Latin America Is a Very Socialist Region: The Caribbean

The Left has run Cuba since 1959. Most of the illegal opposition groups in Cuba are formally socialist (social democratic) The Left is only kept out of power in Haiti because the rightwing army and police have all the guns and the Left is not allowed to run in the fake elections. The Left president Aristide was overthrown in a violent, US sponsored coup. Jamaica elected a socialist in the 1970’s, Manley. His government was undermined by the US, and he was thrown out after a bit.

The Left held power in Grenada but was overthrown by a US invasion. Dominica is formally ruled by a socialist party which is also a member of the Sao Paolo Forum. The opposition is a party with “workers” in its name. Grenada has recently been ruled by a party that is a member of the Progressive Alliance, a split from the Socialist International. Trinidad and Tobago is now run by a formally socialist party. The two principal opposition parties are both formally socialist parties.

The Right stayed in power in the Dominican Republic by a dictator named Trujillo killing hundreds of thousands of people. In the 1960’s, they elected a socialist, Juan Bosch, who was quickly overthrown by Johnson with a CIA coup. The new rightwing government came in via the coup and stayed in power for over a decade. They stayed in power by murdering 11,000 people. For the last 20 years, the country has been ruled by the formally socialist party of Bosch. They are aligned with the Far Left Sao Paolo Forum. The opposition party has “revolution” in its name, is formally socialist and is a member of the Socialist International.

Latin America Is a Very Socialist Region: Central America

The largest party in Mexico is officially a socialist party and a member of the Socialist International. In Panama, since the US invasion, the government has been run by a party associated with Torrijos, a leftwing President murdered by the CIA. It alternates with an ostensibly rightwing populist party that has nevertheless put in many new social programs.

The Left in El Salvador and Nicaragua had to literally shoot their way into power at the cost of 155,000 dead. Costa Rica got rid of their army and put in a social democracy after World War 2 in part to ward off revolution. There was a military coup in Honduras a few years back which overthrew a Left president and put in a death squad government that has murdered 2,000 Leftists ever since.

Yes, the Right is in power in Guatemala, but they have stayed in power by killing 200,000 people, a project which is ongoing. The Left has now disarmed, but they were armed for over 30 years.

Latin America Is a Very Socialist Region: South America

Peron set up an extensive social democratic structure in Argentina when he was in power as some sort of an odd sort of Left populist. Chile had an extensive social democracy already set up even when Allende took power. Chile is already a pretty socialist place, but the newly elected President Bachelet has promised more socialist changes. Leftwing generals seized power in Peru in 1968 and undertook a number of leftwing changes.

Socialists were in power in Guyana for a time and Cheddi Jagan, a socialist, is still a major political figure. Even much of the opposition in Venezuela consists of a large formally socialist party. In Brazil, the opposition is in the process of throwing out the Left government via a phony legislative coup. The opposition party that doing this has “social democratic” in its name and social democracy is stated as one of its principles.

The Left is currently in power in Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela. They were recently in power in Argentina and Paraguay but were overthrown by a legislative coup in Paraguay and probable economic sabotage in Argentina.

The Right is in power in Colombia, but they have only stayed in power by killing 200,000 people. The Left is kept out of power via death squads and the army and police. Furthermore, the Left is armed to the teeth.

Problems and Achievements of Left Governments in Latin America

S. D. writes: I’m not sure that Socialism would benefit them to the same degree that it has benefited Norway or Sweden.

It requires each citizen to assume a fairly high degree of personal responsibility to see the entire society as a family.

And truthfully this is difficult outside of a super-homogeneous country.

Right-wing countries lead to more racial animosity because they are more of a meritocracy that do less for the poor worker, I agree.

But to what extent socialism is better I am not entirely sure.

Mind you, I have only two Poly-Sci classes to my college education. What do I know?

Some form of socialism is the only solution for Latin America, and most of the region is already formally socialist in one way or another and has been for some time now. Formally socialist or Leftist parties rule most of the continent in Cuba, Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Chile. I understand that most political parties in the Caribbean are Left parties of some sort usually with “Revolutionary”, “Labor” or “Socialist” in their names. A number of them were allied with Chavez in Venezuela.

Leftwing governments have made massive strides in most of the countries above. The lives of the average Latin American have improved dramatically in every one of those places.

The recent rulers of Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and El Salvador have made serious leftwing changes in their countries.

Latin Americans hate the Right. Rightwing governments have never done jackshit for the vast majority of Latin Americans.

