Monthly Archives: May 2009

“Don’t Write Off the Liberals” by Melinda Jelliby

This is a very interesting article that appeared in the White nationalist journal American Renaissance eight years ago. I’m not a White nationalist, and in fact as an anti-racist, I am dead set against them, but nevertheless, there are many truisms here. First is that real liberalism only works among Whites. This may indeed be the case, though the verdict is still out on East Asians.

Only Whites have adopted environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. That is, everything we hold dear. Probably only Whites are civilized enough to break up a country without massacring each other in a manner that should shame the basest of lower animals in the process. Hopefully, a post on this in the future.

This is why the White Nationalist movement always seemed to be so strange to me in its hatred for liberalism, but this article sheds some light on the reasons for that.

One of the things that I think is so great about White people is how liberal we are, how we founded and led all of the major liberal movements all over the world, and how we are presently probably the most tolerant and altruistic ethnic group on Earth. Sure this is a recent development, but so what?

White-created liberalism has been exported to much of the rest of the world, where in general it has found little favor, though things are improving somewhat.

White men treat women better than any other ethnic group on Earth, and what do we get for it but flying crockery and kicks to the balls.

Whites treat gays better than any society on Earth, but the gay rights movement is part of the White-hating Left.

Nowhere on Earth is the environmental movement more cultivated and altruistic than among Whites. What other ethnic group on Earth would deign to save bugs, beetles, weeds, minnows, field mice and flowers? There is not one.

The PC Movement, horrible as it is, has some positive aspects. For one, it is incredibly altruistic. PC must be one of the most altruistic movements on Earth. It is so altruistic that is nearly insane, and this is why it arouses such contempt among sane people.

Like Christianity, it asks us to be better than most of us are capable of being. Like Christianity, it arouses the rage of those of us who cannot be as good as these ideologies demand of us. Our moral failings shame us, and in rage we lash out at the ideology that demanded of us such rectitude.

The article is also correct that welfare probably only works in a racially homogeneous society, otherwise it turns into ethnic warfare and/or a spoils system.

That many liberals, socialists, Communists, etc. of the past were also White racists is little known. This is more to be mourned than to be lauded.

Anyway, check it out, interesting read.

Don’t Write Off the Liberals

A real racial movement
cannot be exclusively conservative.

by Melinda Jelliby

I am a liberal. I am also a white woman committed to my race and civilization. I am in favor of much of what is called “big government,” I think the Second Amendment is an anachronism, and I have been reading American Renaissance for more than five years. This may appear to be a shocking contradiction but, as I will show, it is not. Nor am I alone in my views.

Admittedly, there are not very many of us liberals-cum-racial nationalists, but I predict there will be more. The white consciousness movement needs friends — from across the political spectrum — if it is to succeed, and it should not structure itself in a way that discourages potential allies needlessly.

To read American Renaissance (AR) is to get the impression that racial consciousness is a package deal based mostly on opposition; opposition to welfare, gun control, big government, women’s liberation, homosexuals, the United Nations, free trade, and maybe even public schools and social security.

There is no logical reason racial consciousness has to be tied to these things, and to do so as explicitly as AR does risks failing to be — dare I say it? — inclusive. It is true that a clear understanding of race is today more likely to be found among people who also take certain positions generally called “conservative,” but there is nothing inherent or inevitable about this.

The Historical Perspective

As AR is fond of pointing out, until just a few decades ago, virtually every aspect of what is today called “racism” was part of the unquestioned fabric of American society. It should not be necessary to note that that fabric has always been made up of competing schools of thought, many of which were “liberal” by today’s standards. “Liberalism,” in that sense, was perfectly compatible with a healthy understanding of the meaning of race.

Although it probably saddens the hearts of most AR readers, it is possible to view American history as the steady triumph of “liberalism,” defined as the steady dismantling of tradition, hierarchy, and inequality in the search for equality.

The very establishment of the country as a republic rather than a monarchy was in this sense liberal, as were a long list of Constitutional and legal changes: abolition of the property qualification for voters, direct election of senators, abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, compulsory education, the income tax, social security, organized labor, inheritance taxes, etc., etc., all the way up to the Americans With Disabilities Act and homosexual marriage.

It is racial nuttiness that is our enemy, not liberalism, and they are not the same thing.

Whether one sees this as the march of progress or the march of folly, my point is that however bitter the debates may have been over these policies, up until just a few decades ago neither side doubted that America was a European nation that could not survive if it ceased to be European.

The suffragettes, for example, wanted votes for women — a radical idea at the time — but they were not “liberal” about race. And of course, many abolitionists, including Abraham Lincoln, wanted to free the slaves and then expel them from the country.

In that sense, he was more “conservative” on race than the supporters of slavery; he didn’t want blacks in the country under any circumstances. My point is that ever since the founding of this country, it has been possible to work for far-reaching, even revolutionary change without upsetting race relations or losing sight of the racial identity of the nation.

It is easy to find “liberals” from America’s past who were also “racists.” Take William Jennings Bryan (1860 — 1925), certainly no reactionary. He thought blacks should be prevented from voting “on the ground that civilization has a right to preserve itself.” At the 1924 Democratic convention he spoke strongly against a motion to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, and helped defeat it.

His Populist Party running mate in 1886, Tom Watson (1856 — 1924), went even further, calling blacks a “hideous, ominous, national menace.” In 1908 Watson ran for public office “standing squarely for white supremacy.” “Lynch law is a good sign,” he wrote. “It shows that a sense of justice yet lives among the people.”

When he died, the leader of the American Socialist Party Eugene Debs (1855 — 1926) — certainly no conservative — wrote, “he was a great man, a heroic soul who fought for power over evil his whole life long in the interest of the common people, and they loved and honored him.”

The common people, certainly as represented by the Socialist Party, were not liberal on race. The socialists reached the height of their power during the early part of this century and at one time could claim 2,000 elected officials. They were split on the Negro question, but the anti-black faction was probably the stronger.

The party organ, Social Democratic Herald, argued on Sept. 14, 1901 that blacks were inferior, depraved degenerates who went “around raping women and children.” The socialist press dismissed any white woman who consorted with blacks as “depraved.”

In 1903, the Second International criticized American socialists for not speaking out against lynching and other violence against blacks. The Socialist National Quorum explained that Americans were silent on the subject because only the abolition of capitalism and the triumph of socialism could prevent the further procreation of black “lynchable human degenerates.”

At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough dealing with Negroes. There was a strong view within the party that it was capitalism that forced the races to live and work together, and that under Socialism the race problem would be solved for good by complete segregation.

In their racial views, American socialists were in complete agreement with Karl Marx. He and Friedrich Engels both despised blacks and used the English word “nigger” in private correspondence even though they wrote in German. Marx called his rival for leadership of the German socialism movement, Ferdinand Lassalle, “the Jewish nigger,” and described him thus, in a letter to Engels:

It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother, or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger)… The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.

Samuel Gompers: “American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism”

Samuel Gompers (1850 — 1924) epitomizes old-school American liberalism. He was a Jewish immigrant who found-ed the American Federation of Labor and worked constantly for “progressive” causes, but when it came to race, he was firmly in the white man’s corner.

In a 1921 letter to the president of Haverford College explaining the AFL’s position on immigration, he wrote: “Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil.”

In an AFL monograph entitled Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism , he wrote, “It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”

The author Jack London (1876 — 1916) was, in his day, the best known, most highly paid, and popular author in the world. He was a committed socialist but also a white supremacist. He wrote that socialism was “devised for the happiness of certain kindred races. It is devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races.”

There were, however, some races that were not going to go quietly extinct but would have to be taken firmly in hand. In a little essay called “The Yellow Peril,” London worried about what would happen if the 400 million Chinese were ever taken in hand by the 45 million Japanese and led on a crusade against the white man:

Four hundred million indefatigable workers (deft, intelligent, and unafraid to die), aroused and rejuvenescent, managed and guided by forty-five million additional human beings who are splendid fighting animals, scientific and modern, constitute that menace to the Western world which has been well named the ‘Yellow Peril.’

The English philosopher Bertrand Russell, (1872–1970) was another well-known socialist free-thinker, and eternal gadfly to all things conservatives hold dear — well, almost all things. On the race question he was entirely on Jack London’s side. In a 1923 book called Prospects of Industrial Civilization he wrote:

[The] white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence…

Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.

