Category Archives: Culture

The “Indian Personality” and Indian Society in a Nutshell

LH: Interesting post. I’ve recently noticed some things that have painted Indians in a bad light for me. (Of course, at this point I’m not sophisticated enough to differentiate between different groups/castes, so I don’t know to which subset this applies.)

Is pettiness, jealousy and envy, mixed with frankly bad judgment a common set of traits? I’ve seen this in more than one person and was wondering whether I was seeing a pattern based on a too-small sample.

RL: LOL! This is an essential aspect of the Indian character! Not sure about the bad judgement part, but the other three, of course. That is the “Indian personality.”

dumbo: I think that’s true. They act catty like the ugly friend does when you talk to the pretty one – except all the time. All they do is cock-block each other in everything and act petty and jealous – crabs in a bucket. If you try to treat one like a normal person with trust and respect, they think there must be something wrong with you. It’s repeated prisoners’ dilemma with low trust – everyone gets zapped every time.

Hence the shitting on the streets and corruption. And all the tall claims about how Indians figured out everything thousands of years ago. They don’t expect anyone to believe them, much less take them seriously- the purpose of talking is to bullshit, not to communicate a point or have a proper discussion.

Dumbo’s comment is perfect. That’s why I love this site. Only eight sentences and the last seven of them are perfect. Read each sentence carefully and try to picture what’s going on. Also try to piece it together into a coherent whole and you will see how most of these things sort of latch onto and tie into each other in a common syndrome.

I never cared anything about Indian people until I started meeting some on the Web. I talked to them for a while, and after a bit, I became appalled at these amoral scoundrels. And soon I realized that about everyone over there was a scoundrel. Being a scoundrel is normal in India. That’s actually how you are supposed to be. I tried to talk to some of them about this and I ran into a brick wall.

One guy was cooking up endless schemes to get money. None of them were well thought out and some were rather scammy. Also in the US we don’t really like people who every time you talk to them are always talking about some money making scheme they are trying to get you in on. It’s considered sleazy to be like that all the time, at least in my White middle class upbringing crowd.

Indians go on and on about how it’s racism that people don’t like them. We don’t get a damn about how you look. If someone has a crap personality and you dislike them, are you an evil bigot? Of course not. Well, when an entire nation has an appalling personality and you dislike the people who come there because they all seem to have this same crap personality, how is that racism? Were they born being lousy people? Do Indians have a Crappy People gene? Well of course not.

If they’d get rid of their crap personality, we’d like them just fine. As it is, I don’t really want anymore of these lousy people in my country. We already have enough narcissistic sociopaths running about. Hell, our own president is one and his followers love the fact that he is a sick as a death ward malignant narcissist. They think being a malignant narcissist is good. Trumpsters would be right at home in India. Is the Trumpster personality like the Indian personality or is it different. Would Indians be offensive to Trumpsters in their personalities?

The weird thing about Indians is that they act dumbfounded if you are appalled at their awful personalities and worldviews. To them this disgusting way of thinking is completely normal. They can’t understand why everyone isn’t a selfish fuck only out for himself like they are. “You mean there are people who actually try to be good? That’s so weird?” the Indian says, baffled.

Americans regard their own people who have typical Indian personality as pretty much lousy people. People who act that way are targets of a lot of negative comments about how disgusting they are. Sure, a lot of society like capitalist fanboys think this is just groovy and everyone should be a greedy little shit like them. But a lot of us still cringe at the used car salesman mindset and personality. Get out of here!

This racist accusation is getting abused. If you don’t like some ethnic group because their culture is crap, that’s not racism. The early Soviets and Maoists attacked the cultures of a lot of ethnic groups in their countries, calling them backwards and barbaric. Were they racists for saying that? I am tired of this word racist being used by barbarians, backwards, uncivilized people towards those who criticize their primitive behavior. The word racist was not meant to be an umbrella protecting all reactionary peoples and cultures from criticism. Death to the Cultural Left! They’re the ones promoting this insane definition of racism.

India is where the Human Soul goes to die. India is like a place where everything good about the human soul has died or been cruelly murdered and all that’s left is the lousy, mercenary parts of being human. It’s a testament to our remaining humanity that Americans still say two thumbs down on this stuff.

13 Comments

Filed under Asia, Culture, East Indians, India, Left, Mental Illness, Narcissistic, Personality, Personality Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left

Letter from Nepal: Brahminism in Nepal

Interesting comment from a Brahmin from Nepal:

– Owing to the good climate (weaker selection pressure), there are vast amounts of low IQ people present who were well adapted to their ways of life, but with globalization and a supremacy of Ice-People Culture, how would you even solve this problem ( given e.g. Greece is a problem state for EU)?

Thanks. I have no idea how to solve the problem of differential IQ’s among races and nations. Also Greeks do not have an IQ problem as compared to the rest of Europe.

– The least trustworthy people tend to be North Indians ( I’m excluding Nepali Brahmins from this group)- why is this?

