Monthly Archives: September 2011

Israel the Model

Israel Shamir:

Israel/Palestine is the model of the world Americans want to achieve. It has peasants and their flocks dying of thirst, and on the hilltop there are villas and swimming pools for the chosen folk. It has a huge army and it has many labourers without any rights. In order to turn all the world into Palestine they began now World War 3 against the Third World.

The Israel American alliance is more than just a Jewish Lobby. It’s a shared view of the world via two settler colonial states with an “exceptionalist” view of themselves. Good, solid majorities of Americans, mostly Whites, stand hard and fast behind the Jewish state. They don’t just do that because of the Jewish Lobby or media brainwash. There’s something more going on there.

And let’s not forget White racism – Israel as a Euro-White state besieged by violent hordes of dark skinned 3rd Worlders.

Toss Islam versus “Judeo-Christianity” into the mix and the souffle is ready for the hot war oven.

15 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Colonialism, Europeans, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Middle East, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Settler-Colonialism, The Jewish Question, Whites, Zionism

“We Need to Do Something About Crime!”

White people are always wailing about this. Obviously, there’s a racial subtext. What they mean is Black crime.

I for one would like for one to figure out why it even happens so much in the first place. I figure that the traditional liberal explanations are a bunch of nonsense. This is part of the problem – our theories about Black crime are probably completely wrong, so we are waging wars against phantoms.

Part of the project of this site is to figure out why in the Hell Blacks commit so much crime. That will involve a look into race realism. I would even like to see studies funded. We could also look at genetics, environment, everything.

You can’t get anywhere in regard to any problem as long as you can’t even figure out what the Hell is causing it. That ought to be step #1, and it will be a huge undertaking.

Once that’s done, with regard to any issue you can try to figure out what, if anything, you can do about it.

Maybe we could give Blacks a pill if they want to take it. Maybe we could design specific interventions, nutritional, therapeutic, pre-school, societal, sociological, etc. We would design them for Blacks and Blacks only, because what works for them might not work for other groups.

As far as Black crime and pathology in general, damage control. Try to ameliorate it as much as possible. It’s never going to go away, and it will be at high levels for a long time, probably the forseeable future. Any reduction would be positive.

One response has been to lock away huge numbers of Blacks. Sure, this lowered the crime rate, but it’s a pretty inhuman solution. Black criminals are humans too. Better to lower the rate by getting them to not do it in the first place.

11 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Liberalism, Political Science, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Social Problems, Sociology

Black Pathology and IQ – Is There a Connection?

A commenter at Jewamongyou’s site says that Blacks abuse animals (to the extent that they do – I’m not completely sure that Blacks abuse animals a lot) because they are stupid. He says that the few Whites he knew who used to beat their dogs were dumb as rocks to add weight to his theory.

I have written many posts about Black IQ. I no longer think that Black IQ accounts for much of anything at all in and of itself, although I believe, paradoxically, that if we could move Black IQ up, we could probably reduce Black pathology.

Set Black IQ at 100 and see how much crime 100 IQ Blacks commit. Now what if we could do that for the whole group? Wouldn’t that be cool?

The problem comes when we get into comparisons with other groups with the same IQ. The IQ of US Blacks – 87 – is simply not sufficient in and of itself to account for much, if any, crime. There are groups the world over with that IQ or lower than run orderly societies with little or no crime.

For instance, there are groups all over the world which have IQ’s that are actually lower than US Blacks. They generally act very good, and some of their societies have almost zero crime. I think of Arabs as a shining example. The lowest crime societies on Earth are run by Arabs.

East Indians such as Bangladeshis, Indians, Nepalis and Pakistanis also do not show anything like the wild chaotic and horrific behavior of Blacks. In some of those societies, there is probably not even a lot of crime. A friend of mine told me that despite their poverty, Indian Hindus don’t commit a lot of crime or even thievery because they are afraid of coming back as a cockroach.

The Stans have IQ’s around the same of US Blacks. They are smooth-running Islamic societies with little crime and excellent health figures.