These people were socialists, but that did not blind them to race. They were for socialism and progress but whites came first.

It is also worth noting that a certain central European politician who had considerable influence on mid-century events was a National Socialist. The most famous racist in world history was no libertarian friend of big business. He was a typical rabble-rousing lefty who got his start in beerhalls, not in boardrooms.

Woodrow Wilson … League of Nations and Segregation, Too.

Woodrow Wilson is on the enemies list of many conservatives who see his love affair with the League of Nations as a precursor to national capitulation and One World Government.

But he, too, was a committed racialist who kept Princeton University all white when he was in charge, and made sure, as President, that white bureaucrats did not have to sit next to blacks. After a private showing of D.W. Griffith’s movie, Birth of a Nation, attended by selected senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court chief justice Edward White, he remarked admiringly that the film wrote “history with lightening.”

Not even feminism, which is today closely associated with anti-racism, had origins of which it can today be entirely proud. Margaret Sanger (1883 — 1966) was an early advocate of women’s liberation and was the founder of what is now Planned Parenthood.

She was a militant advocate for female suffrage, published articles on sexuality in a socialist magazine named The Call, and in 1914 founded her own feminist journal, The Woman Rebel. Sanger was a revolutionary — but not when it came to race. She liked the racial hierarchy exactly as it was, and was friends with Lothrop Stoddard, who contributed to her publication.

There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about any of these examples of liberal “racism.” The natural human perspective is that of the tribe. Within the tribe there can be libertarians, socialists, Christians, atheists, and any number of antagonists who are nevertheless loyal tribesmen.

Politics is supposed to end at the water’s edge, meaning that whatever differences Americans have among ourselves are set aside when we face the outside world. Although it never became a catch-phrase, it used to be that politics ended at the race’s edge too.

There is no reason why it should not continue to do so. There is no contradiction between virtually every traditionally liberal position and racial consciousness. In fact, many liberal policies require an understanding of racial differences. For example, I think government has an important role in helping look after people who cannot look after themselves.

But I also think people support welfare programs only when there is a shared feeling of social obligation, which cannot be felt across racial lines. Just as Americans resent it when aliens go on welfare, they resent it when people who are visibly not their kin — but happen to be citizens — take public charity.

As well they should. And no one should pretend that it is only whites who feel this way. If it turned out that whites were getting scholarships from the United Negro College Fund the black outcry would be deafening — even though most of the funding comes from whites.

I think welfare benefits at a certain level are a natural reflection of the way whites build societies. Every white nation, without exception, has moved in this direction. If the nanny state goes too far, as it did in Scandinavia, voters will rein it in, but the record suggests that welfare programs are inherent to white societies.

It is only when non-whites who do not feel the same reciprocal web of obligations to society are included in welfare that we get abuse and degeneracy so flagrant that we are tempted to throw out the whole system. But it is silly to think that just because blacks and Hispanics make a mess of welfare that welfare itself is wrong.

The emancipation of women and the loosening of sexual restraints must also be understood in a racial context. It has opened up opportunities for many white women but has condemned huge numbers of black and Hispanic women to wretched single-motherhood.

Here again we see racial traits that do — or do not — make “liberalism” possible, and it would be a mistake to condemn liberalism itself because of the havoc it has wrought on certain groups.

It is true that in Scandinavian countries illegitimacy rates are high — 65 percent in Iceland, 49 percent in Norway, and 54 percent in Sweden — but this does not mean for the Nordics what it means for Harlem.

Swedes may not be marrying but they are cohabiting in exactly the kind of stable relationship that is necessary for children and which marriage is designed to ensure. High rates of black bastardy and its attendant horrors are the price Americans pay for “liberalism,” but in Sweden high rates of bastardy are essentially benign.

There are many “liberal” movements — animal rights, environmentalism, ecumenicism, homosexual rights — that have virtually no following among non-whites, and that unmask liberalism’s best-kept and most embarrassing little secret: only whites can really be liberals (the verdict is still out on north Asians).

Try explaining women’s liberation to Africans, or telling Honduran millionaires there should be income redistribution, or arguing for religious freedom with Muslims, or telling Japanese to be nice to homosexuals, or even asking American blacks to recycle beer cans.

To repeat: A far-reaching liberalism involving redistribution of wealth requires, first of all, a homogeneous society in which people think of their nation as an extended family. Those feelings do not easily cross the racial divide.

Second, liberalism succeeds only with whites. Although they refuse to admit it, the frustration of so many of today’s liberals comes from trying to make their policies work in a multiracial society like our own and from trying to export them to places like Haiti.

Liberalism is no different from so many other practices and institutions that sprang up among whites and are not appropriate for others. Our country keeps mindlessly trying to push democracy, rule of law, freedom of the press, etc. onto people for whom these things are meaningless. But it would be a mistake to note the racial aspect of the mismatch only when a “conservative” idea or institution fails to take root among non-whites. Liberalism deserves the same analysis.

Let me explain. It seems to me that AR has come very close to suggesting that private ownership of firearms is appropriate for whites but not for blacks. In effect it is saying it is superficial to conclude, as liberals do, that guns are to blame for our rates of violence.

AR loves to go the NRA one better and argue that not only do people rather than guns kill people, it is certain people who kill people. Don’t throw out the Second Amendment, says AR; wake up to race.

Likewise, in the November 1999, issue there is an O Tempora item about the disproportionate number of non-whites who fall afoul of the University of Virginia honor code.

AR writes that if non-whites succeed in junking the honor code, “one more institution built by whites for whites will have been set aside because non-whites could not meet its demands.” Once again, the AR argument is that we must not consider institutions or ideologies to be failures just because non-whites wreck them.

AR should judge liberalism by the same standards. It should be open to the argument that, like private ownership of weapons and the UVA honor code, liberalism is perfectly sound when practiced by the people among whom it originated and for which it was designed.

To expand distinctively white institutions to include others is like putting a saddle on a cow. Do not be unfairly selective in this insight and apply it only when non-whites destroy “conservative” ideals. They destroy “liberal” ideals, too.

A dedicated liberal with any sense of the practical should be a dedicated separatist.

It is racial nuttiness that is our enemy, not liberalism, and they are not the same thing. You may disagree all you like with Margaret Sanger, Jack London, Tom Watson, and the turn-of-the-century socialists, but they had no illusions about race.

The fatal mistake was when liberalism jumped the tracks and went soft-headed about blacks. Two very important things happened as a result. First, liberalism became hated as never before. To be sure, there were fights over women’s suffrage, the League of Nations, the New Deal, and all the rest, but only in recent times have large numbers of Americans thought of something called “liberalism” as pure poison.

They hate liberalism because of its association with affirmative action and non-white immigration but also because of liberalism’s very evident failure when applied to non-whites, particularly blacks. Liberalism became associated — unnecessarily and illogically in my view — with racial idiocy, and at the same time, because its programs were being applied to non-whites for whom they could not possibly work, liberalism appeared to be inherently defective.

People also hate liberalism because it was only when racial equality became one of its central goals that liberalism grew spiteful and incapable of gentlemanly disagreement. It was only when anti-racism became its central project that liberalism started using police-state psychology and began to excommunicate opponents.

There were no jokes about the tyranny of “political correctness” until liberalism was poisoned by racial idiocy and became snarling and sanctimonious. It should be possible to mount a reasoned, libertarian attack on the welfare state without being called a Nazi and driven from respectable society.

One should be able to argue for indirect election of senators, raising the voting age, restoring the property qualification for voters, or even establishing a monarchy without being considered much more than an eccentric. However, as soon as any of these ideas can be seen as hurting non-whites today’s liberalism requires that their advocates be banished to outer darkness.

Racial foolishness has made liberalism so small-minded and intolerant that it can no longer muster wide support for the genuine benefits it has to offer.

Possible Future Allies?

The second thing that happened was that when liberalism and then the country lost its nerve on race and set in motion trends that could reduce whites to a minority, it meant that liberals had written their own death sentence. If the country really does become an Afro-Caribbean-Hispanic mish-mash it is not going to meet either the racial or economic requirements for liberalism.

