with immigrants, legal or illegal, no matter how exploited, they would do it in a heartbeat. And there is not a conservative who would not do the same.

The abuses of the H-1B program among tech workers in the US and especially in Silicon Valley are many and legion. Yet the loudest champions of the program, a knife expertly aimed at the pulsing heart of the US tech worker, are US Democrats, often liberal Democrats. Of course all Republicans support the plan. And Barack Obama loves nothing so much as he loves his H-1B wage slaves and job thieves.

It is interesting that a progressive organization, in this case, the sickening worms of Morris Dees’ SPLC, are actually protesting about abuses of US workers under the H-2B program. It is incredible that anyone on the Left would attack worker abuses of any kind. Yet the truth is sadder than it appears. The SPLC only wrote this report because the workers being abused were their cherished immigrants. The SPLC would never waste a tear on US workers. Like the rest of the US Left, they care only about immigrant job-thieves. There is no room in their heart for the abused American worker. US workers only get the sympathy of the Left if they hail from some foreign shore.

And what is the SPLC’s solution to the abuses of the H-2B program? A responsible position would be to support the reforms of the program outlined a bill killed with the indispensable help of Senate Democrats. But we know that the SPLC goes far beyond this. The SPLC, like the entire US Left, is an Open Borders organization. Their preferred solution would be abolish the H-2B program and open the US borders to hundreds of millions from the around the world who would quickly funnel through through our ungated edges.

And so we have it: when it comes to US workers, we truly have no friends. The Democrats and Republicans are both corporate capitalist parties, and as such will always oppose the workers when the interests of the workers and our elected leaders corporate masters collide. Selling one’s soul is simple, but it always comes with a price. And indeed, the loudest champions of the horrific slave labor abuses of the H-2B programs have been Democrats, including Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, usually typed as a liberal Democrat.

What we need is a pro-working class party in America. A party that will always or nearly always side with working class Americans, and I emphasize Americans. In the conflict between American workers and foreign invaders and job thieves, the position of the working class party should be obvious.

Time To Junk Internationalism?

Repost from the old site.

Superb commenter James Schipper takes on internationalism and suggests that nationalism is better for workers in this most interesting comment from the comments section of a recent post. My comments follow. I will say that I have a problem with nationalism in general and especially with the sound of the term “national socialism” for obvious reasons. Nationalism leads inevitably to racism, it seems.

But following pure internationalist logic, we are obligated to completely open borders. If you go over to leftwing and liberal pro-immigrant sites and prod them a bit, you often find that they actually do believe in Open Borders for the US.

That would mean that at some point, 1/3 of the world would be here, and 1/2 of Mexico (since 1/3 of the world and 1/2 of Mexico wants to come to the US). I argue that this would be a disaster for this country for many reasons. For one thing, we would become some kind of Calcutta West. For the environment, it would be a complete catastrophe.

At least at the start, unselected immigrants who are not interested in assimilation are only capable of recreating their own society in the new country. So Indians would recreate Calcutta in the US and Mexicans would recreate Mexico City in the US.

An excellent reason to make the immigration process highly rigorous, time-consuming, and difficult with much rejection of potential immigrants who do not make the cut is to insure that those immigrants remaining after the gauntlet-run are dedicated to assimilation.

Unscreened mass immigration, in particular illegal immigration, tends to create masses of immigrants with little interest in assimilating, plus you tend to get countless bad people mixed in with the good.

Many illegal immigrants are actually low-quality immigrants and would be rejected by any sane and rigorous US immigration program. The burden should be on the immigrant to show us precisely how and why they are going to be net positive to our country and not a negative.

Rigorously screened immigrants forced to go through a difficult and trying immigration process would be less likely to recreate Calcutta and Mexico City in the US.

Massive immigration of unskilled laborers is not only bad for ordinary workers, whose wages are driven downward, but also for taxpayers in general. There is no way that an unskilled immigrant can ever pay as much in taxes as he consumes in government services. There are two distributions going on here: upward redistribution of income among natives and transfer of income from natives to immigrants.

Your analysis above is essentially correct because it is based on the obvious premise that the real enemies of workers in high-wage countries are workers in low-wage countries. However, this is in flagrant contradiction with the Marxist idea that there is harmony of interests between all the workers of the world. That Marxist idea is totally false.

In a closed economy, workers and capitalists are like buyers and sellers. The interests of buyers and sellers are not necessarily harmonious but they are complementary and therefore in principle compatible.

Capital without labor is like a truck without a driver and labor without capital is like a transportation worker without a truck. Such a worker can’t transport much. Capital without labor is useless and labor without capital is unproductive.

Under national capitalism, there can be solidarity between workers and capitalists. Under global capitalism there can’t be because capital will use foreign labor as scabs, as you pointed out.

You may not realize it, but you are actually a national socialist in the literal sense of the term. The slogan of national socialism is not “Proletarians of the world, unite”, but “Workers and capitalists of the nation, unite in the interest of the nation”. National socialism does not preach international proletarian brotherhood but national brotherhood.