Iran has an IQ a couple of points lower than US Blacks, and the crime rate is almost nil.

American Indians and US Polynesians have the same IQ as US Blacks, but Blacks commit 4.5 times as much crime. Traditional Polynesian society works very well. There is almost zero crime. Finding any Black society anywhere that works well or has zero crime is quite an undertaking.

Indonesians and Filipinos have IQ’s exactly the same as US Blacks. Indonesia is a smooth society with little crime. I don’t know much about the Philippines, but village society has little crime, and in general Filipino cities are nothing like Lagos or Detroit.

In China, Uighurs and Tibetans have IQ’s lower than Blacks. Their societies run smoothly with almost no crime or dysfunction.

Further, Black IQ is rising. Black children have IQ’s as high as 95, which gradually drop to 87 in adulthood. Most Black youth have IQ’s about 90-95. That’s perfectly high to act decently, yet Black kids act like monsters. I know, I taught them in school for years.

To me, it’s obvious that there is something badly wrong with Black people as a group. But I think little of it has to do with being stupid. There’s something else going on. Part of the project of this site is to figure out what that something is, and then maybe suggest what we can do about it, if anything. Blacks don’t seem to want to assist in the quest; all they do is come around and yell and scream abuse at me. But I’m a liberal, and part of our project is to “help the poor Blacks.” Because they need it, and because it’s the right thing to do.

90 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Arabs, Asians, Blacks, Crime, East Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Intelligence, Liberalism, Oceanians, Political Science, Polynesians, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, South Asians, Tibetans, Uighurs

“Wall Street Under Siege,” by Alpha Unit

If you know about the protests staged in New York City by Occupy Wall Street, you might have heard of the numerous arrests and the allegations of police brutality – what you always hear about during large demonstrations. You might know that famous activists have shown up during the protests – Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Cornel West, for example.

You probably haven’t heard anything about who’s leading these protests. The one thing media outlets are able to agree on about Occupy Wall Street is that there are no leaders.

What they do have now is a powerful icon throwing his support behind them. Noam Chomsky released this statement:

Anyone with eyes open knows the gangsterism of Wall Street – financial institutions generally – has caused severe damage to the people of the United States (and the world). And should know also know that it has been doing so increasingly for over 30 years, as their power in the economy has radically increased, and with it their political power.

That has set in motion a vicious cycle that has concentrated immense wealth, and with it political power, in a tiny sector of the population, a fraction of 1%, while the rest increasingly become what is sometimes called a “precariat” – seeking to survive a precarious existence.

So there are the financial oligarchs (“banksters”) and then there are all the rest of us – the 99 percent. Occupy Wall Street is supposed to represent the rest of us. As for leaders, the group calls itself “a leaderless resistance movement.”

Leaders are the everyday people participating in the occupation. We use a tool called the “General Assembly” to facilitate open, participatory, and horizontal organizing between members of the public.

That means anybody can be a leader of Occupy Wall Street. If you want to learn about organizing protests in your city, you can go to Occupy Together, a hub for “all the events springing up across the country in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.”

But what is all this really about?

A website has been set up to inform you. “Allow us to introduce ourselves,” it says.

Who are we? Well, who are you? If you’re reading this, there’s a 99 percent chance that you’re one of us.

You’re someone who doesn’t know whether there’s going to be enough money to make this month’s rent. You’re someone who gets sick and toughs it out because you’ll never afford the hospital bills. You’re someone who’s trying to move a mountain of debt that never seems to get any smaller no matter how hard you try.

You do all the things you’re supposed to do – take classes, get a second job, buy store brands. But it’s never enough. Why? Because you’re lazy and undisciplined, according to the banksters.

They say it’s because you make poor choices. They say it’s because you’re spoiled. If you’d only apply yourself a little more, worked a little harder, planned a little better, things would go well for you…

They are the 1 percent. They are the banks, the mortgage industry, the insurance industry. They are the important ones. They need help and get bailed out and are praised as job creators. We need help and get nothing and are called entitled. We live in a society made for them, not us.