You cannot have European-style welfare in a country with a Third-World population or a Third-World economy. It is all very well to pass laws that guarantee universal medical care, but if large parts of the economy are off the books, everyone cheats on taxes, and the doctors are on the take, you end up with private medicine anyway.

In its new, anti-white incarnation, liberalism will destroy liberalism. In order to survive, liberalism must reverse course on race. Believe it or not, some of us liberals understand this.

Was Anti-Racism Inevitable?

In objection to everything I have written so far, some would argue that “anti-racism” is inherent to liberalism, that it was only a matter of time before the leveling impulse that characterizes so much of liberalism would eventually get around to race. This may sound plausible but it is wrong.

Turn once again to the historical record. Marx, Engels, and the rest of the most determined levelers drew the line at race, as did virtually every historical figure who was “liberal” by today’s standards. They were not cleverly hiding an anti-racist agenda; like everyone else, they knew that politics stops at the race’s edge.

What’s more, liberalism always draws lines and will always be beaten back when it fails to draw lines. The greatest defeat of the leveling impulse was, of course, the collapse of Communism, but there have been other defeats: The states refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The hippie movement, communes, and Israeli kibbutzes have come and gone.

Everyone now recognizes that capitalism creates wealth and competition stimulates efficiency. No one thinks foreign aid will cure the world’s problems.

But perhaps the most powerful argument against the view that anti-racism is inherent to liberalism is that not even passionate liberals are true anti-racists. There is no end to liberal hypocrisy about race. The judge who orders school busing but sends his children to private school, the “diversity” advocate who lives in a white neighborhood — these are now stock figures in the American comedy.

Not one college official or corporate executive has ever offered his own job to an underqualified non-white in the name of “diversity.” And this, of course, is why two aspects of the anti-racist movement — affirmative action and school busing — are on the ropes. Not even liberals are willing to send their children to school with blacks or be elbowed out of jobs.

I would add that it is only on race that liberalism is so offensively hypocritical. The people who want stronger gun laws, no tariff barriers, world government, high taxes, and more government look forward to living in the world they wish to legislate into existence. They genuinely don’t want gun laws for everyone else but concealed carry for themselves. There can still be honest, sincere liberalism — except when it comes to race.

I wish I could say that liberals were soon going to wake up from this anti-racist nightmare, and that Democrats will eventually become so ashamed of saying one thing and doing another that they will stop saying anything at all about race. Alas, not so. At one level my liberal friends know that they and their associates are hypocrites, but this doesn’t bother them.

They are like Christians who thrill to the gospel of charity and humility but ignore it in their daily lives — and who still consider themselves strong Christians. When everyone is a hypocrite there are no penalties for hypocrisy, and when there are no penalties there is no pressure to change.

At the same time, most liberals make the same mistake about race that AR does: They think anti-racism is inseparable from liberalism. Their commitment to “social justice” (within the tribe) is far stronger than their commitment to non-whites, but they think they must give up the former if they abandon the latter.

Finally, liberals have so great an investment in anti-racism they cannot possibly write it off now. It is hard enough to change intellectual course in middle age; for most people it is impossible if it means conceding that people they hate were right after all.

Can you imagine a Kennedy or a Clinton making even the slightest concession if it meant he agreed — if only in part — with David Duke? Not even the most overwhelming proof can drive men to that kind of humiliation. The battles over race have been too vicious for liberals to admit gracefully that they were wrong.

So what are we to do? First of all, it can be useful simply to understand that liberalism and anti-racism are not permanently linked, and to bear in mind which is the real enemy. Just because you meet someone who is “liberal” on some issue, do not assume he could never be an ally. If we are trying to build a movement for our people, it is counterproductive and wrong to think it must be exclusively conservative.

If this is to be a larger movement, we should not tie racial consciousness to any political positions. We need all the friends and help we can get, and dear though they may be to the hearts of conservatives, the Second Amendment, outlawing abortion, and prayer in the schools count for nothing compared to a common position on race.

For the time being, it is undoubtedly true that our allies are more likely to read National Review than Nation or New Republic, but there is no logical reason why race cannot eventually become like the war in Kosovo, opinions on which cut across the usual divide.

I predict that some day this will happen, and AR and other “conservative” whites should not prevent or delay this. In order for racial consciousness to reach anything like the critical mass necessary for us to change this country we need a lot more people who are willing to take a stand as whites.

The people who make that happen are not all going to be gun-toting government-haters. They are not all going to be members of the Council of Conservative Citizens. They are going to be proud, healthy-minded white people who disagree on a lot of things, but who see eye to eye on the only thing that really matters now, and that is race.


Filed under Americas, Civil Rights, History, Modern, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, US, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, White Racism

Ralph Peters Advocates Killing War Journalists


He is affiliated with JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs). This is definitely one of the most evil organizations on Earth. If you want to know who drummed up the Iraq War, look no further than to these maniacs. This place is Neoconservative Central. These are basically rightwing super-Zionist and Cold Warrior Jews with lots of Gentiles, especially former and current US military, sprinkled among them. For instance, Dick Cheney is a member.

They have a very subversive program that sends US military officers to Israel in order to more or less tie the US and Israeli militaries together by an umbilical cord. After the tours, the officers usually become strong supporters of the Israelis.

One of their journals is called the Journal of International Security Affairs. This where Peters’ screed appeared. Peters has said many a crazy thing in recent years, and he was recently behind a neocon “thought experiment” in which the regime change was accomplished in many Middle Eastern states and states seen as hostile to US and Israeli interests were chopped up into bite-sized chunks.

The borders of the Middle East redrawn by neocon maniac Ralph Peters.

The borders of the Middle East redrawn by neocon maniac Ralph Peters.

The map is a bit difficult to follow. Basically, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, Syria, and Pakistan have all gotten chopped up to one degree or another. A hatchet especially has been taken to supposed US ally Saudi Arabia. Iran has been lopped up good and Pakistan doesn’t have a lot left of it. This map is indicate of the fears of the Pakistani, Syrian, Iranian, Saudi and Turkish states and it shows why they won’t acquiese to separatist movements in their borders.

The map actually makes sense in a way, but since it is being drawn up by US imperialism and International Zionism, no country in the region should go along with it. If the place ever settles down, maybe it might make sense. A big problem here is that Saudi Arabia and Iran lost most of their oil and gas fields to something called the Arab Shia State. It will be a cold day in Hell when either country lops off their prime natural resources that their whole economy is based on.

Jordan and Yemen gain territory at the expense of the Saudis. New states called Free Baluchistan and Free Kurdistan impinge on Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Azerbaijan grows and takes a bite out of Iran. Gaza is donated to Egypt, who doesn’t want anything to do with it. A Sunni Iraqi state is lopped off, seen as a terrorist entity, and hence denied any real resource base in oil and gas, all of that going either to Free Kurdistan or the Arab Shia State.

It’s funny how US imperialism opposes all separatism except when it involves enemies of the US. Then we become separatist advocates. Realpolitik was always the most cynical and disgusting kind of game, with no morals anywhere in sight. Figures Kissinger thought it up. The guy is basically a functioning psychopath. Sublimination is nothing new. Winston Churchill could have been Charles Manson, but for some self-controls.

Peters is a former US ,military intelligence officer who served for many years, but he never saw any combat. That doesn’t stop him from calling real vets serving in office “war virgins” for not attacking whoever he thinks they ought to attack today.


Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Asia, Conservatism, Dangerous Idiots, Egypt, Idiots, Imperialism, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Near East, Neoconservatism, Pakistan, Palestine, Political Science, Regional, Saudi Arabia, South Asia, Syria, The Jewish Question, Turkey, Yemen

Final Katrina Death Toll at 4,081

Repost from the old blog. I received a lot of criticism for this, but this is still probably the best death toll for direct and indirect deaths for Hurricane Katrina out there.

I used my own total of 1,723 direct deaths combined with testimony about a study done after the hurricane that showed a huge increase in excess deaths in the period after the hurricane was over. The resulting total of 4,081 is probably the most accurate total out there for direct and indirect deaths from the storm so far, unless someone has added in some more indirect deaths. This figure came under some criticism, but it is based on the solid epidemiological theory of excess mortality.