The Marxist notion of class struggle is pernicious because it makes national solidarity impossible, the only solidarity that can exist. Class struggle should not be fomented but overcome. Divisions can only be overcome by appealing to a higher common interest, and that can only be the nation.

It is only when the capitalists abandon all solidarity with their proletarian compatriots that class struggle becomes necessary, but such struggle should not be waged at a global level because the foreign workers are the allies of the capitalists. Instead of preaching class struggle, the left should appeal to the national sentiments of capitalists.

You and Patrick Buchanan are actually quite close. Your position is also quite similar to the BNP and the German NPD.

Another Marxist idea that is completely false is that workers have no country. It is often capitalists that have no country. Workers are tied to a place and that makes them patriotic. Nobody can have jobs in 20 different countries, but capitalists can easily own businesses in 20 countries.

If there are people without a country, it is global capitalists. A former CEO of the “Dutch” multinational Phillips once said that he wished that the head office of Phillips could be located in the middle of the Atlantic, which goes to show what a loyal Dutchman he was.

Over 80% of the employees of Phillips are now non-Dutch, so to call Phillips a Dutch company simply because most of its owners and top managers are Dutch is to show a capitalist bias. A company does not only consist of owners and managers but also of employees. Calling a company like Phillips Dutch is like saying that SA under apartheid was a white country because whites had most of the wealth and power.

The superiority of national socialism over Marxist socialism was proven in WWII. When Stalin had to motivate the Russians to fight, he didn’t appeal to international proletarian solidarity, which would have been a complete flop, but he appealed to Russian nationalism because genuine nationalism unites while Marxist class struggle only divides.

Socialism can only work at a national level. The Swedish socialist, among the most successful in the world, created a welfare state for Swedes only. It was solidarity that ended at the national border. Now that the Swedish socialists have been infected with political correctness, they are undermining the Swedish welfare state by importing huge numbers of immigrants.

As one Dutch socialist put it, the welfare state is a strictly national arrangement.

The Left has hurt its cause immensely by its hostility to religion and to nationalism. Socialism without nationalism is impotent and nationalism without socialism is fraudulent. A person who claims to be a nationalist but who is a libertarian willing to let poorer members of the nation languish in misery and ignorance is like a man who claims to be a good family man but who never helps less fortunate family members.

Bottom line: there is absolutely nothing progressive about massive immigration of low-skilled to unskilled labor whatsoever. Citizens suffer from cutbacks in government social programs meant to help them.

There is a redistribution of income upwards in the citizenry itself, such that the lower 80% or so of society loses and the upper 20% of so of society gains. IOW, owners and possibly upper management and investors make out big and the workers (generally 80% or so of society) lose money.

In addition to losing money, they also lose services. It is quite possible that they may also see tax hikes to pay for diminishing services. Workers see their wages decline, suffer income losses, lose social services and get tax hikes.

The top 20% of society gets a tremendous amount of increased income, sees dramatic decreases in the wages it must be its workers, and in all probability sees the Gramscian culture of society change in favor of the top 20%, who now increasingly run things and dominate society in general. Why? With the dramatic income shift upwards towards the top 20%, this group will be able to buy the government more and more.

Since government is mostly made up such folks (in Congress and the Executive Branch), they will be delighted by their increased wealth and will continue to direct government policies to continue this redistribution.

The lopsided money shift will also mean that more and more of a nation’s discretionary spending will be done by the top 20%. I believe already they spend at least and possibly way over 50% of all consumer spending. So advertisers direct most of their advertising to this top group, and just ignore the bottom 80%.

This is why when you turn on the TV, you see one advertisement after another directed towards the top 20% of society. This is why when you open up Time Magazine, 90% of the people they interview are in the top 20%, and most of their stories seem to be directed at this group also. It is almost as if the rest of us did not even exist.

I would also like to point out the inevitable: sitting there watching TV and seeing one ad after another directed at the top 20% and realizing that one is a million miles away from that income bracket, many folks will only get resentful and angry and determined to get into that bracket.

Since even if everyone tried to get into the top 20%, 80% would fail, most people are just never going to get there. This increases the dog eat dog mindset, societal atomization and probably even the crime rate.

Liberals and the Left support this!

Why Jews Support Open Borders

There are some comments suggesting that Jews support Open Borders for less than ulterior motives. One suggestion was that Jews supported Open Borders in order to get Hispanics on board with pro-Israel sentiment. Another suggestion was that Jews made an agreement to support the Black Agenda if Blacks would ease up on South Africa, an Israeli ally.

First of all, Jews are going to support the Black agenda anyway, so there’s no need for an agreement. Second of all, this deal did not work very well because Blacks kept hammering away at South Africa nevertheless.

Sure, Jews are basically looking out for their own. Of course they are.

