The Real Reason for Venezuela’s Economic Problems

This video shows the truth about Venezuela’s economic problems. In short, the economic problems are being caused 100% by the Venezuelan capitalists and the Venezuelan rich, and 0% by the Chavistas.

First of all, the lie that the shortages are typical of socialist and Communist systems. Many socialist economies on Earth have no shortage problems whatsoever. It is true that Communist countries have tended to be plagued by chronic shortages for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately this appears to be more of a feature of the system instead of a patchable bug.

The error here is that Venezuela is a Communist country. Since Communist countries have chronic shortages and Venezuela is a Communist country, the shortages are being caused by the fact that Venezuela is a Communist country. This argument is utter nonsense and it shows you just how retarded most of the rightwing Chavez-haters and the Lying Western Media are. Actually I think LWM know better and and are lying on purpose like they always do, but I am not sure about your average stupid dittohead.

First of all, Venezuela is not a Communist country. Some might even argue that it is not a socialist country, but that is more up for grabs. The fairest analysis of Venezuela from those on the Left is that it is some sort of a social democratic country similar to what exists in Europe and most of the world. Yes that is correct. Venezuela has a social democracy, which is the typical economy of the average state on Earth. Social democracies do not typically have shortages of products. In fact, product shortage is not a known feature or bug of a social democracy. Not to say that there are not problems with this model, but shortages is not  one of them.

What is incredible is that this country is so demonized by the US because of the fact that it has an economy like that of all of our European allies and that of most of the world. However, since the Monroe Doctrine, the US has been committed to never allowing any progressive governments in Latin America and the Caribbean. Hence most governments that were even social democratic ion nature were destroyed by the US, which called all of these moderate governments “Communists.”

So you can see that the US will only allow rightwing and centrist governments in the Hemisphere. Lately they have moderated this a bit and are apparently ok with the PT government in Brazil and Bachelet in Chile. And for some bizarre reason, the US long supported social democracy in Costa Rica and even before that in Mexico. The reason for these exceptions is not known, however in the 1980’s, Reagan put extreme pressure on Costa Rica to dismantle their social democracy.

The truth is that the entire economy of Venezuela is controlled by the private sector. So if there are shortages, that means that the Venezuelan capitalists are creating them on purpose for some reason.

First of all, let us look at the main Lying Western Media bashing point: inflation. Inflation has nothing to do with Chavez. High inflation has been ongoing since 1980. The reason is the “Dutch Disease” problem – the Venezuelan economy is completely dependent on oil, and that is the cause of almost all of the inflation right there.

There may be some other reasons. The Venezuelan economy boomed through most of the Chavez years when it had a high rate of economic growth. High economic growth can cause inflation. In addition, there are now many more consumers in Venezuela.

Chavez so dramatically improved the standard of living of the 90% of the country living in poverty that now they can afford to buy many more things that they could not afford before. For instance, before Chavez, only well to do people could afford to buy milk. Most Venezuelans could never afford it. Hence the shortages of it are not particularly missed by most of the population, whose attitude is, “Yes there are milk shortages now, but at least we can buy it sometimes. Before we could never buy it ever.”

Price controls were put in to control inflation. These price controls have been put in for a long time now and the shortages are fairly recent. The Lying Western Media want to have it both ways. They bash the Chavistas for inflation and then they blast them for the anti-inflation measures that they put in. That’s neither logical nor fair but it is typical of the rightwing mind.

At any rate, the price controls are apparently not causing the latest round of shortages because the price controls have been in effect for years and there were few shortages then.

Instead the shortages are being caused by the currency market.

Hear me out. Since the start of the Chavez regime, the Venezuelan rich and  capitalists have engaged in massive capital flight. This happens most times whenever a leftwing government is elected anywhere. The rich and the investors simply start sending all of their money out of the country, in the case of Venezuela, they mostly sent it to Miami.

Capital flight cannot be allowed to go on. If it continues, eventually it will devalue the currency so much that you will get a currency crash, which is an economic catastrophe. So the capital flight had to be stopped. The Venezuelan government put in capital controls and currency controls to regulate the amount of dollars coming into and going out of the country.