The main problem with any form of socialism or Left government in Latin America is that the Latin American Right is extremely fascist, violent and anti-democratic. According to them, the Left simply has no right to ever rule any of their countries. Hence any time the Left takes power in any of their countries, the Latin American Right tries to overthrow them by unconstitutional means such as military coups, lockout strikes, deliberate sabotage of the economy, legislative coups, etc.

South America serves as an instructive example.

Hence the implementation of any Left regime is often met with violence, sabotage or coups. There are often widespread street protests even leading to Left and Right street fighters fighting in the streets like Germany in the 1920’s. This sort of thing often occurs in Chile and Venezuela where  the Right is strong, radical and violent. The Right has been rioting in the streets for 15 years now in Venezuela ever since Chavez took power. Political protests in Chile usually turn violent as the Left attacks the rallies of the Right and vice versa.

There was a rightwing legislative coup in Paraguay to remove a Left President recently, and there is one ongoing in Brazil. The National Police made an aborted coup attempt to overthrow a Left President in Ecuador. The Right used economic sabotage to ruin the economies of Chile in the 1970’s and Venezuela at the moment. The Left President of Argentina also appears to have been voted out due to economic sabotage by the Right in league with the Obama Administration.

Revolution, Either By Guerrilla or Street Criminal, Is an Inevitable Fact of History

S. D. writes: My guess is that Spanish people in Mexico are not robbed by Cholos.

Actually the rich in Mexico, like the rich in many Latin American countries, practically live under siege. They live behind huge walls topped with barbed wire with dogs and sometimes even armed guards. Some of them have armed guards with them when they travel by car. The rich in Brazil are so besieged and paranoid that they will not even leave their enclaves in cars because they are too afraid of having to drive through the slums, so they fly out of their rich havens in helicopters!

Every night in Latin America, whole armies of poor criminals creep up from the valleys into the neighborhoods of the rich on the hills or crawl down from the hills into the neighborhoods of the rich below to prey on the rich, mostly by thievery. The wonderful success story of rightwing economics (which is no such thing) called Chile is an excellent example of this phenomenon.

Revolution and wealth redistribution will happen one way or another. If you defeat the armed revolutionaries, the poor will simply take off their battle fatigues, become criminals and redistribute the wealth in that fashion. This is because the laws of history as Marx laid them out are in fact scientific and steadfast.

Illegal Immigration in Latin America

S. D. writes: Argentinians, partly Italian, do not suffer from illegal immigration or let Indians reconquer them.

In fact, Argentina has a very serious illegal immigration problem right now, as many mestizos and even Indians have moved into the country from Bolivia and Peru. Most of them have moved to Buenos Aires where they live in vast, crime-ridden slums. Mestizos are responsible for a wave of street crime in the capital.

In Latin America, illegal immigration is generally no big deal, since for the most part, everyone is more or less the same race. There are many illegal Colombians in Venezuela, illegal Nicaraguans in Costa Rica, illegal Jamaicans and Haitians in Cuba and illegal Peruvians and Bolivians in Argentina. In all of these countries, the illegals are simply regularized from time to time in large numbers, since the idea is that the illegals are the same race as the natives.

There is not much of a problem of illegals working for less than natives in Latin America, as they are always getting regularized, and after they are legal, they work for the same wages as natives. Further, wages are lousy for most everyone in Latin America, so the natives are already working for a low wage, and you can’t go much lower than a basement unless you are burying bodies.

There are a couple of exceptions where illegals are treated very poorly in the region.

In the Dominican Republic, the illegals are Haitians, and they are treated horribly, used as almost slave labor on sugar plantations and regularly rounded up and shipped back to Haiti with considerable brutality. Race plays a factor here, as Dominicans are mulattos – about half Black – and Haitians are pretty much pure Black. The mulattos feel much superior to the Black Haitians who are for all intents and purposes just niggers to the Dominicans.

There are quite a few Central Americans in Mexico, typically on their way to the US, but they are treated horribly, raped and brutalized by police and other Mexicans and shipped back home.

It is not known why Mexicans is so cruel to Central Americans, but perhaps they hate each other. I know when my mother was in Guatemala on vacation, she tried to use some Mexican money in a store, and the Guatemalan woman at the cash register spat at her, cursed and threw the money to the ground. Apparently she despised Mexicans for some reason.