But that doesn’t explain Jewish liberalism very much. Jewish liberalism is deep and heartfelt and frankly goes against their economic self-interest as wealthy people. It’s probably a holdover from the early days when the Jews first came here and they were poor and often Leftist. Then there is the Reform notion of Tikkun Olam, making the world a better place. Jews have been heavily involved in many or most of the progressive projects in the past century. Most Jews think that’s pretty cool. Why were they doing that? Maybe Tikkun Olam.

The Right has been anti-Semitic for a long time, at least a century or more in Europe and in the US.

Before that, Napoleon was a progressive who tried to overthrow conservative monarchies in Europe in the name of a progressive project, almost a Woodrow Wilson or neoconservative before his time. He also liberated the Jews. This may have begun the love affair between progressives and the Jews. In other words, Jewish liberalism or Leftism may have begun with Napoleon.

US conservatism was anti-Semitic for most of this century. It was only with the Reagan Revolution and the New Right headquartered in Orange County, California, that the Right began to move away from that. The Birchers also turned away from anti-Semitism after a bit.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party is very racist, mostly against Blacks and to a lesser extent against Hispanics. Jews see that and worry. Most Jews figure that a White who hates Blacks or maybe Hispanics probably doesn’t like Jews very much either. It’s a form of paranoia, but it’s based on reality.

Further, the Republican Party is insanely Christian fundamentalist. Jews don’t think too much of Christianity period for historical reasons. And they really don’t like these fundie Christians one bit. These fundies are like Christians on steroids, and most liberal Jews do not like them or trust them.

We have not talked enough on here about the sociology of political expression. Jews grow up in a liberal environment, so they turn into liberals.

In my previous post, I noted a number of towns I had lived in and how it seemed that every White person in the towns was a conservative Republican. I never was, but frankly that was not an easy position for me to take, and I suffered a lot for it. The peer pressure to go along with the crowd is extreme in White communities, and I think this is one reason so many Whites go Republican. They are simply doing what everyone else is doing.

We see this with conservatism in Texas, Arizona, the mountain West, the Ozarks, the South and Appalachia. I’ve known conservative Whites from these areas, and I often felt that they got into that politics because that was what everyone else was doing. Most didn’t seem to have a logical reason for being reactionaries.

What’s going on here is that liberal Jews like the Jewish organizations think that anti-immigrant sentiment is bad for the Jews. They were all immigrants not too long ago. And they know that anti-immigrant sentiment leads to nativism, which turns to racism, which turns to racist nationalism or racist ethnonationalism, which has a tendency historically to turn on the Jews as not real Sneeds of Sneedland or whatever.

Also, most of these organizations are made up of liberal Jews, and if you are a Democratic Party liberal, I know this from experience, it is utterly mandatory that you get on board with the Open Borders thing. If you don’t, you are shunned and ultimately banned from forums or cast out of party circles in one way or another. The Democratic Party and liberalism has a number of issues on which you are not allowed to dissent, and Open Borders is one of them.

“Progressive Nationalism,” by Metal Gear

Good stuff from Free Media Productions.

I often don’t completely agree with what they have to say on things, but this is one of the best he’s ever written. Good on the conflict between internationalism and nationalism, the problems of nationalism, which tends to be inherently reactionary, the fixation of the Left with destructive internationalism, the reality that many Left figures were actually nationalists, etc.

Also goes into why Trotskyites, as extreme internationalists, race mixers and culture destroyers, are up to no good, why their view goes against human nature, and why they have always failed.

The problem with nationalists is that they are inherently reactionary. And most of them tend towards fascism of one type or another. In addition, they are as irrational as the nuttiest religionist.

That said, love of one’s homeland, language and culture has a place in multicultural corporate McWorld. Progressive nationalism may well be the answer. Surely in the developed world, internationalism taken to its logical extreme (open borders) is suicidal and will drive everyone down to the lowest common demoninator in a race for the bottom and the 3rd World essentially replicates itself across the world.

Metal Gear’s piece also takes apart the Right and Left idiots blaming the Jews for multicultural McWorld. It’s idiotic. All of the elites all over the world and capitalism itself are the globalizers. The Jew Thang is just a Holy Grail, a skeleton key to the known world that gives you that epiphany of light where everything crashes together and it all adds up. Except you’re on a rabbit trail to nowhere, the Jew Trail. There’s little light or wisdom in the anti-Semitic conception of reality.

Open borders means that the 3rd World will of course stay remain the 3rd World, probably even worse because all the smart folks will take off for the 1st World. But there will be enough typical Third Worlders flooding into the First World that after a bit, the First World will have a Third World look to it. A bunch of crabs climbing to the top of the barrel and all pulling each other down to the bottom of the pail. There will be, crabs scuttling at the bottom of a bucket, in a Third World planet.

Hopefully I’ll be dead before then.

Aztlan and Zionism: Dueling Idiocies

Repost from the old site.

In this post, we will take a look at two nationalisms, Zionism, the movement to (re)create the ancient Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Aztlan, the Mexican and Chicano movement that says that part of the Western US is actually part of Mexico, and more importantly, was the homeland of the Aztec people.

