Category Archives: Modern

The True Story of Rhodesia and Zimbabwe

RL: Yeah, and 1/2 of the Black population was starving. It is not like that now.

Jason Yiddish: This is in reference to Rhodesia? Interesting, sources?

It’s well known and I did a piece on it, actually.

Yeah, sure Rhodesia was a food exporter. Because all their food was going for export! How bout that?

This is not dissimilar to many Latin American countries where half the population is starving, yet they are also “food exporters” because all of the crops grown are cash crops for export on land owned by a few rich people in countries were 2% of the landowners own almost all of the land. All the rest of the people are landless peasants working for peanuts or scraping out a living on marginal land. The country does not grow enough food to feed their people. For a long time the project of the Left down there, described as Communism by the US and the US media, was actually more like, “We are trying to figure out a way to feed our people.” A pretty simple project. Apparently if you are trying to figure out a way to grow food for your people, according to the US government, you must be a Communist.

About 2% of the landowners owned almost all of the good land in Rhodesia. Coincidentally, they were all White people! Gosh, how did that happen? All of these crops were grown for cash exports. The country was not growing enough food to feed their people. All of the rural Blacks were either landless peasants working on White farms for peanuts or forced onto marginal land which they farmed inefficiently, resulting in poor yields. Incidentally, large scale farming on marginal land was causing a lot of erosion, and this was getting to be a serious problem. Much of the country was literally eroding away.

As part of the transition, the 2,000 White farmers who owned all the good land were supposed to sell their land. But the US and especially UK (because the farmers were mostly British) dragged their heels and dragged out the process endlessly. Bottom line is they were not going to sell out for any money, with the support of the US and UK.

Most of Mugabe’s supporters were war veterans. The war veterans wanted the land situation resolved. They were getting increasingly angry about the situation. Mugabe kept warning the Anglos that the situation was getting out of hand, and he would not be able to control his supporters any longer. The Anglos did nothing but continue to drag their heels.

Eventually the situation exploded and the war veterans rioted all across the land, seizing the White farms. It was not as violent as the racists make it out to be. Seven Whites were killed, but that wasn’t all of them. There were 25,000 in the country. Mostly the Whites just left.

The Blacks did not know how to run the farms, so they basically destroyed them and in a pretty moronic way to boot. When this happened, it was what Mugabe had been trying to avoid all this time, but it was his supporters doing it, and he felt he could not go against them, so he cheered it on. He also did not want the farms dismantled by them. Mugabe wanted the Whites to sell out peacefully and then continue to have large farms run more or less by the state or just break them up into small farms. The Blacks did not know how to run large farms. A large farm is a business, and it requires quite a bit of smarts to run one, which the Blacks did not have. But of course the Blacks could grow food crops on small plots! They’d been doing it for millennia! Blacks even started plantation agriculture in East Africa before Discovery.

Unfortunately this turned into a disgusting meme egged on by the corporate media called more or less, “Niggers Are So Stupid, They Can’t Even Grow Food!” Although this meme was rather humorous, obviously that’s not true because that is how they survived there for millennia. Of course all of the White nationalists on the Web continue to flog this dead horse endlessly. Did you know? Black people are so stupid that they can’t even grow food? They’re too dumb to even grow food! How dumb can you get?

You have to admit that this whole mess was pretty racist. The US and UK holding a whole country hostage because 2,000 Whites, who own all the good land, refused to sell out. The Blacks scraping away an existence on marginal land and the country eroding away as a consequence. Half of the Blacks starving and malnourished.

This is a hardcore racist foreign policy any way you cut the cake. And this was going on during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, supposedly a friend of Blacks who was jokingly regarded as the First Black President. So we are still a quite racist country in how we conduct our foreign policy, even when we have a so-called liberal Democrat president! God forbid how we act when Republicans get in. Black people better duck and cover.

For standing up to the US and UK, the two countries put the Zimbabwe under severe financial sanctions. No bank on Earth could deal with them. Of course, after a while this completely ruined the economy. Thing is, Blacks eat better now under Mugabe than they did in Rhodesia.

Mugabe has been beaten to Hell and back by the corporate media and the Anglo governments. Boy, do they hate him. You see, he stood up to us, gave us the finger, and told us to go fuck ourselves. Remember Castro did the same thing. So did the Iranians and Hezbollah.

The Empire does not tolerance insolent brats among its slave colonies. America usually declares war in some way or other against anyone who has the balls to stand up to us and tell us to fuck off. The US usually organizes guerrilla wars against these countries, tries to topple them with coups, puts them under sanctions to ruin their economies, etc. All the above entities got that treatment. We just won’t tolerate any uppity non-Whites, and we certainly do not tolerate slave rebellions in our colonies. The only appropriate way for most countries to address the US is, “Yes massa?”

Yes, Zimbabwe was screwed up for a long time, but that was 100% due to the sanctions and 0% due to anything else. They have managed to climb out of most of the mess. The farm situation is slowly being resolved. Whites have even been asked to come back to farm lands, under strict regulation of course.