Sounds pretty familiar.

They say they are converging on Wall Street – and on other financial districts throughout the country – to let the 1 percent know just how frustrated they are with living in a world made for someone else. I wonder if anyone on Wall Street is listening.

I read that Occupy Wall Street was inspired, in part, by events in Tahrir Square in Cairo earlier this year.

21 Comments

Filed under Alpha Unit, Economics, Guest Posts, Left

The Whites Who Hate Blacks the Most Are the Most Like Blacks Themselves

Michael Vick is a nigger. Period. If you’re Black and you fight dogs, you’re just a nigger. Bottom line, that’s all there is to it.

Now, if you’re White and you fight dogs, are you a nigger too? Maybe. Maybe not. But whatever you are, you’re just as bad as a nigger. Actually, you’re even worse, because I don’t hold Blacks to high standards; I don’t expect much of them.

For my fellow Whites, I expect the world, and why not? You expect the best of the best. For a White to stoop that low is a profoundly degrading voluntary act that brings shame upon him and his people. Further, it was unnecessary. These Whites had a gigantic world of fine acting Whites to emulate. Instead, they choose to imitate to moral nadir of society.

Let’s say you’re a wigger. You really need to be thrown out of White society.

Doing some research on dog fighting, I learned that a lot of Whites fight dogs (I would like to apologize to my readers for assuming this was a Black cultural thing). In the rural White South, it’s a big thing. But a lot of rural Southern Whites are niggers anyway, de facto.

Funny, the most rabidly racist Black-hating Whites are the most niggerish Whites of all. Go figure. And the less racist a White person is, the more civilized they act.

So, if you’re White, the less niggerish you act, the more you love Blacks. And the more niggerish you act, the more you hate the real deal.

WTF. Someone tell me how this makes sense.

81 Comments

Filed under Animals, Blacks, Culture, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, White Racism, Whites

The Jews Have No Right to a State

Repost from the old site.

Commenter James Schipper makes an argument that I have made many times – that the Jews had no right to a state. I would still argue that they have no right to one now. I would add that the Jews have no right to a state, unless someone wishes to donate one to them. As people without a territory similar to the Gypsies, there is no way that territory-less ethnics have a right to a state.

The Gypsies don’t have a right to one either. The persecution of the Jews was lamentable to horrifying, depending on the period, but it was close to the same for the Gypsies too. As it stands, the only way for the Jews to get a state was to steal one, and it’s the only way the Gypsies will get one either. He coins the phrase “non-territorial nation” to describe both Jews and Gypsies. It’s a nice phrase.

Ilan Pappe, the Israeli scholar, makes a similar argument. Pappe says that the Jewish nationalist movement had two positive aspects: it argued for Jewish self-determination and it offered a way for the Jews to protect themselves by means of a state with an armed forces. Both of these are commendable.

But Pappe also states that as soon as Jews decided to make their state in Palestine, Jewish nationalism became an objectively colonialist movement. Even to this day, Zionism is not characterized as a colonialist movement, and it ought to be by the norms of political science.

At the very least, the world should acknowledge that Zionism was and is a colonialist movement. Israel is actually one of the few states on Earth that is continuing to engage in an actively colonialist project. That is the reason for the endless UN resolutions, not some notion of the world being bristling with anti-Semites.

James also points out that language and culture are the usual determinants for making a state out of a nation and religions generally do not get their own state, although Pakistan was an exception.

One of the main problems of the Israeli state is that it is one of the few states on Earth that is not a state of its people. Instead, it defines itself as the state of all of the world’s Jews, even those who do not live in Israel. Israeli Arabs seem to be excluded from being full citizens in light of this definition alone, which seems to give more rights to Israeli citizenship to some Jew in New York than an Israeli Arab in Haifa.

James’ comments begin here:

The French in North America number between 6 and 8 million, depending on how one does the counting. They are only about 2% of North America’s population, but they are overwhelmingly concentrated in the province of Quebec, which can be called their homeland. They are a territorial minority.