I don’t know. I think there’s something wrong with them.  These groups were the original Aryan conquerors. They came in, conquered the natives, slaughtered them horrifically in doing so, and then imposed one of the worst forms of race-based enslavement and hierarchy the world has ever seen. All the while justifying it and cementing it in with religion. Historically speaking, North Indians have not been very nice people. In fact, their history is of being monsters. Now they’re not trustworthy probably because the lie, cheat, and steal. With a history like theirs, why should we expect less?

– Higher IQ people/ruling classes always exploit the natural resources as well as the local human resources- and the position of Brahmans is like that of South African whites post-apartheid. Clinging on to their power and privileges but constantly feeling threatened- this kind of insecure ruling group devolves into nasty survival tactics and turn their own country into shitholes. Over generations, this kind of thinking becomes endemic as the culture- and I agree Indian culture (and Nepal Brahman culture, different in some ways, you would lump under the same category).

This is one of the best statements summing up universal tendencies and how India got to be the way it is that I have seen. And you did it in one paragraph. Hat’s off.

– When you say Indians suck – which group do you mean?

I mean the culture as a whole. Indian culture is monstrous. It’s reactionary, backwards and so nasty, vicious and selfish that it almost borders on evil. You grow up in India, even if you are a good person, you get poisoned by the culture. My own Punjabi physician agreed with me on this. He said that if he would have stayed in India, he would have gotten culture-poisoned and he didn’t want that, so he came here.

Also in a sense it is not really their fault. Indians are victims of the culture imposed on them which they must accept with little choice. If you opt out or drop out or refuse to participate in this very nasty culture, you will be punished. I had a commenter who got a law degree, but law in India is so sleazy and corrupt that he had to leave his practice. The only way to make any money at all in India is by being a complete sleazeball. He decided to be a dropout and live like a hippie instead on a lot less money, but he’s quite happy and I guess he sleeps well at night too.

– Do you think these people are inherently fucked or salvageable (although with the level of human capital, total caste-mixing is not possible, and even if done would result in one population with low mean IQ)?

I do think Indians are salvageable of course. Some Second generation Indians in the US have lost all of their Indian culture or at least all of the awful parts of it. They behave exactly like I do. Indians are screwed by culture but not by biology. There’s nothing wrong with them biologically, and I can’t say that about all races. Indian culture is the problem and all cultures can be changed even if it takes a Cultural Revolution to do so.

Full comment is here:

Robert,

I’m a Brahman from Nepal. My father’s side of the family used to be the local ruling family in their village/region. They tend to be more aggressive and used force a lot more often- one of my great uncles- who used to be the appointed ‘ruler’ of the region had six wives. My mother’s side used to be the ruling family in their (neighboring ) village- I’m sure their money didn’t come without violence/exploitation, but my grandfather and uncles are all very scholastic and have much more of a high IQ culture. There are other less well to do Brahmans in these villages. But also a significant number of lower caste people.

I grew up in the capital and other cities (dad worked for the government and got transferred every few years) and used to visit my ancestral villages every couple of years as a kid. After high school, I came to the US for college and have now finished my PhD.

What I have noticed about caste and race and different groups of people living together is:

– Your Latin america analogy is good- in terms of race mixing, status, and power-relations.

– Nepal tends to be a higher trust place than India (although not that high by global standards).

– Nepal Brahmans do tend to dominate civil service and universities.

– The least trustworthy people tend to be North Indians ( I’m excluding Nepali Brahmins from this group)- why is this?

– The average IQ of the lower castes does tend to be low – maybe this is through systematic breeding opportunity-drifts or got crystallized at some time in the past and remained that way.

– Higher IQ people/ruling classes always exploit the natural resources as well as the local human resources- and the position of Brahmans is like that of South African whites post-apartheid. Clinging on to their power and privileges but constantly feeling threatened- this kind of insecure ruling group devolves into nasty survival tactics and turn their own country into shitholes. Over generations, this kind of thinking becomes endemic as the culture- and I agree Indian culture (and Nepal Brahman culture, different in some ways, you would lump under the same category)

– When you say Indians suck – which group do you mean?

– Do you think these people are inherently fucked or salvageable (although with the level of human capital, total caste-mixing is not possible, and even if done would result in one population with low mean IQ)?

– Owing to the good climate (weaker selection pressure), there are vast amounts of low IQ people present who were well adapted to their ways of life, but with globalization and a supremacy of Ice-People Culture, how would you even solve this problem ( given e.g. Greece is a problem state for EU) ?

8 Comments

Filed under Asia, Culture, East Indians, India, Intelligence, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia, South Asians

When Victims Rule: The History of the Jews

Ha. Jews don’t play victims. This is truth. Take it as fact. Jews ARE victims.

I know Jews and they are great. I’ve had sex with many Jewish people and I know for certain what they are like.