My official death toll of 1,723, representing deaths due to immediate and direct effects of the storm, has not changed since August 22, 2006. However, we now have a fascinating document that comes from testimony delivered to Congress, which has caused me to raise the total deaths from Katrina due to direct and immediate plus delayed effects to 4,081.

For those who are interested, a list of 1,195 people who were killed in the hurricane is available here.

The testimony was part of a hearing titled Post Katrina Health Care: Continuing Concerns and Immediate Needs in the New Orleans Region given before the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on March 13, 2007.

The list of speakers is here. Of particular interest in terms of the Katrina death toll was the testimony given by a physician, Dr. Kevin Stephens, Sr., Director pf the New Orleans Health Department.

In his testimony (pdf), Stephens points out that New Orleans already had serious public health problems before the hurricane, including large numbers of poor and uninsured people. The number of doctors has been reduced by 70% and the number of hospital beds in Orleans Parish has been reduced by 75%.

In some areas such as the Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans East in Orleans Parish and Chalmette and other places in St. Bernard Parish, residents have no access to health care whatsoever. Mental health is another serious problem: even last year, 20% of residents reported suffering from severe stress and depression.

Yet the number of mental health inpatient beds has been reduced by 83% and the number of psychiatrists has dropped by 90%. Residents reported observing a larger than usual number of death notices in the newspaper, even long after Katrina and into 2006. At the same time, even months after the storm, residents reported going to more funerals than they ever had.

These anecdotal reports caused Stephens and a team to undertake a study to count the number of death notices in the New Orleans Times-Picayune and compare it to a reference year which would serve as a baseline. 2003 was chosen as a reference year. The data can be seen on page nine of the testimony linked above.

In the first six months of 2003, 5,544 deaths were counted. In the first six months of 2006, 7,902 were counted, an increase of 2,358 deaths over baseline in the post-Katrina period. Based on this, we will assign 2,358 deaths as caused by the accelerated death rates that occurred in New Orleans even long after the storm.

Although the population of New Orleans is only 1/2 what it was prior to the storm, the obituaries covered not only New Orleans but also included many of the refugees tossed about to various parts of the country.

Based on this new information, we can add the previous toll of 1,723 to the new post-Katrina figure of 2,358 to posit a new unofficial death toll of 4,081. Possible causes of the excess deaths in 2006 include stress, suicide, pollution, contamination, impoverishment and the devastation of the heath sector after Katrina. For instance, the suicide rate tripled in the first 10 months after Katrina.

Thanks to Ezra Boyd of Louisiana State University for sending me this information.

Louisiana 20061: Tue., Mar. 13, 2007: 2,358
Louisiana:       Mon., Aug. 2, 2006:  1,464
Mississippi:     Tue., Jan. 24, 2006:   238
Florida:         Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:     14
Georgia:         Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:      2
Alabama:         Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:      2
Ohio2:           Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:     2
Kentucky3:       Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:     1
Total:                                4,081

Footnoted totals are controversial. Explanations for controversial totals follows:

1The explanation for the 2,358 excess deaths in the first six months of 2006 as compared to the baseline of the first six months of 2003, presumably due to various effects of Hurricane Katrina, is above. This total reflects deaths due to delayed effects, whereas the other figures all represent more immediate and direct effects of the storm.

2The two Ohio victims are Cassondra Ground, 19, of Monroeville, Ohio, and Thelma Niedzinski, 84, of Norwalk, Ohio. Both were killed in a car accident near Monroeville, Ohio on August 30, 2005. The Ohio State Highway Patrol felt that a wet road caused by Hurricane Katrina caused the car accident. See Ohioans Focus on Helping Katrina Victims, Jay Cohen, Associated Press, August 31, 2005.

3The Kentucky victim was Deanna Petsch, 10, of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. On August 29, 2005, she fell into a Hurricane Katrina-swollen ditch in Hopkinsville and drowned. See Storm Surge: State Gets Soaked, City Avoids Major Flooding, Homes, Life Lost in Hopkinsville, Sheldon S. Shafer and James Malone, The Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal, August 31, 2005.

Update: This post has been linked on the always-excellent blog Majikthise and criticized in the comments there. The comments question how the 2,368 excess deaths after Katrina can possibly be attributed to Hurricane Katrina. Answer: They cannot.

But using that number is perfectly in accord with the Theory of Excess Mortality. That theory is widely used by epidemiologists, and was used by Les Roberts’ team to come up with the figure of 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq since the US invasion.

Dr. Gideon Polya has done a lot of work in the area of excess mortality and avoidable mortality, some of which has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Examples of his work are here, here and here.

Can we prove that anything in particular is causing excess mortality in any particular place, absent disaster or war? Nope. But something is killing people in various places at various times at an excessive rate. Anecdotal evidence indicated that many more people than normal were dying in New Orleans in the three to nine months post-Hurricane Katrina. Something was killing them.

They just didn’t up and decide that 2006 was a nice year for dying. Barring other reasonable factors, we may assume that Hurricane Katrina had something to do with the excess deaths in New Orleans. The theory and methodology used in my Katrina excess deaths post in no less rigorous than that used by Roberts, Polya and epidemiologists everywhere.

This comment in the same thread on Majikthise backs up my comments quite well.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.


Filed under Americas, Health, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricanes, Louisiana, Public Health, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, South, USA, Weather

Final Katrina Direct Death Toll At 1,723

Repost from the old blog. This is my tally of the final death toll from Hurricane Katrina from a number of sources. I am not sure if it differs a bit from the official toll, but if it does, I am confident that my total if the better one. It was quoted as the official toll on Wikipedia for a long time.

Update: The indirect Katrina death toll has risen from 1,723 to 4,098 as of March 13, 2007. See my post, Final Katrina Death Toll at 4,081 for details. A list of 1,195 people who were killed in Hurricane Katrina is available on this website here.

For what it’s worth, Seth Abramson, an attorney/poet blogger, has been hammering away at the discrepancies in Mississippi’s death toll for some time now, making various allegations that Haley Barbour is hiding the real death toll in Mississippi.

It is true that the suicide rate in New Orleans went up after Hurricane Katrina for a number of months, but the only figures available are per 1000,000 population figures, and until we can determine the population of New Orleans month by month post-Katrina, there is no way to figure out what that number is.

It is helpful to look at a couple of overviews of what Hurricane Katrina actually was. First, a timeline, and then a fact sheet (both the timeline and the fact sheet are from the producers of Surviving Katrina, a promising documentary directed by Phil Craig and produced by the Discovery Channel. This film will be showing on August 27 at 9 PM across the US:


Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Hurricane Katrina starts forming over the Bahamas and is identified by the National Hurricane Centre at 5 PM as Tropical Depression 12.

Wednesday, August 24

Tropical Depression 12 strengthens into a tropical storm and is named Katrina.

Thursday, August 25

Katrina strikes Florida as a Category 1 hurricane with winds of 80 MPH.
Long-range forecasting predicts Katrina will make landfall in the Florida Panhandle, well to the East of New Orleans. It is expected that Katrina will move immediately in a northward direction.

Friday, August 26

At 5 PM, Hurricane Katrina moves into the Gulf of Mexico and quickly grows into a category 2 hurricane with 100 MPH winds. As Hurricane Katrina enters the Gulf of Mexico conditions are perfect for a hurricane to rapidly intensify:

1) Warm ocean temperatures
2) Moist atmospheric conditions
3) A lack of wind sheer (winds that disrupt the motion of a storm)

High pressures over the Gulf drive Katrina further west. Katrina is moving in a westerly direction and the National Hurricane Center forecast track shifts towards New Orleans. The Florida Panhandle is no longer in Katrina’s sights and landfall is now expected somewhere in Mississippi or Louisiana.

Saturday, August 27

At 4 AM, Katrina is now a Category 3 storm and continues to move in a westerly direction. Katrina also continues to rapidly intensify due to the sustained conditions for hurricane growth in the Gulf of Mexico.

The hurricane forecast track has Katrina moving northwest over the next 24 hours towards New Orleans at a speed of 7 MPH. Katrina is roughly 435 miles south of the Mississippi River.

A Category 5 hurricane is a very rare occurrence; typically we only see one every two years in the Atlantic. Conditions in recent years, however, have been ideal for the fueling of massive Category 5 hurricanes.

Sunday, August 28

At 1 AM, Katrina is upgraded to a Category 4 hurricane with winds of 145 MPH. Six hours later, Katrina is upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 160 MPH.

