In Praise of Racism

15356556_1262712577121866_2576393961102374722_n

Transphobia FTW! Get help freaks!

There is no shame in racism! Be racist and proud, don’t be shy! Don’t let those liberal dogooders stop you!

I’m a racist! A proud racist! A defiant racist! I love my race, the human race! If there’s one race I hate, it’s the nonhumans! That means you its, whatever the Hell you tranny things are! I don’t know what you are, but you sure ain’t people. Humans are either male or female, period. If you can’t make up your mind if you are male or female, I’m going to call you “it.” If you’re neither male nor female, you’re a thing. Real simple. You are not part of my glorious race. You’re one of those lower races, you know, the nonhumans.

Heshe’s got lost!

7 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Humor, Scum, Sex, Weirdos

In Praise of Transphobia

15230799_10154738310211382_5722763392762116218_n

Up with transphobia!

Transphobia FTW!

Get lost, freaks! Weirdos out!

Get help deviants! There’s no shame in mental illness. A mental health clinician is only a phone call away. Fight stigma now!

6 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Humor, Mental Illness, Psychology, Scum, Sex, Weirdos

Sonic Youth, “I Wanna Be Your Dog”

Iggy Pop and the Stooges cover with the singer doing an excellent Iggy Pop imitation. At first I thought the lead singer was a really hot, sexy skinny long-haired blond chick and…it’s a guy…no it’s a chick, no wait a guy…no, a chick…Ah the Hell with that! It’s a human goddamnit!

Trip to Wikipedia: Turns out this is a chick after all! Kim Gordon! So she’s an androgyne, so what? So am I. So’s Joan Jett. So’s Suzi Quatro. So’s Bowie. So’s Jagger. So’s Marc Bolan. So’s Lou Reed. So’re all the sexy people!

Wow! I never thought too much of this band, but boy do I love them now. This was what early LA punk rock was like in the late 1970’s-early 1980’s.

Check out those horns! James Brown!

What about that ominous sound? Mott the Hoople. Of course the Stooges. And before that, what else? The Velvet Underground!

I’m looking at that band in back of her and I’m thinking…the Ramones! I’m also thinking…New York City punk rock! Late 70’s-early 80’s. CBGB’s and all that. That band is so New York. Over to Wikipedia, yep I was right, early New York punk band. Formed in 1981. I’m a psychic! Isn’t that weird how you can just read the vibes of something and pin it down place and time almost perfectly? Must be intuition. Can’t possibly be logic. Woman thinking. The genius of the woman.

What else is this? What’s the general vibe, the Gestalt, the reading, the “smell?” It’s the goddamned end of civilization, that’s what it is! Oh no but it’s so much worse than that. This music is actually a perverse celebration of the end of civilization. And that’s so much better, you know? Rockin’ to the Apocalypse!

I am sitting here listening to this song…and everything’s getting darker…and my heart’s sinking into my stomach…and I’m thinking…”Jesus Christ, man. This is the last rock and roll band on Earth!” And you know what is so much worse than that even? “And tomorrow…after they play this song and stomp off the stage…the world is gonna end!” And you know what’s a whole universe way worse than even that? It’s that oh man isn’t that most gloriously beautiful part of it all! Let’s have a wake for mankind. Have another drink, on me. Drink up one last time as the Titanic goes down!

This is what rock and roll is all about!

Rockin’ til I drop!

1 Comment

Filed under Music, Punk, Rock

A Media Lie: No, the Workers Did Not Massively Vote for Trump

Erick: Meanwhile I would label Obama a globalist internationalist because of his support of open borders and immigration along with supporting TPP and other multilateral trade and defense initiatives. Guess workers don’t like that right now, as they all flocked to Trump.

Yeah, but workers didn’t flock to Trump. That is one of the big lies. The bottom two quintiles of the population or people making under $40K/year heavily supported Hillary. People making under $40K/year? There’s your working class right there. And probably your White working class too. The White working class did not massively flock to Trump. That’s one of the big lies.