In other words, all of the dollars in the country were being routed through the government which fixed their value at a certain rate. If the private sector wanted dollars to import goods or for whatever reason, they would have to buy them from the state. The state was quite willing to sell dollars to anyone who could show a need for some. Later controls were put in and you could only access dollars for certain reasons such as overseas travel. However these rules were soon abused.

Be as it may, over time, problems developed in the value of the dollars that the state held. I am not sure what it was all about, but I think the state dollars were starting to be worth less than the dollars on currency markets. I am not sure why the state did not adjust the value of the dollars but possibly that move may have been fraught with all sorts of bad possible consequences. As time went on, a black market in dollars developed. When it started, the black market dollar was worth twice the state dollar. Now the black market dollar is worth 20-25 state dollars. Do you see where this is going now?

If you follow, obviously almost all dollars in the country are going to end up routed through this black market at some time or another due to profit potential.

Capitalists would come to the state asking for dollars to import products. The state would dole out the dollars and the capitalists would use the dollars to import goods. However, these goods bought with cheap state dollars could now be sold on the black market or in Colombia for the black market dollar price for tremendous profits. Hence, we arrive at a situation where 30-40% of the goods imported to Venezuela by the capitalists are routed out of the country, typically to Colombia, for the higher profits involved. So there is the reason for your shortages right there. The shortages are being caused by the profit-seeking of the capitalists.

I suppose the state could set the state dollar value much higher, even matching the black market value. However, I understand that this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. The state began to be reserved in how many dollars it was handing out. The capitalists would say they wanted the dollars to import goods but then they would turn around and use those dollars to import the goods and then send them out of the country or they would simply invest the dollars in some speculative activity.

The state began to get wary about handing out dollars and started demanding proof that the capitalist were going to use them for the reason that they said they were. At one time, this started adding to the shortages because now the capitalists were importing fewer goods as they had fewer dollars to import with, but they were sending a huge amount of imports out of the country anyway so I am not sure how big of a factor this was in the end.

The state has few recourses to this problem as long as the dollar black market exists. I suppose they could try to shut down the black market but efforts to shut down black markets usually do not work very well. There are other possibilities. One is to let the Venezuelan currency float, but this is also fraught with risks, for instance the bolivar could rise or fall quite a bit in value, both of which might be problematic. A huge fall would definitely be a problem. But they may have to take that risk.

Recently the state devalued the bolivar. A lot of people screamed about this as this supposedly means the economy is in trouble but that is not necessarily always true. The Lying Western Media screamed and yelled about this, insisting that it meant that the Venezuelan economy was collapsing. Keep in mind that according to the disgusting Venezuelan opposition and the Lying Western Media, the Venezuelan economy has been in a state of collapse, near collapse or soon to collapse every single year that Chavez was in office. If you look at economic figures, you can see how absurd this is. You guessed right. The Venezuelan opposition lies almost continuously about just about everything you could imagine.

The truth was that the bolivar was overvalued. I am not sure if that is good or bad, but it doesn’t sound real bad to me. It sounds better than a collapsing currency. When your money is overvalued, it is usually a good idea to devalue your currency. It is a sound economic decision.

The Venezuelan economy is indeed in bad shape now, but that is mostly due to the collapse of oil prices. All major oil producing nations are experiencing the same phenomenon. The collapse in oil prices is not the fault of Venezuela and indeed is a plot by the US and the Saudis to ruin Russia over Russia’s involvement in Syria and the Ukraine. That the Lying Western Media is screaming about Venezuelan economic problems caused by an oil price collapse that was not their fault shows you how repulsive the Lying Western Media is.