Yeah. Me too. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 6 1/2 years. She agrees with me 100% about Jews too. Many of my parents’ best friends were Jews, so I grew up around these people all my life.

And I will grant you that Jewish women are good fucks. They just don’t have that Catholic/Christian hangup about sex unless they are Orthodox, in which case their hangups are worse than Catholics/Christians. Assuming that the author means Jewish women when he said Jewish people? Yikes. I wish I could report whether Jewish men are good fucks, but I have no data. Maybe when I come back as gay in a future lifetime I will be able to give you a report.

Jews have twice the per capita income of White Gentiles. Jews are victims!

Jews, 2% of the population, have 28% of the income. Jews are victims!

Jews run Hollywood, the fur and diamond trades, and dominate retail trade, the media and finance banking. Jews are central to Wall Street. 45% of professors at top Ivy League universities are Jewish. Jews are victims!

Jews, 2% of the US, are vastly overrepresented on the Supreme Court and in the House and Senate. 60% of Cinton’s Cabinet was Jewish. Jews are victims!

There’s almost no accepted anti-Semitism in the US and it’s absent from mainstream culture and polite society. No country has ever been friendlier to the Jews. Instead of antisemitism, Americans suffer from Judeophilia, which is about as crazy though not as evil, but is nevertheless very dangerous (see 9-11 attack). Jews are victims!

Jews called neoconservatives run our foreign policy in the Middle East and in other places. Israel is the 51st state or maybe the only state in the US. Jews are victims!

Jews have the fourth largest military on Earth and for all intents and purposes cannot be attacked, invaded or defeated. Jews are victims!

Instead, Jews are an imperial power that dominates, controls and oppresses all of its neighbors, occasionally attacking them, killing their soldiers and government officials, flying over their countries, bombing their countries. It has stolen land from all of its neighbors, so it is also a major colonial power in the Middle East. They have settled many of these lands stolen in Nazi like wars of aggression, so that makes them one of the last settler-colonial states too. They came into the neighborhood and immediately declared war against all of their neighbors and many other nations too and it’s been like that ever since. Jews are victims!

Granted Jews have suffered and been victimized tremendously in the past and in some places, this goes on even today (see France). However, they are not victims anymore. Instead, they are rulers. They rule over the rest of us. Or it is a case of “when victims rule” which more or less sums up the history of the Jews for a long time now.

Whatever you want to say about Jews here in the US, and you can validly say many things about them good and bad, they’re certainly not victims. The very idea that they are at all is comical.

But boy, Jews sure love that victimhood, don’t they? I knew a guy, an older man, who was a critical Jew. One time he said,

Don’t ever try to take away the victim status from a Jew. Nothing is more important to the Jew than his vicitmhood. Most Jews would nearly kill to keep their victimhood status. It’s that important.

2 Comments

Filed under American, Anti-Semitism, Catholicism, Christianity, Colonialism, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Discrimination, Economics, Education, Geopolitics, Government, Higher Education, Imperialism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Judaism, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Settler-Colonialism, Sex, Sociology, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War, Whites

Alt Left: The Cultural Left Freakshow – Two Steps forward and One Step Back

Back in the 1970’s we had the idea that most men had a feminine side and most women had a masculine side, the degrees varying among different folks. We straight men had a lot of freedom in terms of gender expression. This was the glam rock and disco era, and we could do all sorts of crazy things without getting called gay. The assumption was everyone was straight until proven otherwise, which makes sense to me. No one talked about homosexuality much. Gays were not much out and consequently you hardly saw one or heard about them. Obviously they were walking about invisibly, but one could almost delude oneself that homosexuals barely existed.

If I wore now those crazy outfits I wore back, people would insist that I was gay. This would be a proven fact and no amount of arguing could convince anyone otherwise. This would also be the case if I acted as androgynous now as I did then. I always had a strong masculine side, but I had a strong feminine side running along with it in such an incomprehensible mix that a lot of people threw up their hands about my sexual orientation. I can’t tell you how many times people asked me in exasperation, “Are you straight or bi or gay or what!?” I didn’t make sense.

I was able to be a much softer, gentler, kinder, man, and I connected to women much better. Most of my friends were women because it seemed like I thought like them and that made it easy to click with them, and frequently macho males often made me sick. I used to joke that guys either wanted to fuck me or beat me up and sometimes both.

I’m angry and sad. I enjoyed having more of my feminine side out. It’s a beautiful part of me, and it softens a lot of my typically male aggression. I adopted a hard, tough, Alpha masculine role, and while I could do this, I had to lower my feminine side to do it. Hypermasculine is not bad and a lot of women like it, but I often feel that I don’t act like myself anymore,

The rise of gay rights also reduced a lot of gender expression for straight men because straight men began constricting their gender expression to hardening the masculine and reducing the feminine as a way to not be seen as gay.