Now suppose that those French were spread out all over North America and did not constitute more than 10% of the population of any of the 60 states and provinces in North America, then they would be a non-territorial minority.

The Jews in Europe around 1890 were like that too. They were about 2% of the European population and in no European country were they more than 10% of the population. They were a non-territorial nationality. Unlike other stateless nations, such as the Finns, Poles and Slovenes, they didn’t have a homeland.

The difference between a territorial and non-territorial nation is that the non-territorial one can’t have a state of its own because it doesn’t have a homeland. A nation-state is simply a national homeland that has become sovereign.

The Zionist argument that Jews were like other stateless peoples in Europe is absurd. The Finns and Poles, for instance, already had their homeland, although drawing the right borders for their respective homelands wasn’t easy. What the Finnish and Polish nationalists wanted was simply to separate their homeland from Russia and create their own state.

What the Zionist had to do was first to create a homeland, which is something quite different. Jews in Europe should not be compared to Finns and Poles but to the Gypsies. The Gypsies too are a non-territorial minority. Are they also entitled to a country of their own. If so, where should it be located?

To say that the Zionist project was illegitimate from the start does not imply of course that Israel today is illegitimate. For better or worse, there is now a Hebrew homeland in Palestine, and terminating it would be a grave injustice.

If the Zionists in Israel really want to be a normal people, they should call themselves Hebrews and start seeing all non-Israelis, Jews and Gentiles alike, as foreigners. A normal nation is defined by language and culture, not by religion.

I really have no problem with Zionists in Israel. They committed crimes of course, but none of their crimes were unique. Strictly speaking, it is quite possible to be a Hebrew nationalist without being a Zionist. A Hebrew Israeli could take the position that Israel is the country of the Hebrew nation and an Arab minority, and not the sacred homeland of all Jews.

I have zero sympathy for Zionists outside of Israel. If they really believe that Israel is the homeland of all Jews, why don’t they go and live there? I wouldn’t mind as much if they supported Israel privately, but they want our governments to support a foreign country in which we have absolutely no interest.

59 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Colonialism, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Europeans, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Nationalism, Palestine, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Settler-Colonialism, The Jewish Question, Zionism

I Don’t Like You Extroverts

Repost from the old site.

At. All.

I mean I like you, from a distance, but as far as the relationship thing, well, it’s just never going to work, you know?

It’s interesting that in the US, we introverts are considered weird, sick, mentally ill, unhappy, dangerous and creepy. We are potential killers, criminals and especially nowadays with Child Molester Mania, pedophiles!

The truth is that despite all the lone gunman stuff, the vast majority of violent crimes, and real crimes period, are committed by extroverts. I’m leaving out non-crimes like drug use here. Most sociopaths are extroverts, in fact, the two things are nearly synonymous. Sociopath, narcissist, histrionic, borderline, these are some of the logical pathological endpoints of extroversion taken its to its predictable extremes.

The reason America hates introverts so much is because we are an extroverted nation. The Northeast Asian nations are almost the direct opposite of that – introversion is considered to be the norm.

The main problem is that extroverts just can’t understand us.

A relative confessed that she insisted I must be depressed because she could not fathom how anyone could have such a crappy life as I had and not be depressed about it. Truth is I had plenty to do, plenty to read, a computer, computer friends, a newspaper and a coffee shop to spend an hour or two a day for the social fix.

Life wasn’t exactly optimal, but I expect almost zero out of life anymore anyway, so can make some fine lemonade out of some pretty horrid lemons.

I’m actually kind of a mixture. Long ago, I used to throw parties with live bands, kegs, and 200 people that kept on getting busted by the cops. Later I would go to eight or nine parties in a night. I would go out in the evening and visit five or six different people on the endless round of parties.

It’s still a part of my personality. I still talk to strangers out of the blue all the time, and my introverted friends think that is just horrible.

But yet, I still don’t get along with extroverts well. They just don’t understand us.