3 Comments

Filed under Americas, Brazil, Capitalists, Central America, Chile, Costa Rica, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Government, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Middle East, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Socialism, South America, Syria, Ukraine, USA, Venezuela, War

Highly Intelligent People With a Lot of Problems

alan2102 writes:

I agree heartily with your last paragraph, George. I would say that the things that can’t be counted are more important than the things that can. I have a moderately high IQ (not as high as Bob’s, but above average) and it has not done squat for me in the ways that really count — happiness, joy, satisfaction in life. I would happily trade away the IQ points for other qualities and aptitudes. Also, I’ve known more than my share of extremely intelligent people and every one of them has had severe problems, often a miserably failed life. Anecdotal, yes, but just sayin’

Can you give us some examples of extremely intelligent people who have serious problems or are broke? I know a number of people, all with genius IQ’s, and every one of them has a low income or is out and out unemployed. One does not work at all and has been on disability almost their entire life. As far as serious problems go, I know a number of people with genius or near genius IQ’s who are mentally ill or on drugs or alcohol.

Typically it is some sort of a mood disorder (Depression, Bipolar or Borderline Personality Disorder) and the drug they abuse is typically alcohol. Quite a few of them have been suicidal, often for years or decades, and at least one has made a suicide attempt. Another has been hospitalized repeatedly as a danger to themselves or others. IQ’s ranged from 139-147 (140+ is genius level). A few of them were quite creative also in art, music or writing. A few have never married, even into middle age.

Anyway, I was wondering if any of my readers have known anyone with a very high IQ ~140+ or at least seemed to be in that range) who had lived a life full of problems without much success.

12 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Personality, Psychology, Psychopathology

“Race Is a Social Construct”

Oh yeah?

One word: BiDil.

That one word right there proves that race is real and is not a social construct. BiDil logically ought to zero out the race deniers’ line (“race is a social construct”), but of course it won’t. Oh well. I am sure we will have the last laugh on this one. Race denial was doomed from start because anyone with half a brain could see how nuts it was.

From CIApedia:

The new drug application claiming treatment of a single, self-identified racial group raised a storm of controversy. Some hailed the development of BiDil as a breakthrough for African Americans (such groups included the Black congressional Caucus, the Association of Black Cardiologists, the National Medical Association, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and a step to addressing the unique health care needs and health disparities of the African American community.

Others who criticized the preliminary studies argued that the original study did not have a significant number of African-American subjects to make the BiDil’s race specific claims, and that the results of only one clinical trial where African-Americans were tested does not provide a full and comprehensive study. Furthermore, critics argued that self-identified racial identifications from patients as an indicator for race during the trials were not a sufficient categorization method because these self-identifications were socially constructed and have no biological connection to genomic data.

They argued that the trials represented a new form of scientific racism where race, a socially constructed category that does not have a basis in biology, would continue to be present in research as a placeholder for genomic identification.

Additionally, some disagreed with the design of the A-HeFT trial because the trial failed to include any non-African American test subjects. The trial was designed to include only African American test subjects, therefore failing to show that BiDil has a greater effectiveness in African Americans than those in other races.

As you can see, the Cultural Left race-denier antiracist nutcases have already weighed in on BiDil. It turns out that this drug itself is racist! How can a drug be racist when it doesn’t even have a brain? I have no idea, but if the race-denier nuts say it’s true, then it must be true, right?

Their arguments are truly pitiful. Here they are:

  1. Only one study.
  2. Only Black people in the study. White people needed in the study in order to show that BiDil is more effective in Blacks than Whites and hence in order to market BiDil as a Black drug.
  3. Test group too small to be significant.
  4. (Dumbest of all) Racial self-identifications are meaningless. In other words, when a Black person says he is Black, that means nothing. When I say I’m White, that’s nonsensical. For all we know, I could be an Aborigine! And since racial self-identification is meaningless, that means that there is no such thing as Black people, and if Black people do not exist, then how can you possibly have a drug that works better on Blacks than others and how can you market a drug to a non-existing group? Yeah. They actually said that asinine idiocy. The trial for BiDil ended because it was saving so many lives and the people on the placebo were dying at a higher rate (in such cases, humanism demands that you end the study). Of course the fact that this drug saves Black lives and prevents hospitalization of Blacks is irrelevant considering the drug itself is racist and therefore evil. I guess we have to take it off the market now because the menace of these evil racist pills is so much worse than saving Black people’s lives. Black lives matter? To antiracists, apparently they do not!