If you want to know why men act hypermasculine, here you go. I am straight but I have been gay-bashed three times, once with a baseball bat. He was beating me in the head with the bat and screaming faggot. Also, people often thought I was gay or bi, and radfems might disagree, but this is not a good thing for a straight man in straight society, as it causes a lot of stupid problems that never seem to go away. And gay men won’t leave you alone.

You can solve all of these problems, avoid getting beaten by bats, and keep gay men at much more of a distance if you just macho it up to hypermasculinity. We men are not stupid. We don’t act hypermasculine to scare off women or hate women. Often it just makes life so much easier.

 

7 Comments

Filed under Culture, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Politics, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: A Little Respect Goes a Long Way

Jason: I hate to play the devil’s advocate, but sometimes women, children, men are asking for violence. In other words, without a culture of fear, these people would become so tyrannical as to be worse than possible people who would punch them.

I have always said that the world of men or Man World operates on a Terror Principle. The glue that holds the whole damn thing together is what I call “the threat of a punch in the face.” We men are so violent. Many of us men are terrified of other men. There are countless rules in Man World, and when you break some of them, the penalty can be a punch in the face or worse. I’m nice and decent to men and follow the rules of Man World mostly so other guys won’t punch me in the face.

Or worse!

As a result, I have gotten into quite a few fistfights with other men. Hell, I still get into about one fistfight a year, and I’m 60 years old! I have pulled large knives on and pepper sprayed other men, been roughed up by cops a couple of times, had detectives threaten to beat confessions out of me in their office. I took a baseball bat and smashed someone’s front door down with it. I’ve made bombs that blew up car windshields and firebombs that set lawns on fire. I’ve slashed people’s tires. I’ve turned cars upside down with groups of other men. I’ve blown out glass doors with slingshots.

I’m not bragging here but I know just how dangerous men are. Hell, I’m even dangerous myself! How’s that for confirmatory evidence?

And I am actually a pretty pacifistic fellow. It’s just that I don’t take any shit from anyone, and I believe in paybacks. Almost all of the above, someone attacked me first or harmed me in some serious way.

Women sure act a lot better when they defer to men and are afraid of us. I run into this all the time, even with teenage girls. They defer to me and act a bit like they are afraid of me. As a result of this fear, they defer and are also very nice and almost submissive. My end of the deal is to be very nice back to them, a perfect gentleman.

It’s as if they are saying, “I am afraid of you, so I will defer to you and act submissive to you. In return please don’t hit me or kill me and please be nice to me.”

The men say, “Thank you for your deference and submissiveness. I will be very kind and gentlemanly to you as a result.”

It works perfectly. They have their end of the deal to uphold, and I have my end of the deal to uphold. If I act like a dick, they’re free to turn into bitches real fast, which most of them will do, and is their right.

This is how civilization works. Notice how Japanese women or sometimes even men bow in front of you when they meet you. Everybody’s pretty much kissing everyone else’s ass all the time. It may seem degrading and humiliating, but if people are always kissing your own ass too, it’s no big deal. I kiss other people’s ass; they kiss my ass, no problem.

You end up with a very polite society – so polite it is almost neurotic and too polite. It is sort of a transactional thing. People are cutting these ass kissing deals (shows of pure respect) and in response, the person who received the pure respect has to be grateful for the respect and kind to the person who gave it to him.

The Japanese almost like Blacks in a way in that they think the worst thing is to “diss” someone. It’s just that if you diss a Japanese, he will just think you are either a caveman or barely human, almost on the level of a dog and he will act disgusted with you. When you diss a Black man, he puts a bullet in your head. In both cases though, it’s quite clear. Humans, especially males, demand respect. When it’s not given to them, it can be an unpretty picture.

Leave a comment

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Culture, Gender Studies, Japanese, Man World, Northeast Asians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology

Alt Left: Be Careful What You Wish for, Feminists

Feminism has been shot through with hatred of men since the day it started. The very first Second Wave feminist demonstrations featured shrewish women yelling in the streets, “Starve a rat!” They were advocating that all women stop cooking dinner for their husbands. All women’s husbands were considered automatically to be rats.

Feminists claim it’s a lie that feminists hate men. I have been testing out this theory for a long time now because I was not sure it was true. It’s true. Most feminists definitely hate men. Or if not then they are angry at men and want paybacks and revenge. Feminists don’t want equality. They want revenge. They want us to suffer for all we did to them in the past. There are some feminists who do not hate men at all, but they are usually not openly involved in the movement to the extent that they are writing articles and commenting on feminist websites.

The Second Wavers were of course the worst when it came to man-hating. Most of the heroes of Second Wave feminism were such virulent man-haters that one wondered if their hatred of men was near  psychotic proportions. Mary Daly, Julie Bindel, Valerie Solanis, Robin Morgan, Audre Lourde, Angela Davis, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon. All of these were part of a movement called Radical Feminism.