Revolution and Capitulation in Latin America

S. D. writes: We all agree that a tiny white minority in Mexico and Central America have the indigenous people and mestizo under their thumb.

Why can’t Anglos follow their example?

What are the Iberian elite of Central America doing right?

One thing they are doing right is running death squads to keep the poor under siege, to terrorize the poor into submission and to stave off revolution via sheer terror. This doesn’t really work because when the Right is armed and the Left is not and the rightwing death squads, army and police regularly murder the Left, eventually the Left, not being idiots, takes up arms.

The revolutionaries in El Salvador suffered decades of repression in the 1960’s and especially the 1970’s. While some of the Left was armed in the 1970’s, most of it was not. Many of the Left were murdered, especially in the 1970’s.

The Salvadoran revolutionaries said that eventually the people got tired of waiting in their homes for the government to come kill them. They decided that if the government was going to come try to kill them no matter what that they may as well take up arms, so at least they can try to fight off the army and police when they come out to kill them.

If the Right is armed and violent and the Left is not, eventually the Left takes up arms to defend themselves from the army, police and death squads of the state. And who can blame them? If the government was going to come out and try to kill me, first of all I would try to hide and second of all, I would arm myself very heavily and if and when the government did come out to kill me, I would open fire on the state forces and try to defend myself or at least take out as many of them as possible. Even if they killed me, I at least stand a chance of taking out some of them in the process.

We all agree that a tiny white minority in Mexico and Central America have the indigenous people and mestizo under their thumb.

Sure, and that’s why you had revolutions in every single one of those places. Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua have all had very bloody revolutions.

Mexico’s revolution lasted 10 years, and 10 million people died.

200,000 died in Guatemala’s unfinished revolution that in a sense goes on to this day.

75,000 died in El Salvador’s unfinished revolution.

80,000 died in the revolutions and counterrevolutions in Nicaragua.

Hundreds and possibly thousands were killed in Honduras in a revolution that is ongoing.

Really what is happening in Guatemala, El Salvador and especially Honduras is that the Left, formerly armed to the teeth especially in the first two countries, has disarmed and the Right is heavily armed and is killing the Left.

The Left in Honduras were hardly armed at all, but there were a few groups in the 1980’s including a revolutionary group of 300 men who were led by an Irish Catholic priest! There is a long tradition of priests allying themselves with armed revolts down there, especially in recent years with Liberation Theology. The ELN in Colombia, heavily armed and still waging war to this day, was founded by a Catholic priest! A Catholic priest and poet, Ernesto Cardenal, was one of the top leaders of the Sandinista revolutionaries who presently rule that country.

Although the Left has disarmed, the Right has not, and in Latin America, the Right is always armed either via the state and police or via the private armies, paramilitaries, death squads and contras of the rich. The death squads of the Right continue to operate in Guatemala, El Salvador (to a much lesser extent) and especially in Honduras. Death squads continue to rampage across Colombia. Fascist contra paramilitaries, assassins and street fighters are common in Venezuela.

The FMLN revolutionaries presently rule El Salvador or at least have captured the presidency. The Sandinista and FMLN governments are limited in what they can do to better their countries, mostly by the US, the IMF and the World Bank.

The Sandinistas have had to considerably moderate their program from when they ruled, and many Sandinistas are leaving the party and claim that the party has grown totalitarian and corrupt.

There is a long tradition of this in Latin America and for that matter in other places (see Nepal) – of revolutionary parties growing corrupt and/or totalitarian.

The PRI which long ran Mexico became very corrupt and authoritarian. They stole elections down there for decades, and a victory by the Left in 1988 was only prevented by massive fraud. However, the PRI’s name means the Party of the (Mexican) Revolution, so this party grew out of the Pancho Villists of the 1910’s.

To this day, the PRI is a member of the Socialist International, but in Latin America that does not mean much. The region is full of lousy “social democratic” parties that are hardly socialist at all, especially in Peru (APRA – another party with revolution in its name) and Venezuela, where the social democratic party became a party of the corrupt and brutal elite. Both of those parties are members of the Socialist International!

The Socialist Party has been running Chile for most of the last decade, continuing a long tradition, but they are very limited in what they can do.

Is English a German or Scandinavian Language?

S. D. writes: I’m German American. Half my family is Prussian German and the other half is from Munich in the South. I can answer this, sort of.

English is actually from Denmark.

These folks were never from Germany, they were from Saxony and Angles They were Scandinavians.