The National Weather Service issues this Advisory at 7 AM:

A Hurricane Warning is in effect for the north central gulf coast from Morgan City, Louisiana eastward to the Alabama/Florida border – including the City of New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain – preparations to protect life and property should be rushed to completion.

At 4 PM, the National Weather Service continues to update on the potential threat to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast from storm surge:

Coastal storm surge flooding of 18 to 22 feet above normal tide levels – locally as high as 28 feet – along with large and dangerous battering waves – can be expected near and to the east of where the center makes landfall. Some levees in New Orleans area could be overtopped. Significant storm surge will occur elsewhere along the central and northeastern Gulf of Mexico Coast.

Monday, August 29

In the early hours of Monday morning, Katrina begins to weaken and by 2 AM is already classed by the National Weather Service as a Category 4 storm.

At 5 AM, one hour before Katrina’s first landfall, Katrina’s associated storm surge begins to cross Lake Borgne from the Gulf of Mexico and starts to batter the eastern flood defenses of Greater New Orleans. The storm surge is also carried towards the city’s Industrial Canal and Lake Pontchartrain along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

Storm surge heights at landfall peaked at around 25 feet as they came ashore – the largest recorded in U.S. history – breaking the previous record set by Hurricane Camille in 1969. Storm surges can be the most devastating part of a hurricane and in Katrina’s case, the storm surges proved much more destructive than the hurricane winds.

Hurricane Katrina makes landfall over the Mississippi Delta as a near Category 4 storm and then makes another landfall on the Mississippi-Louisiana border as a Category 3 hurricane. Hurricane Katrina’s core winds hit the Mississippi Coast and New Orleans experiences the weaker winds on the western side of Katrina.

These winds, moving from the North to the South, create a second storm surge on Lake Pontchartrain – about 11 feet high – which races towards the northern flood defenses of the city, ultimately leading to the breaches in the 17th Street and London Avenue drainage canals that flood Metropolitan New Orleans.

By 2 PM Katrina has weakened to a Category 2 storm as it continues to move inland. By Tuesday, Katrina weakens to a tropical depression.

Hurricane Katrina Fact Sheet

Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States, killing over 1,700 people.

  • The confirmed death toll (total of direct and indirect deaths) stood at 1,723, mainly from Louisiana (1,464) and Mississippi (238). However, 135 people remain categorized as missing in Louisiana, so this number is not final. Many of the deaths are indirect. It is almost impossible to determine the exact cause of some of the fatalities.
  • Katrina was the largest hurricane of its strength to approach the United States in recorded history; its sheer size caused devastation over 100 miles (160 km) from the center. The storm surge caused major or catastrophic damage along the coastlines of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, including the cities of Mobile, Alabama, Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi, and Slidell, Louisiana.
  • Katrina was the eleventh named storm, the fifth hurricane, the third major hurricane, and the second category 5 hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. It was also the sixth strongest hurricane ever recorded, and the third strongest landfalling U.S. hurricane ever recorded.
  • New Orleans’ levee failures were found to be primarily the result of system design flaws, combined with the lack of adequate maintenance. According to an investigation by the National Science Foundation, those responsible for the conception, design, construction, and maintenance of the region’s flood-control system apparently failed to pay sufficient attention to public safety.
  • Hurricane Katrina was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, with estimated damages resulting in $75 billion (in 2005 US dollars).
  • > As of April 2006, the Bush Administration has sought $105 billion for repairs and reconstruction in the region. This does not account for damage to the economy caused by potential interruption of the oil supply and exports of commodities such as grain.
  • More than seventy countries pledged monetary donations or other assistance. Kuwait made the largest single pledge, $500 million; other large donations were made by Qatar ($100 million), India, China (both $5 million), Pakistan ($1.5 million), and Bangladesh ($1 million).
  • The total shut-in oil production from the Gulf of Mexico in the six-month period following the hurricane was approximately 24% of the annual production and the shut-in gas production for the same period was about 18%.
  • The forestry industry in Mississippi was also affected, as 1.3 million acres of forest lands were destroyed. The total loss to the forestry industry due to Katrina is calculated to rise to about $5 billion.
  • Hundreds of thousands of local residents were left unemployed, which will have a trickle-down effect as lower taxes are paid to local governments. Before the hurricane, the region supported approximately one million non-farm jobs, with 600,000 of them in New Orleans. It is estimated that the total economic impact in Louisiana and Mississippi may exceed $150 billion.
  • The American Red Cross, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Common Ground Collective, Emergency Communities, and many other charitable organizations provided housing, food, and water to victims of the storm. These organizations also provided an infrastructure for shelters throughout Louisiana and other states that held thousands of refugees.
Louisiana:   Mon., Aug. 2, 2006:   1,464
Mississippi: Tue., Jan. 24, 2006:  238
Florida:     Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:   14
Georgia:     Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:   2
Alabama:     Mon., Jan. 9, 2006:   2
Ohio1:       Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:  2
Kentucky2:   Wed., Aug. 31, 2005:  1
Total:                             1,723

Footnoted totals are controversial. Explanations for controversial totals follows:

1The two Ohio victims are Cassondra Ground, 19, of Monroeville, Ohio, and Thelma Niedzinski, 84, of Norwalk, Ohio. Both were killed in a car accident near Monroeville, Ohio on August 30, 2005. The Ohio State Highway Patrol felt that a wet road caused by Hurricane Katrina caused the car accident. See Ohioans Focus on Helping Katrina Victims, Jay Cohen, Associated Press, August 31, 2005.

2The Kentucky victim was Deanna Petsch, 10, of Hopkinsville, Kentucky. On August 29, 2005, she fell into a Hurricane Katrina-swollen ditch in Hopkinsville and drowned. See Storm Surge: State Gets Soaked, City Avoids Major Flooding, Homes, Life Lost in Hopkinsville, Sheldon S. Shafer and James Malone, The Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal, August 31, 2005.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.


Filed under Americas, Health, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricanes, Louisiana, Public Health, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, South, USA, Weather

List of Hurricane Katrina Victims

Repost from the old blog. This is to the best of my knowledge, the best and most up to date list of the victims of Hurricane Katrina that available. It was very hard to find, hidden in an obscure corner of the Net, and soon after I grabbed it, the professor who put it up there took it down. To my knowledge, he has not reposted it. If there is a better one out there, let me know.

Finally, at long last, we have an accessible list of victims of Hurricane Katrina. It’s not complete at all, as it only lists 1,195 victims, but it’s a start anyway. The Louisiana Health Department has released a list of 828 victims, but I don’t know where to find that list, and it’s incomplete anyway.

Listing of victims has been quite haphazard. Mississippi listed those directly killed by the storm, while Louisiana chose to list indirect deaths. John Mutter, a professor of geophysics at Colombia University’s Earth Institute, was frustrated by the seeming lack of an accurate death toll, so he decided to try to tally up his own.

Mutter wants a complete list of everyone killed by the storm, directly and indirectly. His list is now pretty much hidden and very hard to find, but in March 2007 I did manage to track it down to an obscure website on Mutter’s homepage. However, he has now removed the list and is not responding to emails about it. I have placed the file here.

The file is an Excel spreadsheet and you need to have a program capable of reading Excel spreadsheets in order to read the document.

I also have a large and detailed report in pdf that breaks the deaths down into all sorts of categories. It is available here.

The list has 1,195 victims listed on it, with a few facts about each victim included in their entry. Mutter’s list is dated October 26, 2006 and there does not seem to be a more updated list. Mutter’s list contains names that are not on the official state tallies. Here is the website for Mutter’s project at Colombia. You can also send him data on any hurricane deaths that may not appear on the list from a form on the site.

As this article makes clear, it seems there are storm victims who have not made it onto either list. Some are well-known, such as Sgt. Paul Accardo of the New Orleans Police Department, who committed suicide a mere six days after the storm.

Others include Jerome “Slim Rome” Spears and his fiance Rachel Harris. Spears shot Harris to death and then killed himself in a rental home in Atlanta, where they had moved as unemployed refugees after the storm.