Apologists often say that Dworkin and Solanis were outliers, but even Solanis genocidal SCUM Manifesto is considered one of the canonical texts of modern feminism. I’m serious. Even otherwise sane Betty Friedan led the charge against the male birth control when a scientist in Brazil said he had made one. The idea that men could control whether women got pregnant or not sent the feminists into conniptions.

Apologists also say that Radical Feminism is a tiny movement in modern feminism. That’s not true. Almost all existing Second Wavers are radfems. Nowadays you are either a radfem or a Third Wave intersectional sex-positive liberal feminist. The latter are probably more common, but there’s no shortage of the former.

I would agree that Third Wavers don’t hate men nearly as much as Second Wavers do. After all, the Third Wave is predicated on sex-positivity, which implies that these women have to like us enough to tolerate having sex with us. However, Third Wavers are still man-haters to some extent or at least they apologize for them.

Even Babe Magazine, a Third Wave flagship publication, apologizes for the man-haters, claiming most of them are just joking. Jezebel is one of the better Third Wave feminist sites and many of the commenters are very much involved with men. Nevertheless, I would consider a lot of them to be at least moderate man-haters. The Third Wave toned down the man hatred but it didn’t get rid of it.

Thing is most straight women don’t hate men. I should know, I’ve been dating them and trying to date them my whole life. I am often shocked at how much the average women actually likes or loves us men. I often wonder how much we deserve it. With all the bad things we do to women, they still just can’t stop loving us.

Maybe that’s Natural Law kicking in again. Nature wants women to love men. Man-hating women are going against Nature. Natural Law says that violations of Nature will be tolerated but the violators will often function less well or be less happy. And indeed, the shrillest manhating feminists sure don’t seem very happy. It’s hard to be happy when you’re that pissed off.

All this stupid man-hatred has been very bad for Feminism, which after all, is one of the great Liberation Movements of the 20th Century – the movement for the liberation of women from male domination, control and bondage and towards greater equality between the sexes. Most women are actually in favor of this goal. But feminism has gotten so tainted with man hatred that only 20% of American women say they are feminists. That’s right. 80% of US women refuse to identify as feminists.

Furthermore, I would gather that men are leaving the feminist movement in droves. I was once involved in feminism and identified as a feminist. I was actually a dues-paying member of NOW, the National Organization for Women. I no longer identify as a male feminist, though I do support equity feminism. A stroll around the Web will reveal a wide streak of men who are openly anti-feminist along with a few women who are angry that their desire for equality with men has been ruined by the shrieking manhating harpies.

Why the blowback? I think the feminists have finally pushed us men too far. All Identity Politics movements endlessly push for more benefits for their group. Even after they achieve what looks like success, they will keep pushing because the whole nature of their movement is predicated on endless victimhood and moving the equality goalposts further away each time the movement nears the goal line. Furthermore, I don’t even think most IP movements even want equality. They say they do, but most want to go beyond equality and turn the tables by dominating the group that once dominated them. And there’s your paybacks, revenge, make em pay, etc.

The feminists have only themselves to blame for this whole nasty blowback, with all of the attendant misogynistic MRA’s, MGTOW’s, PUA’s, and incels. They birthed this monster by pushing too far.

By the way, a lot of these feminists have more or less declared war on us men. I don’t like to threaten people, but feminists might want to think twice before they declare war on men. I know my crazy gender very well.  Do feminists really want to go to war with men? Once men declare war on feminists in return for their shots across the bow, it won’t be a pretty picture. In any real war between men and women, the women will always lose. Furthermore, the omnipresent homicidal rage of men, typically suppressed or repressed in most of us, will ensure that any war will ugly indeed. The Incels are already murdering women just for being women. And that won’t be the end of it either.

Be careful what you wish for, feminists.

 

4 Comments

Filed under Crime, Culture, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

More Support for My Theories about Hispanic Intelligence, Culture, Etc.

I would however say that this mostly applies to Mexican-Americans. I am not even sure if it applies to Mexicans in Mexico because there is actually a High Culture in Mexico. In Mexico City there is opera and the main paper has a large book review section every week. In other words, a true highbrow intellectual culture, right in the heart of Mexico. It goes without saying that the members of this highbrow culture are White or a lot Whiter than average Mexicans. But in Mexico, White and people involved in highbrow White Mexican culture extends all the way down to 60-70% White. These people have an idea of lowbrow culture as being “naco.” Naco is also associated with quite a bit of Indian blood. In Mexico, it’s not whether you have Indian blood or not. It’s more a matter of just how much Indian blood you have. I have never thought that Indians were particularly dangerous. Even the racist Latin American Whites that I read on Stormfront (I read 1,000 pages of their threads) said that Indians were fairly harmless. They said that they could get loud, rude and verbally violent, but it didn’t often expand beyond that. One said, “You have give an Indian a handful of tortillas and a six pack, and he’s good for the night. He goes off quietly and you never hear from him again.” On the other hand these Latin American Whites were scathing in their views of Latin American Blacks, who they viewed as very violent and downright dangerous as Hell. It is interesting to note that in Latin America, the existing Blacks are often quite mixed with not only White but also Indian. The result – a White – Indian – Black mix like Hugo Chavez and many others in the far north and the east of Latin America (Venezuela,  Colombia and Brazil ) and the far south of Central America (Panama) and parts of the Caribbean (Puerto Rico) – is called a Zambo. This term is a source of some ridicule among Latin American Whites like Chileans or Peruvians (some of the worst Whites in Latin America) as a term for a mystery casserole of a human so badly mixed that they are nearly indescribable, but a lot of Zambos are quite beautiful. Cali, Colombia is a Zambo city and the women of Cali are said to be the most beautiful in all of Latin America.