I’ve never gotten along with extroverts. Most of them treated me pretty badly at least part of the time we were together, and I never did anything to deserve it (other than being lame and being an introvert with HIT ME on my back), nor did I ever do anything aggressive to them.

I still resent all their crappy insults and stupid mood swings. Why can’t they control themselves?

You can hardly even tell if an extrovert likes you or not. One day they do; the next day they don’t. One hour they do; the next hour they don’t. I guess if they really hate you, they just blow you off totally.

Anyway, at 50, I’m at peace. They are what they are and we are what we are, and nothing can be done about it, so no worries.

8 Comments

Filed under Crime, Personality, Psychology, Reposts From The Old Site

Introverts Versus Extroverts!

Repost from the old site.

A commenter makes the usual extroverted error. I discuss problems in my life (inevitable in any existence) which commenter then labels with the extroverted slur of “personal problems”. “Personal problems” is an extroverted slur that extroverts use to describe anyone who is honest and up front about their normal problems in living that anyone experiences.

Got problems? Course you do. You’re alive. You got problems. Duh. If you’re an extrovert, you’re problems are all other people. After all, you’re fine. No wait, you’re actually perfect! You’re fucking perfect!

But if you’re an introvert and you don’t shut up, then you have “personal problems”.

That means the problems are inside of you, and all your fault, whereas, with the extrovert, it’s the same, but they manage to project it all out to where it seems like it’s everyone else.

To say that introverts having problems with extroverts is a “personal problem” is a gross misrepresentation. Instead, it is an interspecies conflict. No one assumes that a human – coyote conflict is a “personal problem”, so no one should assume that an introvert – extrovert conflict is “personal problem” either.

And yeah, extroverts are the human equivalent of coyotes. Precisely. Is it a blast to watch a coyote running around in the wild! Damn right it is. Do you want to invite that same coyote into your home to share some quality time with you? Don’t think so. Same with extroverts.

That’s it for now! This is fun! Hopefully some extroverts will come around so we can have some all-out world war type conflict.

I’ve been waiting all my life for this fight, and I have a lifetime’s worth of hate saved up for all of you extroverted fucks.

7 Comments

Filed under Personality, Psychology, Reposts From The Old Site

Giovanni Gentile on Fascism

Repost from the old site.

Gentile is one of my favorite rightwing intellectuals, not because I agree with him of course, but because he is a true intellectual, and I respect that even in my ideological enemies.

Beats fake intellectual clowns like Jonah Goldberg any day of the weak. The fascists were not liars peddling bullshit and crap like so many of today’s rightwing intellectuals. Classic fascist doctrine held a lot of important truths and was not dishonest at all. Instead of being a pile of crap and lies, it merely peddled repugnant truths.

The Doctrine of Fascism, by Gentile (supposedly by Mussolini himself, but Gentile actually wrote it) from 1932, is the clearest evocation of Mussolini-type fascism, which was different in important ways from the biological racism of the Nazis. Let’s take a look at some excerpts from this seminal essay. In particular, we will note how Mussolini’s fascism differs from Marxism, because the two are often confused.

Mussolini came to power after the “March on Rome” in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel.

In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) an entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.

Let us now examine Leo Strauss, the father of the neocons. A woman named Shadia Drury has done an excellent job of explicating his work. Strauss operated very much in a Mussolini fascist tradition.

Two Drury articles are here – the first, by Drury herself – Saving America: Leo Strauss and the Neoconservatives – is an analysis of Strauss and the Straussians. The second is an interview with Drury – Noble Lies and Perpetual War.

I have read this material are recommend it highly. It’s a bit hard to get through, but it’s not Marx. If you read it carefully and really think about what you are reading, you may finally figure out what these neocons are really all about.

Drury notes some other authors who ply the same waters as Strauss – in particular Alexandre Kojève and Carl Schmitt. All of these have influenced the neocons. The unmistakable conclusion is that the neocons are fascists.

Astute reader James Hajduk sees Gentile as a “rightwing Hegelian”. I agree with that odd analysis.