A reporter recently went to the capital of Zimbabwe, Harare, and said it was nothing like how the media described it. It was clean and peaceful. Couples ate lunch in the parks on work breaks. All medical care is free, and he visited a brand new imaging center run by competent physicians. He even went to the worst slums, which were not so great. However, he said that those were probably the nicest looking slums in Africa. In other words, every other country has worse slums than Zimbabwe. Mugabe is a socialist, and the state has all sorts of social programs to help the people, and this keeps the country from collapsing to typical Sub-Saharan levels of chaos.

Mugabe has enjoyed strong support all through this mess. The people stood by him even when the place had completely fallen apart. The Opposition only has the support of 1/3 of the population at most. They are deeply in bed with the US and the UK and their project is full neoliberalism with privatization of all state functions. Zimbabweans have had a taste of Mugabe’s socialism, and they like it. They are not real keen on free market economics (in fact, they are not popular anywhere in Africa), and most African ruling parties have the words socialist, Left, progressive, popular, labor, etc. in their names. In fact, such is the case in most of the world. The US is one of the few populations that actually supports neoliberalism. Everyone else hates it.

The Opposition in Zimbabwe are also seen as Quislings, traitors and sellouts to the West. Mugabe is the man who led an anti-colonial rebellion and liberated their homeland from the colonists. Mugabe gives the people a sense of pride, whereas the Opposition seem like a bunch of sellouts. So here we see as in the Arab World and South Africa that people would rather be poor and free than wealthier and in chains.

The media turned the collapse of the Zimbabwean state then turned into “Niggers Can’t Even Run Countries!” This meme was also populated by the corporate media and both the US and UK. Like everything was going fine when Whites were running the show and growing the food, but everything quickly went to Hell when the country was turned over to Blacks because Niggers can’t run countries or grow food. You know, only White people can do that.

The whole matter is disgusting. Almost no one knows the true story, and the behavior of the US government and the corporate media has been so racist, it is sickening.

84 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Americas, Asia, Blacks, Britain, Colonialism, Cuba, Democrats, East Africa, Economics, Europe, Government, History, Imperialism, Iran, Journalism, Latin America, Left, Modern, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Socialism, South Africa, US Politics, War, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

January 30, 1933

Yesterday in 1933, Adolf Hitler was made chancellor of Germany.

Although he hasn’t killed any Jews or started any wars yet, Trump-Bannon are very much cut from the same mold – not only fascists, but racist fascists to boot. Another word for a racist fascist is a National Socialist or Nazi.

So yeah, this time the Godwin Rule actually makes some sense.

Have fun with your dictatorship, Trumpsterfires, or Cum Trumpsters. Which is better,  Cum Trumpsters, Trumpsters, or Trumpsterfires?

I rather like Cum Trumpsters. Reminds me of Teabaggers. Similar acts, both associated with fellatio. And boy are the Trumpsters fellating Herr Donald! Whew. If they don’t come up for air soon, they may suffocate. Wait. This is bad?

4 Comments

Filed under Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, History, Humor, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism

Israelis, Islamists, Hindutvadis and Fascism

William: Robert- I suppose it may be splitting hairs, but isn’t Israel about the Jewish faith? I mean it’s not like they’re all secular Jews – they’re linked by faith as much as bloodline.

Jews by blood but who have never been religious are not granted citizenship to Israel, although they are allowed to immigrate/reside there (green card equivalent).

RL: So Israel’s about the Jewish faith? “So what,” I would say. What does that have to do with anything?

William: Lindsay- I’m just saying it makes it not blatantly fash. Just kind of crypto-fash. There is a pretense not about race/bloodline.

OK, I can go along with that. I have always worried that these Lefties people calling Christian fundies Christo-fascists and the Islamists Islamofascists were going too far.

But in India, those Hindutvadis, well, they are pretty close to real deal fascism. They are not racist fascists. I suppose they are religious fascists. But the Hindutvadis are far more fascist than the Israelis or Islamists are.

There is a real question and a good debate going on regarding whether a religiously based fascism is even possible. But there was something resembling that in Croatia under World War 2. There was a racist-fascist (Nazi) regime called the Ustashe that killed Serbs, Jews, and, well, anyone who was not a Croat. However, a number of Serbs were given opportunity to convert to Catholicism and become in effect Serbs. The opportunity was given at gunpoint. It was covert or die, just like the Muslims did and sometimes still do. This would seem to be a Nazi-like regime that seemed to be based on religion at least in part.

There were also Chetniks roaming around in the mountains. These were Serbian Far Right guerrillas, often with a Serbian Orthodox priest traveling with them in the bands, who killed everyone who was not a Serb – Catholics, Muslims, etc. I believe they also fought against the Nazis though. The Chetniks would seem to be a sort of religiously-based racist fascism. There were also much more numerous Communist guerrillas roaming around the countryside at the same time, and they and the Chetniks did not have good relations.

Some Leftist theorists have recently been suggesting that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was actually fascist in a sense, and they laid out a theory on why that was. I am not sure if I bought it though.