The high culture of Mexico City compares starkly with the rest of Mexico.

Your typical Mexican mestizo is a pretty lowbrow person – he’s probably never read a book in his life nor does he wish to. Nevertheless, even the lowliest cook in a corner market knows how to read and write. They definitely teach you that in Mexican schools and most Mexicans have been to school.

And most Mexicans from Mexico,  even a lowly corner cook like I mentioned, know something about Mexican history – the Civil War of course and even the clerical contra rebellion afterwards ~1930 that most Americans have never heard of. Every Mexican knows who Emilio Zapata and Benito Juarez are. I was stunned at how many of these very uneducated people had even heard of Frieda Kahlo. How many Americans know who she was?

How many Chicanos know even a parallel basics of US 20th Century history? And you will never meet a Mexican-American who knows who Frieda Kahlo is nor do they care to find out.

Beyond that, we descend even lower to Mexican Indians, who not only don’t read books but may not even know what a book is. Mestizos believe in some strange saints in their profoundly syncretic Catholicism, but when you get out to the Indian villages, people actually still believe in witches. As you can see, the descent from High Culture down to beyond lowbrow is a steep one indeed. You will nearly break a leg walking too quickly down that slope.

The South Americans I have met in the US are not so anti-intellectual as the Chicanos below. South America after all has a much better High Culture than Mesoamerica. South American High Culture is so intact because the culture of Spain still lingers down there to a great degree while it has nearly vanished from Mesoamerica. I have talked to rich people in Lima and Bogota who literally spent half the year in Spain. Literally.

I had an Argentine girlfriend once. She often called me Senor instead of my first name (imagine an American girlfriend routinely referring to you as sir) and was in stunned awe of the fact that I was an hombre de letras or a “man of letters.” Intellectualism is a big deal in Argentina.

The Salvadorans and Nicaraguans I have met in the US were highly politicized, and I was shocked at how smart they were. You think you are dealing with another “ignorant Mexican in a mini-mart” until you start them off on politics, and they start rattling away and soon leave you in the dust. Every Salvadoran I have ever met has heard of La Matanza (The Massacre), and that happened in 1932. And I’ve not met one yet who could not tell me who Farabundo Marti was (see La Matanza above).  How many Americans know who Farabundo Marti was?

Most Americans don’t have the slightest idea what either of those things are. It just goes to show that you can take a society with an IQ like Chicanos and supercharge them politically and possibly even culturally if the objective conditions are right. The Colombians, Peruvians, and Chileans I met here and outside the US (not to mention the Argentine woman) had a shockingly deep knowledge of politics for an ordinary person, and the Latin Americans were often as learned as a Spaniard or at least wished to be.

How many Americans know who Tupac Amaro was? But the young Peruvian woman I knew all about him and even knew quite a bit about his wife, who is a proto-feminist hero down there to some mestiza and indigena women..

I never asked her who Jose Carlos Mariategui was, but I am sure she could have told me all about him too. Another Peruvian woman I met knew all about Jose Arguedas and his famous novel The Fox Above and Below, which ties in with Mariategui, if you think about it. Arguedas was one of the most famous figures in Peruvian literature and his own daughter, incredibly enough, sat on the central committee of the Shining Path. Sendero was about indigenismo and to a lesser extent feminismo than anything else.

They even his name in the formal long name of their group – El Partido Comunista del Peru en la luz del pasado sendero luminoso del Jose Carlos Mariategui or The Communist Party of Peru in the Light of the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui.

Here is a recent comment from a half-Mexican American who agrees with most everything I have said about these people.

As a half-Hispanic raised with Hispanics, I mostly agree with this. My Mexican mother who immigrated illegally to the US paid tens of thousands for in-vitro fertilization, and that’s what pulled me out the ditch. This was evidently high-quality sperm because I still managed to turn out above average.

The people around me were impressed that I actually liked to read and learn. When I was young, the other Hispanics were amused that I could memorize the times tables and recite miscellanea about science and history, besides being capable of drawing dragons properly.

To give you context, my mother has been living in the US for over 25 years, and still does not understand a drop of English. They have a culture which consists of strong work-ethic (never missing a day of work and so on) followed by self-induced brain death post 9-to-5. They just watch mindless television and do not learn.