Some are elderly, such as Dorothy and Sam Cerniglia and Yvonne Aubry. All three saw their health begin a rapid slide to death after the storm hit, dying of conditions that previously had been well-managed.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Americas, Health, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricanes, Louisiana, Public Health, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, South, USA, Weather

Maps of Afghan Provinces

Repost from the old site. These are some of the coolest and best maps of Afghanistan you can find anywhere on the Net. From the UN.

We are proud be able to offer a number of excellent Afghan provincial maps from the UN on this website. These maps are quite hard to find, and they are the best English-language Afghan maps I have ever found. I have used them a lot in my Afghanistan updates that I used to regularly publish on this blog.

I don’t have maps of all of the Afghan provinces, but I have maps of the most unstable provinces where most of the fighting is occurring these days. All maps require Adobe Reader.

List of maps:

Map of Badghis Province

Map of Baghlan Province

Map of Balkh Province

Map of Farah Province

Map of Faryab Province

Map of Ghazni Province

Map of Helmand Province

Map of Herat Province

Map of Kabul Province

Map of Kandahar Province

Map of Khost Province

Map of Kunar Province

Map of Kunduz Province

Map of Laghman Province

Map of Nangarhar Province

Map of Nuristan Province

Map of Paktia Province

Map of Paktika Province

Map of Parwan Province

Map of Samangan Province

Map of Uruzgan Province

Map of Zabul Province

Enjoy the maps! If you cannot find a particular town on a provincial map, you may wish to look at one of the district maps. We also have many excellent Afghanistan district maps available for download here.


Filed under Afghanistan, Geography, Maps, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, South Asia

Update on Conditions in Nepal

This is an excellent piece on the events in Nepal. I am not sure how much you all know about what is going on in Nepal. A Maoist party led a revolution for 11 years that killed about 13,000 people.

The upshot was the end of the Nepalese monarchy (the only officially Hindu state and the only Hindu monarchy on Earth) and laying the groundwork for a true parliamentary and democratic system. Elections were held, and the Maoists won a plurality of 40%. They formed a government with themselves at the head. As part of peace accords, the Maoist army and the Royalist army were supposed to be integrated.

The decision to end armed struggle was not taken lightly. The leadership, centered around a man named Prachandra, decided pragmatically to give it up and try for power in democratic elections. This caused a huge uproar in Maoist circles worldwide, as they were accused of selling out and parliamentary cretinism.

The hardliners advocated that the Maoists should continue armed struggle until they seized state power and then install a dictatorship of the proletariat. Prachandra has made many eclectic statements, rejecting much of Communist history as old hat and not relevant to today’s conditions in which the USSR is gone, China hardly supports revolution and imperialism controls the globe.

He has said that the party is committed to democracy and that if they help the people as much as they hope to, they should be re-elected over and over. This is step in the right direction. The dictaproles have committed lots of crimes and killed, tortured and imprisoned so many people, one wonders why people still support such a formation.

My own party, the CPUSA, in its theoretical journal, says that it now believes that socialism requires “complete democracy.”

For the US, the CPUSA has always advocated what Gus Hall called “Bill of Rights Socialism.” That is, if they were in power, we would have complete civil rights as we do now and the party would have to stand for election regularly. As high-ranking party member told me that the reason for that was because Americans are used to civil liberties and no Communist party could succeed in the US without acknowledging that.

My party also supports the Chinese Communist Party, which is using lots of capitalism. There is just a whole lot of rethinking going on in Left circles these days.

One of the parties behind the furor over the Nepalese Maoists is a US Maoist party called the RCP-USA, the Revolutionary Communist Party. This is a small party that has never been able to do much of anything in the US.

They have been issuing ferocious denunciations of the Nepalese Maoists for “selling out.” I and many others think this is ridiculous. The Nepalese party has actually fought a successful revolution and is in power in the government. The RCP has never been able to accomplish anything. Who are they to tell the Nepalese what to do?

The rest of the piece should be pretty self-explanatory. It looks like much of the non-Maoist 60% of the government cobbled together some sort of a government and took out the Maoists. Perfectly legal I guess.

What’s particularly disgusting is the behavior of other Nepalese Communist parties, who have refused to work with the Maoists and have lined up behind feudalism, the monarchists and reaction. These parties were in parliament for over a decade during the 1990’s and were never able to accomplish a damned thing. Talk about useless.

The Madhesis are an indigenous group in the South down by the Indian border. The Terai are another indigenous ethnic group in the same region. They are analogous to the scheduled tribes of India and are at the bottom of the totem pole. The whole matter of the Madhesis and Terai is very confusing – a partial overview is here.

The Madhesis formerly resided in India, but the border moved when King Shah of Nepal conquered the southern border region 250 years ago from an Indian princely state. The Madhesis are so named because this region is both where the Buddha, revered by Buddhism, was born, and were the Hindu religion says Lord Sita, heroine of the Ramayan Epic, was born. The Madhesis have been living in that region for possibly thousands of years. See the comments at the end of the site for more.

Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) or CPN (UML) is the name of one of the sellout Communist parties.

Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) or UCPN (M) is the Maoist party.

Nepali Congress (NC) is a useless middle of the road party modeled after India’s Congress Party. It either supports monarchism and feudalism or it won’t fight them.

Right now, the Maoists are out of power and are saying that they will not cooperate with the new government.

Nepal’s Revolution At Crossroads

By Walter Smolarek

26 May, 2009

Nestled in the Himalayas, the little-known nation of Nepal has been set ablaze. Massive demonstrations, strikes, and the possibility of armed struggle characterize the tremendous upheaval that has come about in the world’s newest republic. The peasants, the workers, the slum dwellers, and all other oppressed people are standing up in an effort to finish off what remains of the feudal system that has exploited them for so long.

The past month has been a decisive period in Nepal’s revolution, and it’s important to cut through the ruling class distortions and understand what really went on. Before reading this, I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the general situation by reading my last article on the subject as this analysis does not include any background information.

UCPN (M)’s Time in Government

When Prachanda became Prime Minister of Nepal, many thought that the liberation they had struggled for had finally come. The Maoists’ vision for New Nepal was crystallized in their budget, presented in late 2008.

It included provisions for a literacy program, women’s empowerment, building vital infrastructure, redistributing land to the peasantry, and eliminating poverty (1). In addition, one of UCPN (M)’s major goals was to integrate their People’s Liberation Army into the Nepalese Army, in order to complete the peace process and neutralize the threat posed by this traditionally royalist force.

However, what transpired in the following months was, despite some significant positive steps, a disappointment for many. The blame for the government’s inability to carry out their programs rests, however, not with the Maoists, but with the reactionary opposition and their weak-willed “ally”, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist).

The Nepali Congress, representing the views of the Nepalese capitalists who began moving closer and closer to the feudalists (with the support of Indian expansionism and US imperialism), obstructed the day-to-day activities of the new Republican government. The Maoists should have been able to overcome this impediment, but they relied on CPN (UML) for a majority in the Constituent Assembly.

This vital partner, as the months went by, became more and more counter-revolutionary as the aggressively anti-Maoist K.P. Oli rose to a position of great influence within the party.

As the seemingly endless political deadlock ran on, many began to wonder if this frustrating period had eroded some of the mass support for UCPN (M). A definitive answer was given after the April 10th by-election held in six districts in Nepal. It turned out that confidence in Prachanda’s government had increased rather than decreased.

The Maoists previously held two of the six vacated seats and won three by prevailing in what used to be a Nepali Congress stronghold (2). With this renewed mandate, the revolutionary government went about tackling the issue of army integration, which had been delayed due to resistance by the right-wing leadership of the Nepalese Army.

The Soft Coup

Fed up with the Army’s flagrant disregard for the constitution and commands from the Ministry of Defense, the Maoist government requested that Chief of Army Staff (the highest ranking officer in the armed forces) Rookmangud Katawal submit a written clarification explaining why he had disobeyed direct orders.

In the most arrogant way, Katawal dragged his feet and gathered political support from right-wing political parties like the Nepali Congress and the Oli faction of the CPN (UML) as well as foreign powers, especially India. The capitalists, the feudalists, the military, and the imperialists began to unite to preserve the status-quo; the elites were closing ranks. In response to these outrageous political moves, Prachanda fired the insubordinate Katawal on May third.