The top three quintiles or people making over $40K heavily favored Trump. So Trump won with people who had money and the more money they had, the more they voted for Trump. I was reading on the Atlantic where they were talking to people for and against Trump and everyone writing in saying they voted Trump were people who had money and seemed to be sitting pretty. There was one White who was probably Top 40% and an Hispanic Cuban who was probably top 20%. The lines that both of them kept reiterating was, “I see myself as someone making good money and Trump is good for moneyed people like us. And we don’t like Hillary supporters because those are all blue collars, poor and low income people.”

8 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Journalism, Labor, Obama, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, Whites

Class War in Capitalist Economies: A Brief Primer

Erik: Well we are talking about right and left wing labels. I wouldn’t call him an economic conservative. Isn’t being against free trade a left wing worker thing? Either which way I’m not so much making an argument for or against Trump, but I’ll say just as I said before; he’s a nationalist, yes?

(Wall, immigration, America first blah blah blah) and he supports increasing national sovereignty by not being part of insidious trade agreements like TPP or NAFTA. It’s not necessarily “conservative” but a mixture now, hence the need for new labels? I mention this because these were the two big policies he ran on in opposition to Obama to get elected. Meanwhile I would label Obama a globalist internationalist because of his support of open borders and immigration along with supporting TPP and other multilateral trade and defense initiatives. Guess workers don’t like that right now, as they all flocked to Trump.

Yeah but workers didn’t flock to Trump. That is one of the big lies. The bottom two quintiles of the population or people making under $40K/year heavily supported Hillary. People making under $40K/year? There’s your working class right there. And probably your White working class too. The White working class did not massively flock to Trump. That’s one of the big lies

The top three quintiles or people making over $40K heavily favored Trump. So Trump won with people who had money and the more money they had, the more they voted for Trump. I was reading on the Atlantic where they were talking to people for and against Trump and everyone writing in saying they voted Trump were people who had money and seemed to be sitting pretty. There was one White who was probably Top 40% and an Hispanic Cuban who was probably top 20%. The lines that both of them kept reiterating was, “I see myself as someone making good money and Trump is good for moneyed people like us. And we don’t like Hillary supporters because those are all blue collars, poor and low income people.”

That free trade stuff is outside of left and right. You see both Trump on the far right and Sanders on the Hard Left were pushing nationalist economics and opposition to globalism and free trade. That goes to show you that the nationalist economics versus global economics and the pro and against free traders is pretty much outside of Left and Right ideology because you have folks all over the spectrum on both sides of each issue. You could boil it down to nationalists versus internationalists, but that is outside of Right and Left too.

Trump is not rightwing? Are you kidding? He’s an extreme reactionary, one of the worst in the whole party. Look at who he is appointing his Cabinet. One thing they have in common is the Republican motto: “Everything for the rich, not one nickel for anybody else.”

He’s a class warrior. He is trying to mass transfer money and goods from the working classes and middle classes to the rich and the corporations.

Man you guys are ignorant. I am going to have to do a post on what an extreme rightwing nutcase Trump is.

Being against free trade is the only good thing about him. That’s neither left nor right. Both the left and the right are gung-ho on free trade. It gives massive benefits to the top 10% of the country and everyone loses money and loses out hard, but when it comes to free trade, both parties, the left and the right of US politic, are down with everything for the rich and fuck everybody else.

That because the US left is only for the rich and upper middle class. The US “Left” is just a bunch of groovy, socially liberal upper middle class suit and tie types on both coasts. On economics they may as well be Republicans. Those “liberal” upper middle class Democrats work for their class interests too. Their project is mass transfer of wealth from the bottom 80% to the top 20%. I guess with the Republicans it is mass transfer from the bottom 95-98% to the top 2-5%.