I discovered my own origins at the age of ten. I also achieved standard atheism at the age of nine (which I consider a standard benchmark for the ability to display rudimentary acts of rationality.) Then it took me years of hard work to unwire all the Catholic stupidity in my mother’s brain. This culture has no concept of logical reasoning, so her mind kept swinging in repetitive loops whenever I tried to carefully and methodically pin her down to the implications of specific arguments.

I succeeded in that endeavor, and am now in the process of teaching her where she is actually standing by explaining the crucial insights of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. People may laugh at the fact that she didn’t know the Earth was a sphere orbiting the sun, but yet most ‘educated’ humans alive today are just as ignorant about reality. For example, by not knowing that there is no universal now sweeping forward, or by holding the belief that we are made of little billiard ball particles bouncing around.

In my experience, whites at least fake like they want to learn. They’ll say “Oh yeah, that’s cool. Schrodinger’s cat is dead and alive… lol… because it’s all probabilistic, hur dur” or something. Of course, they don’t know jack-shit and also prefer to consume mindless media, but their culture says it’s okay to be smart. Hispanics just don’t give a shit. A lack of intellectual culture is their biggest setback.

The ghetto lower-middle income schools I went to were torture. The kids couldn’t do basic algebra; the teachers were underachieving whites who couldn’t get higher paying jobs in other districts or who preferred having less responsibility because black and hispanic parents wouldn’t bitch to them about grades, or have any expectations whatsoever really. And the teachers made no secret about this, they outright told us this was the reason.

Also, what you say about Mexicans bringing Mexico is absolutely true. I stayed in La Villita when I went to university in Chicago because some kind family members we barely knew were willing to rent super cheap. As I walked through the dirty streets past yet another leather boot store blasting trumpet music I almost felt ashamed, like ‘How could Mexicans escape to a new country and yet prefer to make it Mexico again?”

1 Comment

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Brazil, Caribbean, Catholicism, Central America, Chileans, Christianity, Colombia, Colombians, Culture, Education, El Salvador, Europe, Hispanics, Intelligence, Latin America, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Nicaragua, Nicaraguans, North America, Panama, Peruvians, Politics, Psychology, Puerto Rico, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Salvadorans, Sociology, South America, Spain, USA, Venezuela, Whites, Zambos

The Rich Only Support Democracy when the Elected State Serves their Class Interests, Otherwise They Try to Overthrow It

Zamfir: Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.

Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it.

I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).

As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself.

I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc.

So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)

You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view?

Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along.

A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.

So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)

The Communist view is that seeking power peacefully would be a great idea except the ruling classes will never allow it to happen. They say that power never gives up without a fight, and I believe that they are correct. Nevertheless, most Communists support Venezuela, Nicaragua and only leftwing democratic countries. But the Communists would say, “Look what happens why you try to take power peacefully. You get Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, and even Argentina.”

The ruling class will just overthrow the democratic Left state any way they can, always using anti-democratic means to do so. That’s why Lenin called people who supported the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.” He thought it was a great idea but it would never work because the rich would never allow the Left to take power peacefully.

The Communist view is also that you never have democracy under capitalism anyway, as the capitalists and the rich always ending ruling the state one way or another through all sorts of means. And yes, the rich and the capitalists always take over all the media in any capitalist country as you said, they use it to shape the view of the people to support the class politics of the rich. Such support being called false consciousness.

Gramsci said that the ruling class took over the entire culture in capitalist countries and brainwashed the masses into supporting the project of the rich. They did this via cultural hegemony. Marx said that the culture of the rich is always the popular culture in any capitalist country. So the ruling class turns all of us into “little rich people” or “little capitalists” to support their project. They brainwash us into thinking we are the same class as the rich and that we are all capitalists ourselves, so we should support Capital. These are lies, but most Americans are easily fooled.

Ralph Nader called this “going corporate” or “thinking corporate.” He says that in the US, most people adopt the mindset of the corporations and think of themselves are part of the corporate structure whether they are or not. If everyone is part of the corporate structure, then what’s good for corporations is good for all of us, which is the project of the Republican Party, neoliberalism everywhere, the Latin American rich, etc. It’s a big fat lie, but people want to be rich and a lot of workers want to think of themselves are busy little capitalist money-making, go-getter, can-do, Bossterist entrepreneurs because it seems to cool to own your own business.

And the Communists would call this false consciousness and their argument would be that under capitalism, most people adopt false consciousness.

I think in the US, the rich see the tide coming and the rule of the rich is going to end so they want to lock in as much of the state as possible by stacking the courts, gutting the safety net, massive tax cuts that will be impossible to get rid of, and that Constitutional Convention they are two states away from getting where they want to rewrite the whole US Constitution to lock in rule by the rich for as long as possible. The rich see the writing on the wall. That’s why they came up with the computerized elections scam, so they could steal elections as long as people kept voting against the rich.

The gerrymandering of districts now makes it almost impossible to get rid of Republican majorities on state representatives in the House and in Senators and Assemblymen in the states. It’s all locked in.