On the other hand, all Black groups thought this pill was a great thing. Because, you know, it saves Black lives and whatnot. So here we have a case where the Blacks themselves support this bigoted capsule, while the antis are opposing the very thing that the Blacks support, apparently to save the Blacks from the micro-aggressions of swallowing these tablets.

I keep saying that antiracism has gone insane and a lot of you wonder why I say that. Look at the controversy above. This is the face of the modern antiracist movement. Like most of the Cultural Left Freakshow/Insane Asylum, these people are completely out of their minds.

39 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Health, Illness, Left, Medicine, Race/Ethnicity, Racism

About Matt Moneymaker

I understand that Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO has recently been diagnosed as having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

But we already knew that, right?

The thing about NPD is that he is probably not going to get better. These people typically do not get better. The reason is because they do not want to get better. Generally, the problem is everyone else and not them. That right there is the essence of the disorder itself. So if you don’t think there is anything wrong with you, why would you want to get better? Another problem is that NPD’s usually enjoy being narcissistic. They get off on it. It’s fun. It’s the way they like to live. And they can’t see that it causes any problems or if it does, they don’t care because it’s too much fun to change and they like being that way.

There are some NPD’s that get into therapy. Therapy with them is typically difficult and long, but results can be achieved after some time.

5 Comments

Filed under Bigfoot, Mental Illness, Narcissistic, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotherapy

On the Shortages in Venezuela

From the comments:

RL: “…The reason is that these fascists are deliberately under-producing these products in order to create artificial shortages as part of an economic war to bring down the government and make the economy scream…”

Sam: Don’t they have price controls? If so that’s why. What if you wanted to work for $5 an hour but the gov. only let you do so for $3 dollars an hour. Would you work? If someone has a gallon of oil worth $2 and the government says they can only get $1 then what happens. No one sells oil.

They have price controls because they have wild inflation of 40%. The businesses can make bank even with the price controls. They did in the past. If they take off the price controls, inflation will go out of control. You can’t have it both ways.

They aren’t being forced to sell at a loss. It’s just that they can get more money for their stuff in Colombia and also they are committed to an economic war project. For years, they produced and imported all the products that Venezuela needed, and there were price controls for much of that time.

Capitalism will always, when not constrained by monopolies, give the people the most for the least.

They are not doing it in Venezuela. They did this exact same thing in Chile. The underproduction only started just recently and had nothing to do with the onset of the price controls.

The haters of the Venezuelan Revolution have been screaming about inflation forever. They still scream about it. Well the government put in some price controls as a means to try to slow down the inflation. Now the haters are screaming about the price controls and the inflation. You can’t win with these people.

1 Comment

Filed under Americas, Capitalism, Economics, Government, Latin America, Left, Regional, Revolution, Socialism, South America, Venezuela

What Is the Definition of Racism?

George writes: I think I take an issue with your definition of racism = hatred of some particular race or group of people.

Let’s see what Webster has to say about words in America

Full Definition of RACISM
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So I’m wondering if you and I are ‘racists’. However, we are so acculturated by the evil connotation of the word we will both try to wiggle out of it as you do above. If we believe let’s say that the Brits are a superior group to the African Pygmies or the Australian Aborigines then you are a racist. We might still be able to wiggle out on the ‘primary determinant’ clause by recognizing the importance of environment in individual differences.

So what do we do? I have heard the term ‘scientific racist’ as racists with no emotional dislike of any group. But that is also doomed to failure as an appropriate label for yourself in polite company because of the ‘R’ word. Can we popularize a new term without the ‘R’ word? Probably not; it will quickly get called the ‘R’-word by the dominant PC culture.

Do you understand how dictionaries work?

Definition 1 is ONE definition of racism.

Definition 2 is ANOTHER definition of racism.