I mean you have to be making $125-300K before Republican policies benefit you. With the democrats, I guess they are a little bit different. I suppose once you start making $75K before Democratic policies try to help you. But I would say that they are both working against lower half the population and for sure the lower $60% of the population. Under both Democrats and Republicans, everyone making under $50-60K is getting royally screwed. They are both promoting class warfare policies of transfer of wealth and goods from the everyone making under $60K to people making more than $60K or maybe the line is $75K, who knows?

That TPP was going to help only the top 10% of the US population. That’s people making over $90K/year. So the TPP was mass transfer of wealth from everyone making below $90K to everyone making above $90K.

News flash. People tend to vote and govern in their class interests. Once people get a lot of money, it’s generally class warfare of transferring wealth from less moneyed people to more moneyed people. This sort of class war over divving up resources is is often going on in many capitalist economies. The only thing that stops it is some sort of socialism or social democracy.

But with socialism or social democracy, the rich will always rule the country and the rich always pursue policies “Everything for us and nothing for anybody else. And with no socialism barrier the rich and the upper middle classes are free to pursues class war which is nothing more than wars over how to divvy up existing resources. People don’t just make money off growth in a capitalist economy. A lot of the money and goods acquired in a capitalist economy involves various classes either taking money from classes below them and transferring it up or transferring money from classes above them and transferring it down. I can’t believe that people don’t know these basics about how capitalism works.

6 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Whites

Who Are Our Class Enemies in America?

James Schipper: You shouldn’t regard all rich people as your enemies. It is only the plutocratic rich who are the enemies of ordinary people. Rich people who are willing to pay high taxes, treat their employees fairly, do not finance plutocratic causes, and invest most of their money in their own country are alright. Rich people who have a sense of noblesse and some commitment to their own country should be applauded. It is globalist plutocrats who are the enemies.

Trump has filled his Administration with nationalist, anti-globalist rich people. These are better than the Globalists like Clinton and Obama? Hell, give me the Globalists any day!

The Rich Ruling Class Oligarchs are our class enemies. The Progressive Rich, and there are some, are not. But the New York Times/Time Magazine/Newsweek Jewish Corporate Democrat Media Rich are almost as bad as the oligarchs. And so are the Wasserman-Shultz/Clinton/DNC types. Both of them are pretty much part of the Oligarchy themselves. These Corporate Democrats are just poison. Now that Hillary is gone, can we retire this Clinton Family that ran our party into the ground by pretending the be the Republican Party Lite?

In fact, I believe people like the Sulzbergers/Clintons/Wasserman-Shultzes are as much a part of the oligarchy as the Kochs. These rich Corporate Democrats are poison.

PS Just how many rich people are progressive in the US? It’s not that common, is it? I agree though that the Hollywood Crowd or the Entertainment Industry Rich are not our enemies. In fact, they are probably our allies. But once they get in power, how many US Rich do not govern in their class interests and opposed to ours? About 0%

I don’t trust the Rich, any of them, to run the country. They’ve been running the country into the ground governing in their class interests since Reagan and I am sick and tired of it.

I agree with you though. Our enemy is the Ruling Class, the Oligarchs. And that does not include the Progressive Rich.

6 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Journalism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA

Africans Are Not “Stone Age” People

Now I am not defending the United States. It’s actually inferior to Canada, New Zealand or Australian white settler colonies in many ways.

But this is mostly because a great deal of stone-age people were imported as slaves or Spanish soldiers raped Red Women in the Southwest 5 times a day back in the 1700’s to create a vast Mixed underclass.

Please do not call African Blacks “Stone Age people.” That is how the White Nationalists talk. Africans had had agriculture for 12,000 years when they were imported to the US. Stone Age people don’t have agriculture. I get so tired of listening to White Nationalists call Africans Stone Age people.

Agriculture itself rose in Africa. Africans were probably the first humans to practice agriculture.

There was little if any breeding between Spaniards and Indians in the US Southwest. That was all happening south of the border.