Gentile follows, in blockquotes, followed by my analysis.

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice.

War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death….

This is very Straussian. These guys believe in war for the sake of war and for no other reason. When man does not go to war, he becomes soft, decadent, depraved, cosmopolitan, and…democratic. He sits in cafes and becomes effete, devotes himself to pleasure, and develops a fear of death to the extent that he will hardly fight for anything anymore.

…The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after…

This is very “organic” blood-and-soil type stuff here.

…Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production….

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect.

More organic blood-and-soil type stuff here.

And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history.

And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society….

Fascism actually arises when there is a severe crisis in capitalism such that the workers or the Left is about to seize power. As a last-ditch effort to save their power and money, the elite resorts to fascism. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than the alternative.

In 1921, Italy was semi-feudal. Peasants were rising up all over the land against the landlords who held almost all the land. The peasants worked on the land as farm laborers or rented land in debt bondage in a semi-feudal system. There was a Left revolution in the rural areas all over Italy.

This is when Italy started to go fascist, as the landed oligarchy in the countryside mobilized working class men as an army to attack the rural peasantry. The upshot was Mussolini’s March on Rome the next year – 1922. Italian fascism needed a crisis, and they got one in 1921.

Note the use of working class, especially thuggish, young male, working class elements to attack the their brothers, the peasants. In the same way, Salvadoran fascism in recent years made use of young working class men as an army for the oligarchy – they constituted a significant portion of the death squads.

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application.

Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage….

Fascism at its core is simply elitist. That is all there is to it. It opposes democracy because they think that the masses are asses. Rule by the common man is the ultimate horror, not because he doesn’t know what he is doing and will be persuaded to harm himself, but because this will lead to the pleasure society and the softening of men.

Further, the elite fears it will lead to a loss of power and money on their part. By denying the obvious existence of class struggle, fascism actually cements ruling class rule forever. It allows class struggle on the part of the elite, of course, but denies it on the part of the workers.

The business class is allowed a good profit, but Italian fascism may ask that they produce for the state instead. Producing for the state usually produces high profits for business in all varieties of fascism.

…Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of “happiness” and indefinite progress….

Fascism is actually opposed to the notion of the progress of men. Things are cemented and in some ways are timeless. We are the same as we were 100 or 1000 or 2000 years ago. Class relations, male and female roles, etc., are cemented forever in the name of tradition. Liberalism and even science is regarded with contempt.

Varieties of fascism similar to Italian fascism sprang up all over Europe in the 1920’s and 1930’s and were often very powerful. Note that conservatism is also generally opposed to the notion of progress of man. Man is man, he is the same as he will ever be, and all attempts at moving forwards are “social engineering” designed to upset the “natural order of things”.

Conservatism often tosses in the notion that this “natural order of things” is ordained by whatever Deity is worshiped by the people.

The “natural order of things” usually means something like a few rich people owning just about everything and most everyone else having hardly even anything, but both conservatism and fascism regard this as “normal” and attempts to change this natural order as unnatural, doomed to failure and against human nature itself.

…Given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority…a century of Fascism.

For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State….

However, this collectivism preserves profits. It collectivizes workers and owners as one coherent mass with “mutual interests”. This is quite the opposite of Marxism.

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.

The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….

It is true, from its foundations in the Dark Ages, when society continued to exist without the state, liberal society has always seen the people as being first and then the state.

The people create the state and run it. The state is run by the people themselves for their interests and is subordinate to them. The state and society are separate. This is the root structure of all Western liberal democracy, and it is in opposition to fascism and also to Russian thinking, where the state and society have always been one.

…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….

…For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death.

Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.

But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century – repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order.

If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

This is classic stuff here. All fascism is imperialistic and expansionistic, because this is the natural and normal tendency of the tribe or nation as state. Fascism takes different ethnicities and molds them into one in the form of the state.