The next day, the will of the democratically elected government was overturned in what many are calling a “soft” coup. President Yadav of the Nepali Congress, who occupies a largely ceremonial role that his party managed to acquire due to disunity between the two major communist parties, grossly overstepped his authority and instructed Katawal to continue as head of the Nepali Army.

Stripped of the power vested in him by the people of Nepal, Prachanda resigned from his post and vowed to intensify the struggle against anti-change elements.

This was carried out, and is being carried out, simultaneously in both the Supreme Court and in the streets. The former is somewhat of a formality done in order to emphasize the anti-democratic nature of the Maoists’ opponents.

The demonstrations, however, are highly successful, with thousands of people turning out daily all over the nation and especially in the capital, Kathmandu. Participating are not only affiliates of UCPN (M) but workers and students of all stripes. In addition, the Maoist legislators held demonstrations in the Constituent Assembly itself, making it impossible for the state to function during this crisis. This set the backdrop for the political wrangling that ensued following the Prime Minister’s resignation.

Forming a New Government

As high-level talks went on between the parties, three proposals emerged. First, there was the possibility of another Maoist-led government. Those backing this solution included (obviously) UCPN (M), the faction of the MJF loyal to party Chairman Upendra Yadav, and several small left-wing parties. The large and militant mobilizations also aided the drive for Maoist leadership.

The other main option was a CPN (UML) led government, a notion supported strongly and immediately by the Nepali Congress. Proponents persuaded the TMLP and Sadbhavana Party (two of the less progressive Terai-based parties) early on and began working on the MJF.

It managed to split the party between those that supported Yadav and those that supported the pro-UML parliamentary leader Bijay Kumar Gachchhedar as well as ascertain the support of a few left-wing groups with grudges against the Maoists.

Finally, there had been talk of forming a national unity government including the UML, NC, UCPN (M), and the Madhesi parties. While this idea was supported tacitly by the faction of the UML aligned with the party’s leader Jhalanath Khanal against Oli, it was largely the product of frustration at the political deadlock and panic at the outpouring of support for the Maoists.

After three weeks of negotiations and demonstrations, the political elite had managed to impose the second option, a UML-led government, on the nation. Having cajoled enough of the smaller parties into supporting their agenda and having been able to bypass the Maoist demonstrations within the Constituent Assembly, Madhav Kumar Nepal (an ally of K.P. Oli) was sworn in as the new Prime Minister on May 25th after a vote boycotted by UCPN (M) the previous day.

What Lies Ahead

And so the revolution is at a crossroads. The collapse, or more accurately the overthrow, of Prachanda’s government is certainly a setback. On the one hand, there lies the path to demoralization and defeat, but along the other path is opportunity. The supporters of the new government are eclectic to an extreme, with very little ideological common ground.

When taking the oath of office during the days of the monarchy, the Prime Minister would do so “in the name of God”. When Prachanda took office, he took the oath “in the name of the people”. M.K. Nepal skipped this section entirely, taking the oath in the name of nobody (3). Hardly anything is more emblematic of his government’s politically destitute nature, held together by nothing more than an opportunist desire to derail the process of change.

Provided that the Maoists maintain their pledge to not cooperate with this puppet regime, the UML administration will, in all likelihood, prove to be ineffectual and serve as a catalyst for an intensified struggle on the streets. The events of the last month have laid bare the dictatorial character of both the feudalists and the proponents of traditional parliamentarianism.

It has become even clearer that if the impoverished and exploited majorities are to live a life with dignity, a fundamentally different society under a fundamentally different system is required. This society is called New Nepal; this system is called socialism.


Maoist’s New Nepal: Industrial Capitalism in the Name of Socialism

Maoist Candidate Santosh Budhamagar Elected CA Member From Rolpa

PM Nepal Sworn in, Inducts Two UML leaders in Cabinet


Filed under Asia, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nepal, Regional, Revolution, South Asia, Useless Western Left

Photos of Smithfield Foods’ Granjas Carrol Site in La Gloria, Mexico

Dead pigs left out in the heat to rot. Scavengers have been feeding on these pigs.

Dead pigs left out in the heat to rot. Scavengers have been feeding on these pigs.

Dead pigs in a cart left out in the heat. It's not known if these pigs are supposed to be disposed of or made into food.

Dead pigs in a cart left out in the heat. It's not known if these pigs are supposed to be disposed of or made into food.

Dead pigs rotting away in the pig waste lagoon. The lagoon is filled with pig shit, pig piss, dead pigs, pig afterbirths, dead piglets stomped to death by their parents, on and on.

Dead pigs rotting away in the pig waste lagoon. The lagoon is filled with pig shit, pig piss, dead pigs, pig afterbirths, dead piglets stomped to death by their parents, on and on.

The famous pig shit lakes that bred the Swine Flu. The lakes are full of pig blood, pig shit, rotting dead pigs and other charming and delectable items. Note broken pipe. The smell from these lakes is so horrible that workers are sometimes overcome, pass out, and fall into the pig shit lake. Those who dive in to save them almost always die too. It sometimes takes weeks to fish the bodies out.

The famous pig shit lakes that bred the Swine Flu. The lakes are full of pig blood, pig shit, rotting dead pigs and other charming and delectable items. Note broken pipe. The smell from these lakes is so horrible that workers are sometimes overcome, pass out, and fall into the pig shit lake. Those who dive in to save them almost always die too. It sometimes takes weeks to fish the bodies out.

Aren’t these pig shit lakes just wonderful? Go capitalism go! Hat tip Cogitamus. From the Veracruz investigative reporting paper Enlace Veracruz 212.

Of course, as is always the case in corrupt Third World capitalist hellholes, many of the people who complained about this mess have been harassed, detained, arrested, threatened, etc. by government officials whored out to the multinational. There doesn’t seem to be any getting away from this. All 3rd World capitalist states do this and there is no avoiding it. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

It looks increasingly like this facility is where the Swine Flu was birthed. It’s not true that the company cleared its operation of guilt; this is just a corporate lie being shopped around by the whored out corporate media.

Whored out medias in bed with monopoly capital are quite common in most capitalist states, and the US is no exception. There doesn’t seem to be any getting away from away from it. The papers are always run by corporations themselves, and they usually back up their corporate brethren. Once again, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature, and it’s unavoidable under capitalism.

Much is being made of the fact that the Swine Flu turned out to be a fake scare, but it’s strange that it did kill many very healthy people, over 200 at last count. This is unusual for the flu, which usually kills the very sick and elderly, and it makes this flu all the more tragic.


Filed under Agricutlure, Americas, Animals, Environmentalism, Health, Latin America, Livestock Production, Mexico, Pollution, Public Health, Regional

Anti-Zionist Site Posts Nazi Propaganda

This is the usual “Judeo-Bolshevik”, Jews caused the Holocaust, variety. What’s next? Holocaust Denial?

From Palestinestinktank, run by anti-Zionist Jews Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo, with a lot of help from Jordanian Haitham Sabbah.

This site is just getting worse and worse and more and more into rank, raw anti-Semitism. Way to go guys!

Sooner or later, a vast number of anti-Zionists fall into this stinky anti-Semitic mud puddle. Why, I’m not sure. The behavior of Zionists in Palestine is pretty terrible and their buddies in the West control a lot of the media and a few of the governments.

To be an anti-Zionist is to feel very helpless. It’s like you’re fighting a war against space aliens or something. The Palestinians don’t seem to have a chance, and the Zionists hold all the cards. It’s a very frustrating and enraging experience, and I guess the end result for a lot of folks experiencing this kind of frustrated rage is just to go anti-Semite. I can understand it, but adults ought to have more self-control.

As for an analysis of the article itself. The article in question is quite good, and in general is not anti-Semitic, except where it echoes the Judeo-Bolshevik, Jews caused WW2, Jews caused the Holocaust crap.

That article even outrageously implies that Jews gave Nazis the idea for the Holocaust! The poor innocent Nazis! They never wanted to kill all those people. But they developed their evil Nazi ideology from those wicked Jews! Poor Germans! Poor Hitler!

My God.

The main premise of the article is simply false. The premise is the typical Nazi and fascist accusation called Judeo-Bolshevism.

Hitler set off the Holocaust in the name of this phantom. That is why Hitler tried to kill every single Jew on Earth – because Jews were Communists, and Communism was Jewish. The headquarters of World Communism was in Moscow in the USSR.When you run propaganda echoing the Judeo-Bolshevik line, you wittingly or not serve the interests of Nazi propaganda.