79 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, History, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Spaniards, The Americas, USA, West, White Nationalism

The “Taiwan Miracle” Nonsense

The people who ran Taiwan were the same folks who had completely run China into the ground by 1949, resulting in a life expectancy of 1949. Their legacy was repeated famines, foot-binding, murder of female children, epidemic wife-beating and more or less feudal relations in the countryside. Most Chinese peasants were little more than slaves or serfs. They were serfs on a landlord’s feudal estate.

The landlord or his buddies could go visit the serfs at any time and do whatever he wanted to with them? He had the power of life and death over them. He could kill or beat up any serf he wanted to at any time. He could steal any of their property. And especially he could rape the wives and daughters of the peasants, which he did in epidemic form.

When the Communists took over, in the first few years, they did a land reform, dissolved the feudal estates and distributed the landlords’ land to peasants with no compensation. The Communists simply stole the landlords’ land. And in same time  period, the Communists decided to  put the landlords on trial. The trials were held in the villages and towns and the peasants were to serve as judge and jury. These were wild raucous public trials and in most cases, the peasants convicted the landlords of many of the crimes above and sentenced them to death. Up to 3 million landlords were executed by the peasants themselves.

This is what happens in peasant uprisings under feudalism. Study the subject of peasant uprisings down through time, and this is how they always end up. For centuries before feudalism was dismantled, there were peasant uprisings the world over. They even occurred in Peru under Inca rule! Usually they were horrifically bloody and if the peasants won, typically they simply killed all the feudal lords and everyone who helped them. The Chmielnicki Uprising in the 1500’s in Poland resulted in all the landlords and half the Jews because they were tax collectors for the landlords. But it also caused the deaths of 1/3 of the population of the country!

Under the Nationalists, feudalism and warlordism was the way in China. There was almost no state at all. Feudal landlords also served as warlords. Their warlord armies held sway in the countryside.

Go read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck sometime. That is what life was like in China under the Nationalists and that was the same way it had been for centuries. The Nationalists did not give a damn about anyone who was not rich. It was a feudal party of landlords and warlords.

The Taiwan miracle happened because when the Nationalists fled China, they took almost every nickel in the country with them. That’s why Mao had such a hard time at first. He was starting with more or less nothing. Also they completely dismantled the feudal landlord-warlord system under severe pressure from the US. Then they did a land reform under heavy pressure from the US also. Then the US flooded money into Taiwan for decades in an effort to make Taiwan an anti-Communist showcase, sort of a propaganda exhibit to compare it with China.

Sure the Nationalists turned around Taiwan. Taiwan has a population of what? 50 million? Try doing that with 1.3 million. And the only reason Taiwan junked warlordism, landlordism and feudalism and did a land reform was because Mao won the war. If Mao would have lost the war, China would have just continued with their landlordism, warlordism and feudalism because that was how the Nationalists had governed for decades before and how their predecessors had governed for centuries before that.

If Mao wouldn’t have won, why would the Nationalists have dismantled the system? And don’t forget that 4% of the population left the country and took almost every dime in the place with them when they left. If they would have stayed the money would have stayed in China, so the nationalists would have had 96% less money. Show me how they do their miracle now? And if there had been no revolution, why would the Nationalists have made those massive economic changes they did when they went to Taiwan. Getting rid of landlordism, feudalism and warlordism was a response to the threat of Communism. If they would have continued on with the system the Nationalists were running in China on Taiwan, they would have had another Communist uprising on the island for sure.

Oh and one more thing. When the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, one of the first things they did was to kill 300,000 Communists in Taiwan.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asian, China, Chinese, Economics, European, Geopolitics, History, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nationalism, Poland, Political Science, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, Sociology, Taiwan, USA

Why Mao Is Still a Hero to So Many Chinese

As for your Central Planning, it led to famine, but of course Russians are basically white so the argument against Communism is universal.