As with most forms of ultra-nationalism, both movements are exercises in lying and nonsense. And both are similar in other ways, too.

Both propose that, because the area in question (Western US, Palestine) was the ancient homeland of the people some 2,000-5,000 years ago, that they have a right to move en mass into the region and even to annex it or possibly make their state there (the Aztlan movement is divided on whether Aztlan should be annexed to Mexico or whether it should be its own state).

Both are based on some highly questionable claims of ownership. There is serious question whether or not Aztlan (an area covering part of the Western US – map here) is actually the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, as this article claims, supposedly with authoritative sources.

Let us examine the article, by Patrisia Gonzales and Roberto Rodriguez, a writing team that somehow got UPI to syndicate their ultra-radical Chicano nationalist nonsense for many years.

The authors found a map in the National Archives in Washington from 1847 with a notation near the Four Corners Area in the US referring to The Ancient Homeland of the Aztecs.

This scribbling on a map somewhere by God knows who purportedly “proves incontrovertibly” that all Mexicans and all Central Americans have a right to move to the USA tomorrow, because the US Four Corners is their “ancient homeland”.

The authors also note a tradition of the US Pueblo, Hopi, and Lakota (!?) Indian tribes that Nahuatl speakers were their former relatives. There are major problems with this. How would these tribes describe these “Nahuatl” speaking people, since back then, there is no way that they called their language or themselves by that name?

Since they called themselves and their language something else, how did these tribes know that they were “Nahuatl”-speakers? And why the Lakota? They are located far from this fake homeland, way up in South Dakota.

Further, as one who worked with an Indian tribe on a government grant doing linguistic and anthropological field work, I assure you that Indian legends and oral history need to be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, to say the least!

The authors quote Cecelio Orozco, an education professor at my alma mater, California State University Fresno as saying this lines up with his research also putting the Aztec homeland in southern Utah. Professor Orozco has published two books of apparent pseudoarcheology on this subject.

Here is how Orozco discovered this homeland (try not to laugh when reading this):

Orozco said he came upon the site through a process called “archeo-astronomy.” He saw a photograph of four rivers in Utah in 1980, and based on previous research, recognized a mathematical formula in the photo that led him to believe that this was the place of origin of the Mexicas’ ancestors. Subsequent trips and research has confirmed his thesis… 

After reading this fascinating article on archaeoastronomy, I still do not see how that science relates to a photograph of four rivers in Utah. Does anyone have any idea how a photograph of four rivers anywhere on Earth contains some hidden mathematical formula?

He also found a painting on a wall in Utah from 500 BC that he says he claims corresponds to the the codec containing the Aztec calendar. Those of us familiar with the field realize that finds all over the world look like other finds, or resemble other peoples, or bear this or that passing resemblance to whatever. None of that usually proves anything; much more work needs to be done.

According to the article, because Aztecs have a homeland in Utah dating back 2500 BC, Mexicans and Central Americans are no longer foreigners or aliens or even immigrants in the US, but they are simply in their homeland.

By that lunatic thinking, all White Americans get emigrate back to Europe and live there, since that was our homeland at some point in the past. The Europeans have no right to stop us, and we can even call it Euroamland or whatever and carve out our own damn country out of several European countries, make English the official language and even sideline the several non-English European tongues spoken there.

Then we can demand to be united with the US across the sea or just up and make our own country, dissolving several European countries in the process.

It is this sort of nonsense that makes me wonder just how smart your average Mexican Reconquista type really is. On reflection, they are obviously bright people, it is just that ultranationalism, or even often just nationalism, damages people’s brains and makes them incapable of rational thought. It does this across the board to any ethnic group – there is no reason to single out Mexicans or Chicanos.

Let us examine some of the other insane suppositions of the Aztlan crowd. We have already delved into this a bit on this on an earlier post.

First of all, the Aztecs (Mexicas) had only taken over the Mexico City area about 200 years previous to the Spanish Conquest. The empire reached its peak only about 40 years before Cortes landed. Further, the Mexicas only lived in the area around Mexico City! That’s it. All of the rest of Mexico was not Mexica territory and the tribes (even those colonized by Mexicas) who lived there cannot be said to be Mexicas!

As an analogy, let us consider the Roman Empire. Its headquarters were in Rome. The rest of the empire were just colonies, conquered areas paying tribute to Rome. Can we say that everyone in the Roman Empire was a “Roman” or an “Italian”? By the same logic, do those residing in Rome today have a right to claim all of the former Roman Empire as their land?

This is what would happen if we applied “Aztlan”-logic to that situation. Do you see how stupid this Aztlan nonsense-lie is? The Aztecs did conquer quite a bit of land in the center of Mexico (map here), killing lots of folks and enslaving others.

As noted below, the homeland of the Nahua, according to prominent Mexican archaeologist Eduardo Matos Moctezuma was probably somewhere around Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán* . From this area, 2,000 years ago, various waves of Nahua speakers radiated out through Mexico and even Central America. This is why we have 28 living Aztec (or Nahuatl) languages today.