Fascism is Phoenix-like – a society used and abused for foreigners, fallen into decadence, enslavement and weakness, will rise again, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of its own abasement, mining the glory of the nation’s past (in Mussolini’s case, there were constant evocations of reclaiming the ancient glory that was Rome) to once again rise in the tradition of the elders to the greatness that is the destiny of the people of that nation.

There is an ethnic (or at least national) supremacism here, no matter how much folks try to say Mussolini was not racist.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Fascism, History, Imperialism, Italy, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Socialism

Oakhurst, California

Repost from the old site.

Commenter huy (his blog is here) responds to the World O’ Crap, Meet World O’ Lies post with this very astute comment, that sums up completely a town where I spent 16 years of my life – Oakhurst, California. He’s captured the Zeitgeist of this town, and really all of White small town rural California perfectly.

My comments follow:

huy: It’s annoying to see Republicans call liberals elitist. Its playing to the stereotypical backward small town white Americans. “Us Republicans are like you guys only richer and with more class. We hate blacks and Homos. We love guns and bashing immigrants. We hate feminists. We are real men just like you, and the liberals are all mocaccino-drinking art fag homos unable to accept reality and the competition and ruthlessness of capitalism.”

The Republicans try to give the image that they share more personality traits with the white small town American (despite the fact that their policies shoot them in the foot) while the liberals are made to seem as out-of-touch elitist faggots who look down on the small town working class White Americans (despite the fact that the liberals’ policies do more to help the working class small town White Americans than any other party).

The Republicans want presidential campaigns based on personality traits and ‘values’, while the liberals want a campaign more centered around policies and how they affect the citizens and individual demographic groups within the US population and the economy.

A Republican can wear a cowboy hat and a lumberjack shirt, drink a beer, hold a rifle and say “homos can fuck off” and he’ll be sure to get a significant percentage of the less-educated more socially deprived small town American White vote.

Social Deprivation breeds ignorance and rightwing attitudes and the rich Republicans are abusing this social deprivation in small town America to maintain their presidential power and electorate. Religion also helps make people vote Republican, and religion is strongest amongst the poor and socially deprived.

Its a disgusting, feudal, immoral, sick game the Republicans are playing. By keeping the poor poor, they can preach the backward views fostered by poverty in order to stay in power and continue to exploit the very poor people who vote for them whilst the Republicans and tycoons own multi-million dollar estates and control the media to further control the minds of the poor and socially deprived and earn in billions.

The Republicans need poor small town White Americans to stay in power and stay rich, thus they do everything they can to prevent the social progression and economic development of small town America, because that would mean they would lose power, and also they want to spend as little money as possible on helping citizens anyway so they can spend more money on themselves and their businesses.

The Republicans are keeping the poor just wealthy enough not to complain, but preventing them from escaping enough social deprivation gaining enough and education and possibly economic development too so they don’t turn liberal.

Huy hits it spot-on, but there’s no point talking sense these Whites. Most of them are not rich at all, and those that are doing ok are usually making a lot less money than Whites in liberal bastions like Los Angeles and the Bay Area, so there’s no way to explain this stuff on a money basis. I guess you could try to explain it on a “we hate minorities” basis, but in these types of places, there are no minorities.

This is what I don’t get. If any Whites should vote “we hate niggers and Mexicans” (Republican = “we hate niggers and Mexicans”), it should be those in the cities that have the most contact with them. Surely at least some of those contacts are going to be quite unpleasant.

But if you ever find a 90%+ White area in California, rich or poor, it’s solidly Republican. Since there are no minorities around to hate, and those that are are well-behaved, how could they be voting “we hate niggers”? Apparently a lot of them are. Question is, how does voting Republican protect your pretty White towns and cities from the nigger and beaner hordes? It doesn’t. Not one bit.

Whites have been voting in an openly racist way for Republicans for years (as commenters at American Renaissance say, the Republican Party is the party of the Whites) and what have they got to show for it? Not a hill of beans.

The Republicans have been in a contest with the liberal Dems to see how many million illegal Mesoamericans they can flood into our country to wreck every White city and job in their path. Are Republicans passing laws legalizing housing discrimination against Blacks and Browns? Are they bringing back segregation? Are they bringing back Jim Crow? Are they sending all the niggers back to Africa? Course not.