Two different meanings of the word, and they need not both be correct. You could choose definition 1 as your meaning of racism, or definition 2, or both of them. But it makes no sense to say that definition 1 is part of the inherent definition of racism. Personally, I follow the definition 2 meaning of racism and I reject the definition 1 meaning. That is perfectly correct and logical.

Definition 1 makes no sense because it would then mean that the truth is racist. Certain races are obviously superior to other races at various different things. Some are the most superior race of all on certain metrics.

3 Comments

Filed under Racism

On Negroes in Negroland

alan2102 writes: Negroes in Negroland is a probably-silly tract from the mid-19th century written by a racist crackpot anxious to “prove” the inferiority of blacks and rationalize his desire to have them all removed (or perhaps Kevorked en masse). I doubt if a single credible historian could be found who takes it seriously or as reflective of anything but the author’s extreme prejudice.

Put it in the general category of proto-Nazi bilge: L Stoddard (“Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy”), H S Chamberlain, C Gobineau, M Grant, and many others.

M.U.S.T. P.R.O.V.E. B.L.A.C.K.S. I.N.F.E.R.I.O.R.
M.U.S.T.
M.U.S.T.

Nooooo. The author has gathered up what seems to be a very large number of accounts from the earliest White explorers to Africa. He lists the explorer’s name, the name of the account that he wrote, and then he quotes from the account. These are accounts of what the first White explorers in Africa saw. Accounts are listed from dozens to scores of explorers.

The book was written around 1850. Around that time, Black inferiority was regarded as a given by just about everyone, including Abraham Lincoln himself. There was almost nobody arguing that they were equal to Whites.

There was no need to write a tract on Black inferiority as it was just taken as a given. Also it was written around 1850, and there was no movement to ship them back to Africa at that point that I am aware of.

If you say the book is not credible, do you realize that you are dismissing the accounts of scores of the earliest White explorers to Africa? Are you saying that all these explorers just made this stuff up? Why would they write up those accounts if they were not true. They were basing their accounts on what they directly saw and heard.

At any rate, he is discussing Africa and the way that people were living in Africa at the time. Blacks in the Caribbean and the US were not necessarily living the same way as these Africans at all. In fact, New World Blacks were already behaving very differently from African Blacks.

I think the author makes a good case for the primitive, short, nasty and brutish lives that most Africans were living pre-contact. Further, looking at Africa today and comparing it to the utterly debased savagery depicted in that book, one is forced to say that African Blacks have made tremendous progress and are much more civilized than their ancestors of only 200 years ago. Modern African Blacks are dramatically less savage, primitive, debased and degraded. They have made a major cultural upgrade. We need to cheer their progress on.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Blacks, Culture, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

The Problem with the Discussion of Race Realism/Human Biological Diversity

From the comments:

George: It’s interesting to see a site where taboo subjects are not taboo…like ethnic differences having significant hereditary (DNA) involvement….I’ve been observing these things for years but can’t discuss it in polite company.

alan2102: There’s a good reason for the “taboos” and for such subjects being non-discussable in polite company: because once you open it up for discussion, a whole legion of Nazis, KKK-sympathizers and assorted racist cockroaches suddenly shows up, and you wind up swimming in a cesspool. You wind up no longer just discussing the phenomena itself, in a humanistic and intelligent (i.e. frontal-cortex-prominent) way, but rather “discussing the phenomena” only as thin camouflage for toxic, anti-human, reactionary/reptilian ideologies.

It would be OK to discuss these things, except for that.  That’s the problem. For example, it is perfectly OK to discuss black/white I.Q. differences, which are well-documented. The problem is that  discussion of black/white I.Q. differences, as such, has been difficult or even impossible because it gets hijacked by said cockroaches and used to advance their sick agenda.

Political Correctness (PC) was/is a highly imperfect but mostly admirable response to that problem. Yes, it was crappy and censorious but only as was needed for a few decades to move things along toward civilization.  I would like to think that we’ve reached the point now where PC is no longer necessary; i.e. most people’s minds are free from those ugly and sick reactionary ideas now, so no special prophylaxis (censorship) is needed.  I might be wrong about that.