By the way, Wikipedia is wrong that these languages are almost dead. Most are quite vigorously used, and there are 1.5 million speakers of all Nahuatl languages.

27 of these 28 tribes are not, and were not, Mexicas, anymore than everyone speaking a Romance language today is a “Roman”. Follow?

A somewhat more rational take on the Aztlan lie can be found on the Reconquista site here. Apparently real anthropologists put the Aztec homeland somewhere around Nayarit on the west coast of Mexico. That’s a lot more reasonable, but it’s probably not true either. This comes from Mexican anthropologist Alfredo Chavero’s theory in 1887. Moctezuma’s locale is probably better.

The piece also argues that since Nahuatl is an Uto-Aztecan language and many Uto-Aztecans either lived in or traveled through “Aztlan”, that there is something to the Aztlan notion in that sense. Fair enough.

In fact, the homeland of the Uto-Aztecans in my opinion is in southern Arizona or northern Mexico. But all Native Americans traveled through Siberia on their way to the Americas. Does everyone with Indian blood in the Americas get to go back to Russia and take over the place because their ancestors strolled through it sometime in the past 20,000 years?

Looking at the linguistic contacts of pre-Nahuatl would be a good way of trying to find an Aztec homeland. We can see that they had contacts with languages spoken around Veracruz, on the east coast of Mexico. As you can see, the situation is complicated.

The authors in the first article make an even more ludicrous point. First, as usual, they conflate the “Aztecs” a single tribe called the Mexica, amongst Mexico’s over 200 tribes, that only lived around Mexico City, with all Mexicans.

According to idiot Chicano nationalists, all Mexicans with Indian blood are Mexica or part Mexica! That’s nuts. As noted, there were tribes all over the land, and the Mexica were only one of 200 or so. It’s as if one said that every Italian comes from Rome.

Next, they say that all of the tribes related to the Mexicas were “Mexicas” because they spoke Nahuatl languages. They certainly were not! It’s nonsense. Are all speakers of Indo-European languages the one and same group because they all came out the Indo-European homeland in Southern Ukraine 8,000 years ago?

Even worse, these fools claim that all Central Americans were Aztecs and get to go invade the USA because it’s home sweet home.

Ridiculous. There is only one tribe, the Pipil in El Salvador, that still speaks a Nahuatl language, and there are only 20 speakers left. There were a few other Nahuatl languages in Honduras, Panama and Guatemala, but these are long since extinct. They were not “Aztecs” anymore than English-speakers in the US are “Germans”.

However, the Pipil did come from the area around Mexico City around 1000 years ago; they were related to Olmecs, but also to the Nahuatl. In general, they were an Olmec grouping. Anyway, at that time, there were no such thing as Mexicas or Aztecs – that group came later. Another group of Pipil had come to Central America 5000 years ago and came under the influence of the Maya.

This is around the time when Proto-Uto-Aztecan itself was born in the southwest US. Both of these groups, by 1000 AD, became the Pipil, who came under even more Maya influence.

The Pipil are almost extinct culturally and linguistically today, an end result of the Matanza, when 10,000-30,000 Indians were slaughtered in only a few weeks in El Salvador in 1932, while US warships patrolled off the coast in case the victims of the genocide tried to fight back.

After that, most Salvadoran Indians took off their Indian clothes and quit speaking Indian languages, especially since Pipil was outlawed. They also intermarried heavily with non-Indians, so that to this day, only 1% of El Salvador’s population are Indians. The area of the Matanza became one of the most conservative, pro-government parts of El Salvador, little effected by the Civil War from 1980-1993.

The leader of the rebellion that set off the Matanza was Farabundo Marti, head of the Salvadoran Communist Party. The rebels that fought in the Civil War later on took their name, Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front, from him.

The cult surrounding Zionism is much the same as the Aztlan nonsense. True, Jews ruled the area long ago, but only for a brief time, similar to the Aztecs. Further, similar conflations are made about the Judean Empire and the Aztlan Empire, Judean language and religion and actual Jews and Jewish religion and the relevance of ancient Judean religion to the Jewish religion today.

Also similar is the outrageous notion that some group has a right to go back to its ancient homeland of 2000-5000 years ago, settle there at will, and even make a state there. Some of the radical Atzlanistas, similar to Zionists, also suggest throwing out the natives (in the case of the Aztlanistas the Whites, who came starting 400 years ago) since they are “invaders squatting on the true homeland”.

In this same nonsensical way, Zionists project their own invasion of Palestine and squatting on Palestinian land off onto the victim. The Arabs, who came 1450 years ago, are the “invaders”, who have been squatting on “Jewish land” since then. Never mind that the Jews left 2000 years ago. They owned Palestine in their hearts in the intervening 1900 years, and Zionism claims that that trumps a property deed!

Zionism’s proponents are Jews, the smartest folks on Earth, who ought to know better. But ultra-nationalism can easily make a fool of the finest man.