So how does voting Republican benefit these Whites in their White towns in any racial way whatsoever? It doesn’t, and it can’t possibly.

Huy only briefly touched on the all-important Christian fundamentalist aspect. It’s everywhere in White rural America, and the fanaticism and insanity of these folks is something to see.

I’ll take the Hispanic Catholic Church any day over these loons. Catholicism, despite all its faults, is at least sane, and your average Catholic is a sane human being. I wish I could say that about a White fundamentalist. A White fundamentalist, no matter how intelligent, is seriously out of their fucking mind. I mean it.

In White small town America, just about every White is some kind of fundamentalist nutjob. Even those that aren’t are usually anti-abortion. Why? Who knows? Don’t they know that abortion kills way more Black and Brown babies than White babies? Guess not.

Living in Oakhurst, I generally avoided politics or religion. Just about every White you met was a Republican or a fundamentalist, or usually both, so you just kept away from those subjects and made friends anyway.

These are funny places. You have the Republicans who spent years in state prison and ride motorcycles and hate niggers and beaners. You have lots of speed freak Whites on meth, missing teeth and parts of their minds, and they all vote Republican, if they vote. The Republican Party has the White rural tweaker vote down pat. Why do the tweakers vote Republican, the party of the drug war? Family values? Don’t ask.

One really needs to ask what all these idiot fundamentalist Whites have gotten for voting Republican for all these years.

Someone tell me what the Republican Party has ever done for fundamentalists. Is abortion illegal yet? Are the fags in jail? Is porn illegal? What’s the point? The Republicans talk the fundamentalist talk, but they never deliver a thing. Yet every year, the White fundamentalists march off and vote Republican again and don’t get a damn thing in return.

If one could make a case that Republicans were good for low and average-income small town Whites, while Democrats were harmful to them, one could say that small town Whites are at least voting their economic interests. That’s not the case. The Republicans have never helped these small town Whites in any whatsoever, and in fact, their politics have been hostile to them.

Let’s look at statistics – since 1980, non-supervisory wages (80% of US workers) have risen by a mere 1%, despite very high cumulative economic growth and rising productivity all through that period. Other studies show that the bottom 90% of US income bracket has lost 7% of its income over 30 years, while the top 1% doubled their income.

Clearly, the Republicans don’t do jack for small town Whites making less than $80,000/yr or so. In fact, objectively, they fuck them over, year in and year out.

So why vote for em? As huy suggests, it’s all psychological. Living in these White towns, I can tell you, voting Democrat is virtually a sin. If you are young White male and vote Democrat, your peers will say, “But you’re White!” The Democratic Party is “the party of the niggers and Mexicans” as one young White Republican (one of most wild drug abusers I’ve ever met) told me.

And it’s more than that. If you are young, White, male and redneck-macho the way you are supposed to be in White rural America, voting Republican is frankly an assertion of masculinity. The Democratic Party is the party of the fags, and it seems that many young White males in the rural West vote Republican as an assertion of masculinity and a way to show that they are not even 1% queer, dammit.

Seriously, if you tell other White males in these towns you vote Democrat, they look at you like you’re not much of a man, or maybe even you are a little bit queer, or maybe more than a little bit?

In these towns, Whites buy groceries with food stamps and the doctors’ offices are filled with Whites in Medicaid. And probably 90% of them vote Republican. Guaranteed.

I don’t hate Oakhurst at all; I’ve made my peace with it. It’s a very peaceful, albeit somewhat boring, town, and there is almost no crime. You’re away from the diversity, the excitement, the petty crime, the gangs and dark-skinned Underclass, and it’s ok in a sleepy and pretty kind of way.

7 Comments

Filed under Americas, Blacks, California, Catholicism, Christianity, Conservatism, Democrats, Europeans, Hispanics, Liberalism, North America, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, US Politics, USA, West, White Racism, Whites