I do not know if you know this. I have a policy on my blog that I do not run anti-Semitism. Also, my blog is officially pro-Jewish.

I would like to point out that in addition to the Judeo-Bolshevik crap, that article also says Jews caused the  Holodomor. A Holodomor which never even happened. There was no Holodomor. There was no deliberate famine. Almost all scholars now agree on this. Even Robert Conquest, who singlehandedly did more than anyone else to promote the Holodomor lie, now agrees.

The article also flirts with another lie. That the JewSSR (this is the lie that the article promotes – a lie called the JewSSR) killed tens of millions of Russian Christians. It is true that Communists killed 1.6 million people in the USSR, if we do not include the war. The overwhelming majority of Russians were Christians. In killing 1.6 million Soviets for whatever reason, it is clear that the overwhelming majority would be Christians.

This is like accusing Mao of being a Buddhist-hater or Confucionist-hater for the deaths of millions in China. That the millions killed were Buddhists or  Confucionists is mere historical accident.

Communists presided over the famine. Communists caused the deaths of 1.6 million people during peacetime over 32 years. Not Jews. Communists.

The Jewish era in the USSR, such that it even existed, was over by 1927. Super-Jews even accuse Stalin of being an anti-Semite. Stalin was a reaction against the Jewish era in the USSR and he instituted a kind of Orthodox Christian very conservative Great Russianism.

During the 1930’s, these evil Christian-hating and Christian-murdering Jews killed a very large number of the top Jews in the USSR. Funny how evil Jews even kill their own kind. Surely there was some evil Gentile-hating and Christian-hating conspiracy behind the self-immolation of those Judeo-Bolsheviks in 1937!

This is a classic degeneration. Almost all anti-Zionists degenerate into this gutter European anti-Semitism at some point or another. Almost all of them either start echoing Nazi propaganda, or defend Nazis, or blame Jews for starting the war or setting off the Judeocide against themselves. Almost all of them at some point start flirting with some species of Holocaust Denial.

Gilad Atzmon is an intellectual anti-Semite, and he and Mary have been flirting with anti-Semitism and fascist terminology, apparently ignorantly or unwittingly, for some time now. I do not know why they are doing this. Atzmon’s anti-Semitism gets worse by the year.

Gilad is not a Nazi. Certainly Mary is not. I guess Haitham is not. But the whole Judeo-Bolshevik line, which this piece promotes, is anti-Semitic, and it does echo Nazi propaganda, whether they want to believe it or not.

These people are just foolish. They are running anti-Semitism, promoting the most rank kind of anti-Semitism and in fact knowingly or not, fascist and even Nazi propaganda. I realize that they do not know what they are doing, but it’s still just wrong.

These people are just idiots. Irresponsible idiots. What do they think they are doing?


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Fascism, Idiots, Left, Nazism, Political Science, Racism, The Jewish Question

Some Scientific Intelligibility Studies

I put separate language <90% intelligibility. <90% we have proven that it gets hard to talk about complex and more educated matters. Of course you can discuss the weather. <80% throws a substantial crimp into communication and significantly impairs it.

Iberian - Oral

Asturian - Spanish:              80%
Spanish - Portuguese:            54%
Galician - Portuguese:           85%

Italian - Oral

Venetian - Venetian*:            92%

German - Oral

German - Texas German            95%
German - Swabian:                40%
German - Badish:                 40%
German - Kolsch (Ripaurian):     40%
German - Bavarian:               40%
German - Moselle Franconian:     40%
German - Upper Saxon:            40%
German - Luxembourgish:          40%
German - Hessian:                40%
German - Low German:             40%
German - Alsatian:               40%
Pennsylvania German - Hutterite: 70%
Mennonite - Hutterite:           50%
Bavarian -  Bavarian***:         50%
Kirchröadsj -  Hommersch**       20%

Dutch - Oral

Dutch - Groningen:               90.5%

English - Oral

US English - Glascow Scots:      53%
US English - Edinburgh Scots:    32%
US English - Scots (average):    42.5%

Scandinavian - Oral

Norwegian - Danish:              71%
Norwegian - Swedish:             68%
Swedish - Danish:                33%

Scandinavian - Written

Norwegian - Danish:              91.5%
Norwegian - Swedish:             87.5%
Swedish - Danish:                69%

*Maximum distance between any two Venetian dialects.

**Ripaurian lects at opposite ends of the Ripaurian dialect chain.

** Central Austrian Bavarian vs. Viennese Bavarian.

Commentary: Clearly, Asturian and Spanish are separate languages, and so are Galician and Portuguese. These two are rather controversial, with Spanish speakers claiming Asturian as a Spanish dialect and Portuguese speakers claiming Galician as a Portuguese dialect. The much-vaunted mutual intelligibility between Spanish and Portuguese leaves much to be desired.

Spanish speakers say that Italian is much lower than Portuguese. I figure 20-30% for Italian – Spanish.

Venetian is clearly a single language.

All of the German lects listed above are separate languages except for Texas German, which is just a dialect of German.

Groningen is just barely a dialect of Dutch, but Groningen speakers want to see themselves as speakers of a separate language, so the world is going alone. Here, sociolinguistics trumps intelligibility testing.

Scots is clearly a separate language from English. There is  no debate about that anymore from a scientific point of view. It’s simply not intelligible with US English, period.

The much-discussed mutual intelligibility between the Scandinavian languages leaves much to be desired, though between Norwegian and the rest, it is higher than, say, Portuguese and Spanish. Between Danish and the rest and Swedish and the rest, it is lower than between Spanish and Portuguese. Intelligibility between Swedish and Danish is ridiculously low. It’s incredible that people discuss the mutual intelligibility of these two languages.

Swedish and Norwegian speakers get subtitles on Danish TV. If they are so intelligible, what’s with the subtitles? Scandinavian speakers often resort to English to speak to each other. If they are so intelligible, why resort to English?

Based on the data, it is completely untrue to say that Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are mutually intelligible, though Norwegians can generally easily understand the other Scandinavian languages if they are written.


Fig. A. An understanding of the spoken languageNorwegians understand 88% of the spoken Swedish language and understand 73% of the spoken Danish language.Swedes understand 48% of the spoken Norwegian language and understand 23% of the spoken Danish language.

Danes understand 69% of the spoken Norwegian language and understand 43% of the spoken Swedish language.

Norwegian and Swedish have 68% oral intelligibility.
Norwegian and Danish have 71% oral intelligibility.
Norwegian has combined 69% oral intelligibility of Swedish and Danish.

Swedish and Norwegian have 68% oral intelligibility.
Swedish and Danish have 33% oral intelligibility.
Swedish has 48% combined oral intelligibility of Danish and Norwegian, less than for Spanish and Portuguese.

Danish has 33% oral intelligibility of Swedish.
Danish has 68% oral intelligibility of Norwegian.
Danish has 50% combined oral intelligibility of Swedish and Norwegian, less than for Spanish and Portuguese.

Fig. B. An understanding of the written language

Norwegians understand 89% of the written Swedish language and 93% of the written Danish language.

Swedes understand 86% of the written Norwegian language and 69% of the written Danish language.

Danes understand 89% of the written Norwegian language and 69% of the written Swedish language.

Norwegian and Swedish have 87.5% written intelligibility.
Norwegian and Danish have 91.5% written intelligibility.
Swedish and Danish have 69% written intelligibility.

Norwegian and Swedish have 89% written intelligibility.
Norwegian and Danish have 93% written intelligibility.
Norwegian has combined 91.5% written intelligibility of Swedish and Danish.

Swedish and Norwegian have 86% written intelligibility.
Swedish and Danish have 69% written intelligibility.
Swedish has 77.5% combined intelligibility of written Danish and Norwegian.

Danish has 69% written intelligibility of Swedish.
Danish has 89% written intelligibility of Norwegian.
Danish has 79% combined written intelligibility of Swedish and Norwegian.


Kilborn, Emily SJE. The Politics of Language in Europe. Case Studies in Scots, Occitan, Moldovan, & Verbose‐Croatian. European Studies. Middlebury College.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.


Filed under Dialectology, Linguistics