See Joachim Martillo’s site, Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel, for more. In particular, his superb Issues and Questions In the Historiography of Pre-State Zionism (90 pp.!), is a piece which deserves much wider reading. Martillo has some tendency towards fanaticism (but this also drives him to produce), can be an ideologue, and is sometimes guilty of trying to make facts fit theory as opposed to otherwise.

However, these (especially making the facts fit theory) are chronic problems with most all social scientists, as Kevin MacDonald has observed.

At the least, the brilliant Martillo should be more widely read, if only to subject his interesting theories to the critical light of peer review to separate wheat from chaff. And the 90 page link above is just sublime, in particular in the way that it takes apart the primordial nonsense of Zionism in the same way we attacked the similar primordialism of the Atzlanistas in this post.

*Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan, New York: Thames and Hudson, 1988) 38.

Debate With an Aztlanista Traitor

Frederic, apparently an Aztlanista reconquista traitor who has listened to one too many Latrino Studies lectures, comments. His comments are in the blockquotes.

But I guess if Mexico gets it shit together and becomes a first world, thriving country somewhen in the future, then a political reconquista will probably be the inevitable.

This will never happen. Mexico will always be Mexico because it is full of Mexicans. Nothing can change this reality.

Anyway, if it did happen, the US would hopefully attack Mexico. Any sane US government would send in the army and secure the area. We should also probably start deporting the Chicano traitors who sided with the enemy if this ever came up. As you can see, I am not an America-hating traitor at all. In fact, I am a patriot and these Reconquista weenies really bring out the flagwaver in me.

This is why I say that Aztlan theory is dangerous, and Aztlanistas are worse than assholes. They are traitorous assholes. And if Aztlan theory ever catches fire and gains mass support, we will be in a world of shit and God help us. Luckily, there is no sign of that occurring.

This would especially happen if Mexican Americans educated themselves and found out the shit Mexican Americans went through and the broken promises for those Mexicans who stayed in US gained lands after the U.S.-Mexican war.

I assume they have all been brainwashed about this stuff in classes, but almost none of them seem to care. Honestly. I know these people very well.

They’d probably feel alien and disillusioned with the country of the US (especially if they remain unassimilated).

Won’t happen. Once Latinos get to be a majority anywhere, they are happier than pigs in shit, except for professional radicals and complainers. And after 2-3 generations, 100% of them assimilate. By the 3rd generation, most do not even speak Spanish anymore.

As a matter of fact Robert, your city is an example of reconquista.

Not really. Whites still run this town. I think the Latinos like it that way.

We know how to run municipalities.

They don’t.

Once a city goes all Latino, it’s government goes all Latino, and the place basically falls apart turns into “Little Mexico.” The Mexicans with any brains and sense take note of when the last White person packed up and start packing their bags themselves. If you ask them why they left, they will say the place went to Hell when all the Whites left.

Most Hispanics will probably be united by the same idiocy that plagues the common American mind: the notion of a “Hispanic” race.

They already are, and they’re some of the stupidest humans I have ever met when it comes to race. They have no understanding of biological race whatsoever. Anyway, they’re already all united under “Latino,” and the loony Aztlan notion has no support.

There is No Atzlan; There Will Be No Reconquista

AJ asks:

Robert Lindsay, do you support La Reconquista? I know your conflicted on immigration, but are you OK with millions of Mexicans taking the Southwest and turning it into Aztlan? 

Ain’t gonna happen. Mexicans are not that stupid. Even Mexicans are not stupid enough to annex this place with Mexico or create a new state. They came here to flee Mexico, remember. Mexico sucks. USA is cool. So they leave there and come here.

Aztlan crap is just an indulgence for often-ignorant bourgeois Chicanos who went off to the university and “got some of those funny ideas” as my great grandmother used to say. They took some Latrino Studies courses taught by some idiot racist Marxist Brown Beret overeducated asshat bigmouths.

Your average Chicano never even graduates from high school. They’ve never even walked onto a college campus. I talk about this Aztlan crap with local Chicanos, and 90% don’t even know what I’m talking about. I explain it to them, and they still don’t know what I’m talking about. These are phenomenally ignorant people, keep in mind. This is a culture that utterly celebrates ignorance and the Idiocracy.

Those that know about it simply shrug their shoulders or have no opinions.

A few gangbangers say they are going to take this place back, but they are just worthless assholes with the IQ’s of hedgehogs shooting off their GED-less potty mouths.

Aztlan is much ado about nothing. Chicanos like living with the White man. White man makes a good society for Chicanos to live in. White man leaves, it all reverts back to Mexico-in-USA. Chicanos ain’t that dumb. They want us to stick around, and deep down inside, they know that they need us, and most of them don’t even hate us anyway.

Hell, millions of them are more or less White themselves. What’s a White? What’s a Latino? It’s getting pretty confusing here in California.

See, I could turn into a Latino automagically just by lying about my ancestry. Now I’m one of them. See how easy that is? It’s not like the White-Black thing at all.