Normans brought a great deal of Latin words into the English language but they themselves were Norwegians.

Brits have no German in them. They are Scandinavian and Celtic. Their language reflects this.

Wait a minute. English is a West Germanic language. It is in the same branch of Germanic as German. The most closely related language to English is Frisian, which is spoken as probably up to seven separate languages in Northwestern Netherlands and Northwestern and Far Northern Germany.

Scandinavian is North Germanic. All of these languages are straight up from Old Norse.

English is up from Old German, or more properly the Anglo-Frisian branch. Frisian is straight up from Old Saxon, which gives you a clue to what the Anglo-Saxons were speaking.

A man who knows how to speak Old English recently went to Frisia with a TV crew. He stopped and talked to an old farmer who was a Frisian speaker. He could actually communicate with this guy with him speaking Old English and the farmer speaking Frisian (“Modern Saxon”). If you look at Old English, it looks like German. If you hear a tape of someone reading Beowulf, it sounds like someone speaking German. Not only that, but you cannot understand a word.

The British are mostly a Celtic or even a pre-Celtic people. On top of that is layered some German (the Anglo-Saxons), some French (the Normans) and some Danish on the east and north, formerly the Daneland.

I have heard stories about the Normans being Vikings or Norwegians, but I am not sure about that. They were living in France when they invaded. One of my distant ancestors is Eleanor of Acquitaine, Queen of England. She was from the West Central Coast of France.

The Normans brought a lot of French words into English. Actually they spoke Norman, which is a completely separate language from French and is still alive to this day, though it is endangered. But it is related to French. Norman split off from Old French in ~800-1000 CE.

The Scottish and especially the Irish have a lot of Scandinavian blood in them due to a lot of Viking raids in those places. That is why there is all the red and blond hair and green and blue eyes there (red hair and green eyes in Ireland and blond hair and blue eyes in Scotland).

It is true that a lot of Latin borrowings came into English during the Norman period and even afterwards, as Latin was the language of science, technology and government. Some Danish words did go into English from the Daneland. Scots and a lot of the incomprehensible English dialects from northeastern English such as Geordie have heavy Danish influence.

However, there is a little something to your theory. The three tribes in that area that all invaded England were called the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. The Angles and Saxons lived from northeastern Netherlands through Northwestern and Far Northern Germany, but the Jutes actually did inhabit Far Southwest Denmark. They speak a language down there called South Jutish, and I am told that Danes cannot understand it at all. However, I have heard that a Jutish speaker and a Scots speaker from Scotland can actually somewhat communicate along the lines of the Old English speaker and the Frisian farmer!

Vote Killary 2016

Vote Killary “Humanitarian Bomber” Clinton for President 016! Permanent war for permanent peace! Full spectrum dominance! Securing the realm! The New American Century! Responsibility to protect! She’s gonna win!

Mutual Intelligibility in “German”

RL: “Low Franconian is just Dutch.”

Anglo-Saxon Maverick: I would assume that low German, comes from the Northern regions of Germany close to the North Sea, where the elevation is lower?, as opposed to further South where the Alps rise? Holland is topographically lower than France, hence the name?

Yes, the Netherlands is very low in elevation, in fact, I believe it is even below sea level, hence the need for dikes to keep the sea out and polders or reclaimed land formerly flooded by the sea.

Yes, this exactly where Low German comes from of course.

And yes, Upper German comes from the region by the Alps, and Middle German is in between the two. These are actually at least three completely different languages, but Germany will not officially recognize them as such and neither will many German speakers. Even Bavarian and Swiss German are completely separate languages – those are not the same languages as German at all.

A German speaker cannot understand a Swiss German, Low German or even a Bavarian speaker at all. I heard a story about a White man who even learned Munich Bavarian who said he sat in a hot tub with two women who were speaking some Bavarian dialect to the south of Munich near the Austrian border. Over a 2-3 hour period, he said he did not understand one single word that they said, even though all three spoke Bavarian. Bavarian speakers to the south of Munich often cannot understand people even 15 miles away. In these cases, they all communicate via Hochdeutch or Standard German.

In Austria, every region or county speaks its own version of Bavarian and it is said that none of them can understand each other. At least in the 1970’s, people from 3-4 counties in the west of Austria could sit at a table and talk and none of them could really understand each other. Even pure Viennese Bavarian which is very much dying out nowadays simply cannot be understood outside of the Vienna region and nowadays a lot of Viennese themselves cannot even understand it.