But it does seem that the legion of Nazis and cockroaches is quite small and getting smaller, as they die off and are not replaced with younger blood. I think it likely that the most dangerous period has now passed, and we’re slowly on our way to a society in which heavy-handed PC censorship is no longer required.  The Nazis and cockroaches will not be given any serious attention by more than a dwindling few oddballs. You can see this in the non-growth, over quite a few years, of the right-wing websites and publications (etc.) that cater to that crowd.

I used to hate PC, but now I realize that it was an important thing at a certain stage of our social evolution – hopefully now mostly passed.

Now we can discuss — for example — black/white I.Q. differences in relative confidence, knowing that the cockroaches will not be taken seriously and will get little or no traction from it.

(Or am I being too optimistic?)

Alan is indeed being too optimistic. Because PC will never end. And that is the whole problem with PC. Once it gets instituted, it stays forever. The banned subjects stay banned because PC says they are racist per se; that is, it is racist per se to even bring them up or discuss them except to attack or condemn them.

For instance, I can take this discussion over to a forum where everyone is PC. This would be a good laboratory for Alan’s utopia where everyone is so nonracist that they can talk about these things. I assure you that I will be utterly and viciously excoriated in a horrible way.

Society will never get antiracist enough to discuss these topics sanely because when everyone is antiracist, everyone will be so thoroughly PC and according to PC ideology, all discussions of race differences are inherently racist and are not up for discussion at all.

So PC wasn’t just a limited action necessary to wipe out the last vestiges of hardcore racism in the West. PC is intended to go on forever, and I think it will. It is not designed to wither away.

Is it actually true that there has been no growth in racist websites and organizations over the past few years? I wonder how this was calculated and I wonder if someone can give me some evidence of this.

My personal subjective view is that racism has been declining every year for quite some time now, possibly since the 1960’s or at least since the 1970’s. However, it does seem that White racism has increased with the election of Barack Obama.

I doubt if it really increased; what happened instead with the election of Obama was that a lot of covert White racist conservatives who were hiding their racism well by keeping the lid on the boiling pan suddenly released their racism from dormancy and let it bloom in full. I doubt if the election of Obama created new anti-Black racists among the White population; that is, I doubt if any formerly nonracist Whites suddenly became racist with Obama’s election. Obama was simply the rain shower that brought the worms out of their holes.

However, Alan is absolutely correct that the reason this issue is never discussed is because once you bring it up, all manner of anti-Black racist troglodytes show up and swarm all over the website, drowning out all other commenters. These racists also assume that because I am willing to discuss this issue sanely, I am obviously one of them.

This is because the antiracists have set up a dichotomy called antifa versus Nazi and have forced everyone into one of these categories. The antis have decided that one can only be a radical antiracist, and if one is not, then one is simply a White Supremacist, KKK member or Nazi. Hence most Whites simply refuse to discuss such matters at all for fear of being called a Nazi, and Whites like me who discuss these issues in good faith are automatically assumed by White Supremacists to be one of their own.

Because of the racist invasion that discussion of these topics causes, it is almost useless to bring them up. The flood of racists to the site drives away most if not all of the decent commenters as this is a case of bad driving out good. The few liberals who dare to comment typically shoot down the very idea without even discussing. Many others jump into the debate screaming racist at me, in which case they are all banned. This is why so many Left-liberal types have been banned from this site. On the other hand, most hardcore White racists have been banned from here too.

I honestly do not have the answer to this but I did found a movement called Liberal Race Realism for liberals who believe in the reality of race.

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Democrats, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Racism, US Politics, White Racism

On the Epithets of the Cultural Left

I utterly hate PC types because of how they have treated me over the years. They have called me every name in the book: Nazi, KKK, White Supremacist, bigot, racist, hater, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, etc. They often top it off with modifiers such as “vicious racist, extreme racist, wildly racist, very racist,” etc. The truth is that I am not any of these things.

First, some definitions:

Racism or bigotry means hatred of some particular race or group of people.