On the Non-persistance of Any Jewish Agenda

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Z, a very smart commenter, deals with the “Jews are bad for Whites” thing and takes on the anti-Black nastiness that pervades the whole White nationalist movement. Z’s an anti-Semite, but we allow anti-Semites on the board. The only rule is that they have to eat the Matzos and drink the Manischewitz grape wine when we serve it.

He’s a soft White nationalist, but he’s for Blacks. I think this is healthy.

If you love yourself, surely you can love others? So, if you’re ethnocentric, surely you can love other ethnics, right? I’m for me and my people. I look in the mirror and like what I see. I proud of the good things my people have done in our history, and I’m proud of my ancestors. That’s normal, healthy, human thinking. Why should I hate anyone else?

Why does self-love equate to hatred of others? It doesn’t necessarily work that way on the individual level, so why should it on the ethnic or tribal level?

Z writes:

Though I read it often, I’m not a huge fan of American Renaissance because of the blatant and over-the-top anti-Black/African stance of the commenters there, and also because they totally ignore/censor articles, posts, and discussion regarding the Jewish Question.

Obviously though, AmRen is fully correct when it comes to the current mass-immigration issue.

Anyhow, being anti-Black is bottom of the barrel racism in my opinion, too easy, too simple-minded…too desperate, too low.

I am from the South so perhaps I am more sympathetic to the plight of African Americans than most White Americans because I grew up amongst them, went to school with them, played sports with them, and have seen the poverty/degradation/ignorance in which many of them unfortunately live.

And just to say: a system of local agrarian socialism would be an excellent system in helping many African Americans become more communally sufficient, because many Blacks in America are still very rural and they actually own a lot of good agricultural land too in America nowadays.

In my opinion though, if one wants to understand the real cancer eating away at White/Euro cultures, one must confront the Jews. Jews have done more damage and will continue to do more damage to White/European majority societies than Blacks ever did or will do.

In fact, Jews were in many ways central to the slave trade which brought hordes of African slaves on to American shores over the centuries (I intend to eventually post about this on my blog when I become more active on there).

Damn, Jews have been promoting ‘multiculturalism’ for a long damn time, haven’t they?

I respond: I don’t think it makes sense to blame the whole slave trade on the Jews. That’s not rational.

My problem with the whole “Jews are the enemy of our race” thing is that a Hell of a lot of the folks singing this multiculti tune are not Jews. They’re just White Gentiles. All these people writing pro-immigrant articles on our papers – White Gentiles. The Open Borders Lobby – the Whites in it are Gentiles.

I have another problem with this – if it’s so obvious that the Jews are bad for White Gentiles, why don’t ethnocentric White Gentiles just ignore them every time they come on TV, or start mouthing off in the press?

Turn on your Jew Filter, and set it to High Cynicism. To be completely honest, I do something like this myself. I have no illusions about the Jews. They’re for the Jews, but they hardly ever come out and say so. So you have to subject their communications to a little “deconstruction”.

I know a White Gentile who does this right now – he points out every time a Jew is on TV. It so happens that it seems like it’s about 50% of the time! To say that he takes what they say with a huge grain of salt would be underestimating him. The guy I’m thinking of is a Communist, albeit an ethnocentric White Gentile one.

Are White Gentiles really so stupid that they let themselves be led around by the nose by some petty little self-interested tribe? I’m not sure if I have that much respect for them then. Maybe they deserve what they get. You should be attuned enough to your self-interests not to let some frankly inconsequential little pissant tribe lead you around like a mule.

It’s true that the Jews pushed the 1965 Act and opposed the earlier Act in the 1920′s.

The Jews hate monolithic cultures, especially White Christian cultures. Historically, these cultures have been bad for the Jews, to put it mildly. So they want to make them into multiethnic cultures that will be safer for the Jews.

Jews just promote what’s good for the Jews, that’s all. If monoethnic White Christian cultures were good for the Jews and multiethnic cultures were bad for them, they would be promoting White Christian monoethnic cultures and opposing multiethnic ones. You would find no greater foes of multiculturalism than the Jews, trust me on that.

No one out here in California cares about Black people. There are not enough of them around. I agree with Z that picking on Blacks is just the lowest of the low. You call that creative thinking? Come on. Talk about beating a guy when he’s down. Talk about an easy target.

The Jews are relatively amoral on their project – there is no set agenda behind it. When Communism was good for the Jews, they promoted Communism. When capitalism was good for the Jews, they promoted capitalism. In general, there’s no overriding Jewish agenda other than the classic, “Is it good for the Jews?”.

100% of Hardcore US Racists Vote Republican

Repost from the old site.

If you go to White nationalist sites, you will be damned if you ever find even one Democrat on those boards. You will find some ex-Democrats. Nor will you even find one person who votes Democrat, except some now voting Obama for racist reasons*.

I’ve made the rounds of many of these sites. The truth is that 100% of US hardcore White racists vote Republican! Year in and year out. Are there any hardcore White racists in the US who vote Democrat? I do not think so. I’ve never met one, and I’ve never seen one anywhere on the Net.