Do you know how many famines China had before Mao or how often they occurred?

“Central planning” didn’t cause those famines. They did the transition to collectivized agriculture too fast and the whole thing was such a mess there was a famine for a few years. And in the USSR, a lot of the famine was due to wheat rust epidemic. Also the kulaks set their fields on fire of harvested the crops and piled them in their fields until they got rained on so they got moldy. Also the kulaks killed 50% of the livestock in the several years before the famine. So they destroyed a lot of their crops on purpose and they killed half the livestock in the country. You wonder why there was a famine?

Do you realize that even during the Great Leap in 1958-1961, the death rate in China was still lower than it was in 1949?

The death rate in China collapsed under Mao. Sure, he killed some people, but he saved way more.

Failure of central planning to feed people? China and India were at the same place in 1949. That’s how screwed up China was before Mao. It was as bad as India! Can you imagine? If it wouldn’t have been for Mao, China would be like India right now? India?! Can you visualize that?

After Mao, the malnutrition rate in China is 7%.
After Indian capitalism, the malnutrition rate in India is 51%.

If you wonder why so many Chinese still revere Mao, it’s because of things like that. Chinese people are not idiots.

8 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Death, Economics, Government, Health, History, India, Left, Livestock Production, Maoism, Marxism, Nutrition, Regional, Socialism, South Asia, USSR

The Gains and Legacy of Maoism and the State Role in the Chinese Economy Today

TRASH: Central Planning has done no favors for the Chinese economy and that is why everyone was making The Great Leap Forward to British Hong Kong or eating their children during the famine. Mao was both an idiot and a sadistic tyrant.

True enough that China has found a form of government binding Soviet-blood Manchurian Eurasians, Uighur Turks and Tibet people into a large infrastructure.

Han Chinese seem to have born the brunt of their leaders incompetent Central Planning, Great Leaps Forward, intellectual purges during the Blue Kite horrors etc.

Do you have any idea what China was like before Mao took over? Believe me, it was way, way, way worse that it was under Mao.

Really? Mao set a world record by doubling life expectancy in in the shortest period of time. Life expectancy was doubled from 32 in 1949 to 65 in 1980. A world record! Think how many lives Mao saved! Sure he killed some people, but he saved so many other lives. This is why so many people who lived under Mao revere him to this very day, though it is admitted that he made mistakes.

Industrial production grew at about 10% per year under Mao. Agricultural production exploded under Mao. Medical care was dramatically expanded to where it served the whole population. There were vast expansions in education and after Mao, every Chinese could go to school. There was a massive expansion in housing under Mao and few Chinese lived in slums anymore. Life in countryside improved dramatically under Mao.

The state still plays a huge role in the economy and to some extent the economic progress of the nation is indeed planned or guided by the state. But the same is done in Japan and South Korea.

You realize that all land in China is owned by the state?

Do you have any idea how much money the Chinese state spends at various levels on public projects of all kinds?

Do you realize that the #2 maker of TV’s in the world is a Chinese state firm?

You realize that all Chinese publically owned firms are officially owned by their workers. This was something that Mao put in and the “reformers” have not been able to get rid of it. The more money the firm makes, the larger the workers’ paycheks are.

You realize that 45% of the economy is still publicly owned, right? The difference is now much of that is owned by municipalities and those cities actually compete against each other. Also state firms are run to make a profit, but the profit goes to the state where it is plowed right back to the people in all sorts of ways.

Even the market is under pretty serious control of the state. Private firms need to go along with the project or risk being shut down and confiscated. Much of the massive Chinese development in China is done by state firms. Many Chinese state firms now compete globally against capitalist enterprises, so it’s sink or swim. Many pro-capitalist rightwingers in the US have been complaining about having to compete with Chinese state firms because they are shored up by the Chinese state so therefore this is somehow unfair competition.

31 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Economics, Education, Government, Health, History, Labor, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Socialism, Sociology