So as the rich saw the tide turning and demographics moving against them, they instituted a full court press to do all sorts of extremely anti-democratic stuff to stay in power. If the people would just vote for them anyway, they would not have to do that, but apparently most Americans have now turned away from the politics of the rich, so the rich will have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power from now on.

Also they elected Donald Trump, by far the most corrupt, authoritarian and even outright fascist leader this country has ever had. And this follows too. Whenever there is a popular movement against the rich and the capitalists, the rich and the capitalists always, always, always resort of fascism to stay in power. This has been proven endlessly over time, even in Europe. Trotsky had some great things to say about this. Check out “Thermidor.” Trotsky truly understood what fascism was all about. It is a desperate last ditch move by the ruling class to seize power in the face of an uprising from the Left.

The rich and the capitalists are determined to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill as many people as they have to just to keep the Left out of power. They simply will not allow the Left to rule. They must rule and if they are out of  power, they will use any antidemocratic means to get power back.

Which is the story of the CIA, the Pentagon and 100% of US foreign policy since 1945 and even before then. Read Samuel Butler.

I mean, we on the Left generally allow the Right to take power if they do so democratically. Sure they destroy everything like they always do, but most of us are committed to the democratic means of seeking power. Even most Communist parties will not take up arms against any rightwing government, saying they prefer to seek power by peaceful means. Typically, the CP will issue a statement that the nation is not in a revolutionary situation right now. There are objective conditions under which a nation is said to be in a revolutionary situation. I’m sure you can recall a few. It is then and only then that most CP’s will go underground and issue a call to take up arms.

Frankly, almost all Left insurgencies postwar were defensive. The Left allowed the Right to take power and then the Right started running around killing people. Usually the Left sat there for a while and let themselves get killed before taking up power. I know the Viet Cong just sat there from 1954-1960 while the rightwing Vietnamese government ran amok in the countryside, murdering 80,000 Communists in six years. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms, but the North kept denying it.

The Colombian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan guerrillas only took up guns after the state had been running about murdering them unarmed for years. The Salvadoran guerrillas said they got tired of sitting in their homes waiting for the rightwing state to come kill them, and they decided that if the state was going to come kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves. They also took up arms because the Right kept stealing elections by fraud.

The Right had cut off all methods of seeking power peacefully, so the Left picked up guns. The message is if you elect a leftwing government, sooner or later the Right will overthrow it and then there will be a reign of terror where many Leftists will be murdered. Knowing that, if you were a Leftist in some country, would you not be afraid to put the Left in power knowing you stood a good chance of being murdered once the inevitable rightwing coup took place?

The Colombian and Honduran governments only stay in power by killing people. Lots of people. The Greek Communists only took up arms after the government had been killing them for some time.

Also once a Left government is overthrown by the rich and the capitalists, the new Rightist government institutes a reign of terror where they slaughter the defeated Left for many years. This went on for decades after 1954 in Guatemala, and it goes on still today. After Aristide was overthrown, the rightwing government murdered 3,000 of his supporters.

After Allende was overthrown, Pinochet murdered 15,000 people over a decade and a half. A threat from the Left prompted the Indonesian government to fake a Left coup and murder 1 million Communists in a couple of months. Even before the Korean War broke out, from 1948-1950, the South Korean government killed hundreds of thousands of Communists in the South.

As they withdrew when the North attacked, the South Koreans killed South Korean Communists everywhere they went. After the fascist coup in Argentina, the government decimated the Left, murdering 30,000 mostly unarmed supporters of the Left. The same thing happened in Bolivia with the Banzer Plan when Hugo Banzer took power after the tin miners briefly sought power. The new rightwing government in Brazil is already starting to murder members of the former Left ruling party. They’re not going to stop.

After the fascist coup in Ukraine, the Communist Party was outlawed and many of its members were murdered. War was declared on labor unions. Workers in one union were chained to a heater inside the building and the building was set on fire.

The party supported by half the population (the Russian speakers and their supporters) the Party of Regions, was outlawed, a number of its deputies were murdered and there were attempts to murder the leader of the party, lastly by setting his house on fire which set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. He fled to Russia. Now half the population and all of the Russian speakers had not party to represent them, which is why they took up arms. They were locked out of power.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Brazil, Capitalism, Capitalists, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, History, Honduras, Indonesia, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Russia, Scum, SE Asia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, South Korea, Ukraine, US, US Politics, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Pajeet My Son

511

How Internet memes are born. Designated. Designated. Designated.

2030. India superpower! Poo is in the loo! Designated shitting streets now designated shitting highways!

Shining India! Jai bharat! Bharat mata, we bow down before you.

6 Comments

Filed under Asia, Culture, India, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia

Designated Shitting Streets

6f6

Designated shitting streets. Designated. Designated. Designated.

How Internet memes are born.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Culture, India, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asia