The White racists are simply a subset of US Whites. On the White racist sites, they make it completely clear that the Republican Party is the party to vote for if you are White, and especially if you are a racist White.

In looking at how White racists in the US vote overwhelmingly Republican, we can begin to understand why US Whites vote so overwhelmingly Republican. I suggest that the hardcore racists and the rest of the Whites are voting Republican for some pretty similar reasons.

James Schipper in the comments points out that the Republican Party has hardly given US Whites a damned thing for their racist votes. At the very least, he argues, it could have come down hard on illegal immigration, reduced legal immigration and ended affirmative action.

Instead, the Republican Party is 100% Open Borders and can’t get enough millions of legal immigrants to satisfy their needs. It’s true that they have made some movements on affirmative action, and it’s being outlawed by many states anyway. But private firms can still have diversity goals and whatnot, and that’s apparently legal.

The Republican Party has been winking at White racism for decades now. In 1981, Reagan went to the site in the South where the bodies of the two murdered civil rights workers were found and spoke before a crowd of hollering, hooting White peckerwood crackers, saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been a horrible mistake. Bush’s appointees to the Supreme Court apparently oppose civil rights, but little has come of that.

The Republicans, a plutocratic political party, have used the racist Whites in the same way they used the culture warriors, the Christian Right and the rest. Your average plutocrat is probably not very racist, not very religious and cares nothing about holy roller Christians.

Wealthy young women have abortions in very high numbers. The wealthy drink, use drugs, have promiscuous sex, have homosexual sex, and do all sorts of depraved things at a greater rate than the middle classes – they always have in most every society. At the same time, they cynically use the culture wars stuff to get the fools and suckers to vote for the plutocratic party.

Like the rich who supported the Nazis, they hope to use them for the ride and hopefully never implement any of the projects of the racists or holy rollers. When it finally gets to the point where the rich need to implement racist or holy roller policies in order to stay in power, things get awfully dicey. It’s a dirty, dirty, dirty, dirty game the rich play.

*There is a fascinating movement within White nationalism called White Nationalists For Obama. The idea here is to “heighten the contradictions” in Marxist terms. Electing a Black president will be so horrible that it will “wake up the sleeping Whites” to the White racist cause.

The resulting tumult will be so great that a vast race war will break in the US. In the course of this race war, the Whites will win. The upshot will be either the removal of all non-Whites from the US, or their sequestration to a few states of their own.

I used to think that the race war thing was only a dream of the real hardcore White power types, but even if you go to the more moderate sites, you will find huge numbers of commenters who are all for race war in the US to “shake things out”. I was appalled. I really don’t think it’s ever going to happen, but in analyzing White nationalism, we ought to conclude that many, perhaps most, of them long for a race war in the US.

The Multicultural Curriculum at California Universities

A friend of mine is at university now in California. He has to take some BS called the Multicultural Curriculum. It’s a requirement. They might as well call it the White People Are Evil Curriculum. It’s really stupid.

My friend is the only ethnocentric White in his classes. The other Whites are all self-hating idiots. He met one White guy who was going to join the Brown Berets (Hispanic fascists).

Many of the Whites are Armenians, and to a person, they refuse to identify as Whites. They are Armenians, not Whites, and are also rather White-hostile.

The Hispanics are really militant and all have a major grudge against Whitey. Some of the Hispanics are highly agitated and militant, almost revolutionary. The spark of their glorious revolutionary flame? Illegal aliens! The Hispanics are not very good students, and many of them drop out, but they are better students than the Blacks.

There are Blacks in the classes too, but they don’t care about the anti-White stuff for some reason. In general, they don’t even go to class. Most of them are gone before the class is over, having dropped the class or dropped out of school. It seems it’s not so much that they are dumb but more that they just are not interested in class. The smarter Blacks are the females, but some of them are also mouthy, argumentative, ignorant and won’t take no for an answer. They also have a “Let’s wing it,” slacker type attitude.

There are a lot of Asians too, but they don’t care about the anti-White stuff. They are excellent students, and a lot of them are females.

The teachers are generally Jews or non-Whites like Asians or East Indians. They’ve all got a grudge against Whites. He had a Chinese professor who went on and on about the Chinese Exclusion Act as if it were the crime of the century.

The Jewish teachers are some of the worst White-haters of them all. I never cared much about this type of Jew, but I developed an intense dislike of one Jewish sociology professor my friend had just based on his tales of the guy. There can be no doubt about it – this guy is simply an enemy of me and my people. The professor was absolutely animated with anti-White animus. It’s what he was all about.

The professors all promote some weird garbage “Leftism” that is a mixture of globalization with a strong neoliberal and pro-corporate slant on economics (endless praise of “free markets”), and pro-greed consumerist bourgeois ethic, combined with Open Borders for the West -  unlimited immigration of “good” Third Worlders to the “evil” West. It’s basically “free markets and open borders.”

I fail to see anything even slightly progressive about this project.