Sexism means hatred of the opposite sex.

Homophobia means hatred of homosexuals.

Transphobia means hatred of transsexuals.

I do not see myself as particularly racist at all. I have negative opinions of a few ethnic groups for good reason, but I harbor no animus or hatred towards entire races of people.

I am supposed to be a vicious anti-Black racist, but two of my all-time heroes are Malcolm X and Martin Luther King.

The antiracist movement, despite its extreme flaws, is one of the Great Human Emancipation Movements.

I certainly don’t hate women, in fact, in spite of their nuttiness, I like them much better than my own gender. I have always supported equity feminism (equal rights for women), and I am a strong supporter or reproductive rights. In fact, at one point, I was actually a member of the National Organization for Women (NOW). I have major issues with radical feminism or gender feminism, but that is not the same things as equity feminism. The movement for women’s equality or equity feminism is one of the Great Human Emancipation Movements.

I am a strong supporter of gay rights and I am actually on the mailing list of some of their organizations. I support most of their political causes so far. I am not particularly wild about gay men because I have had too many bad experiences with them, but I do like a few of them and I have one gay friend at the moment. Despite my personal feelings, I wish all truly biologically gay men the best and hope they have as happy and healthy a life as I do. I feel that gay rights, along with antiracism and women’s rights, is also one of the Great Human Emancipation Movements.

I am said to be a transphobe, and it is true that I find such folks extremely strange. I am sorry, but it simply does not seem normal at all to me. Nevertheless, I support equal rights for transsexuals at least in the sense that anti-discrimination laws ought to apply to them too.

I have always opposed Nazism, extreme racism, especially extreme White racism, White nationalism, White supremacism, the KKK, skinheads  and related organizations and movements, fascism, male supremacism, misogyny, most forms of reaction, extreme homophobia, gay bashing, and extreme machismo.

Nevertheless, because I discuss race realism and believe in it to some limited extent, I get bashed endlessly as a “virulent racist.” Not only is this untrue, but it is painful and it makes me angry, which I suppose is why they call me that in the first place.

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Civil Rights, Fascism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Racism, Sex, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, White Racism

Liberal Race Realism: Concepts and Conundrums

I founded a movement called Liberal Race Realism for liberals who believe in the reality of race. As you might guess, LRR has been a colossal flop. Almost no liberals have signed on, and the very concept has been savaged on the Left. This is because almost everyone who believes in race realism is a conservative/reactionary, and the number of liberals who believe that race is real is around 0%.

However, you can see on this blog there are some racists, even White nationalists, who take some surprisingly liberal positions on economics and social issues, so all is not lost.

The idea for the movement was that in the future, the reality of race will become more and more apparent in our society with each passing year and increasing percentages of people will start believing that race is real. I thought that as the race realist concept gained a foothold in society, liberals and Leftists would at some point have to have some sort of an answer to the Race Question on the matter of the reality of race.

It is assumed that as society embraces race realism, the very notion of it will inevitably drive people to the right, and any society that believes in race realism will inevitably be a conservative to reactionary society. Indeed, this is one reason why so many racists and HBD’ers push the subject: they figure that mass acceptance of race realism will mean the death of Liberalism and the Left once and for all as our raison d etre- equality – will lie shattered in the mud.

I am not so sure about that. At any rate, I think that in the future, the Liberal-Left will have to come up with some sort of positions as far as race realism goes as the nonsense of race denial cannot go on forever.

LRR would try to answer such questions as:

  1. What does the reality of race mean for the Left?
  2. Does the reality of race really mean the death of the Liberal-Left and permanent conservative-reactionary rule?
  3. What is the proper response of the Left to the reality of race?
  4. How does the reality of race impact the core Left project of equality?
  5. What is the proper political response of the Left to the reality of race?
  6. What effect will the reality of race have on US politics and how will the Left respond to such projects?
  7. What sort of proposals can the Left come up with that take into account the reality of race yet continue on logically with the core Left project?

6 Comments

Filed under Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Race Realism, Racism