63 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, European, Fascism, Hinduism, History, India, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Modern, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Serbia, South Asia, Ultranationalism, War, World War 2

The Old “Arab Israelis Have It So Good” Argument

Malla: Well, I did some research on this and it seems the Mizrahi had a more realistic opinion about Arabs and non Whites in general, while the Ashkenazim (and maybe Sephardics), especially during the early days of Israel, had a more idealistic opinion of the Third World. But the Mizrahi themselves are non-Whites. If Arabs and non-Whites then so are Mizrahis because Mizrahis are just Arabs. Besides, many Ashkenazis came with socialistic ideas of kibbutz farming and hippieness, while the Mizrahi were more realistic.

Check this interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80NnYflDU8

Check out the Ashkenazi/Mizrahi couple at 6:52. So it seems more Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) are more right wing and support predatory violent behavior towards Arabs and Palestinians, while the Ashkenazis (Euro Jews) vote more left and are friendlier to Arabs (idealistic mindset). I do not know how the Sephardics and Ethiopians Jews vote.

Besides, Israel has a massive poverty rate, one of the highest in OECD countries. No wonder they get pissed by migrants from Africa taking way their jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSd0rgTc1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPuQwFX2J2A

But Israel has an overall high standard of living. Arabs in Israel, in spite of whatever racism they face, have a higher standard of living and social freedoms than most other Arab countries. Only Tunisia and Christian-dominated Lebanon come close in social freedom, and the Gulf states are the only ones who have more income among Arabs.

This is similar to the case in Rhodesia and South Africa where the Blacks had a higher standard of living than Blacks in the rest of the African continent. Or Singapore, where the Indians and Malays have a higher standard of living than Malaysia and definitely (much, much, much) higher standard of living than India thanks to the huge Chinese population. Singapore’s quality of life is comparable to other Chinese majority developed places like Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. One may ask that if Anglo-Celts and other Northern Euros never came to Australia would such an Australia (Australia full of only aborigines) be so developed as it is today or it would be more like Papua New Guinea.

It’s pretty bad to compare the surrounding Arabs with New Guineans and Aborigines. The whole Arab World is built up to Hell. They’re all modern countries over there. I have seen photos of Libya before the war, and it looks like Miami. I saw a recent photo of Casablanca, and it looked like LA. I have seen photos of the rest of the region, even war-torn Syria and Iraq, and they look like regular modern countries. There’s not a lot of difference between in the ordinary street scene between Amman, Beirut, Damascus or even Cairo and Tel Aviv. It all looks the same, like any modern built-up country.

There is none of the horrible poverty you see in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Latin America or Black Africa.

Arabs will not tolerate that sort of abject shantytown type poverty. They are basically socialist people who don’t care about money too much and believe that everyone should be well taken care of. Social safety nets are ordinary things in every Arab country. There’s no debate about this sort of thing. They are not individualists. They are collectivists. And they don’t think rich people are better than poor people. They are not particularly greedy, and they have a “We are all part of one village” mindset wherever they live.

Semi-feudalism came late to the Arab World via the Ottomans, and it never worked well. There were landed gentry and fellahin, or landless peasants. Nasser was the man who confiscated the land from the land barons and gave it to the landless peasants. If you went around the whole Arab World back then, even in say Yemen, there was a portrait of Nasser on every wall. Now in Western or Latin American culture, doing that is called Communism, and everyone hates it. But the Arabs love this sort of thing.

Baath nationalist parties came in in Syria and Iraq around 1960, a revolutionary socialist state arose in Libya in 1969, and another one was birthed in Algeria in 1964. Land was confiscated from feudal latifundiaists in all of these place and distributed to the peasants. The governments were all officially socialist, secularization was enforced even at gunpoint if it took that, huge safety nets were set up, and the state even got involved in quite a few of the larger industries and became a major employer. All of this was wildly popular all over the region.

US style radical individualism and Libertarian free market capitalism is totally anathema to all of those societies. For one thing, it goes against Islam, as Islam is a socialist religion. In feudal times, large Arab landowners enlisted the help of the local imams in interpreting parts of the Koran where it said, “Some are rich, and some are poor, and that’s all just fine” or something to that effect, but it never worked well. It ended up turning the local imams into hated figures like the priests of Catholic Church in the West and Latin America who always sided with the rich against the people.

So this whole idea that the Israeli Arabs have it good for having some extra money falls flat on Arab and even Arab Israeli ears. Standard of living is not number one on their list of the most important things in life.

If the Arabs are all so jealous of Israel, why are the non-oil Arabs are not jealous of the oil Arabs? Typical Jews to reduce everything down to money. Arabs don’t care that much about money. They don’t revolve their whole lives around money or sit around hating Jews for having more skyscrapers. That’s not important to your average Arab.

I have never in my life heard one Arab tell me they were jealous of Israel.

In Palestine, White European racist fascists invaded the region, started wars with everyone around them, and, being high IQ, produced a developed economy. So what? These jerks get brownie points because they are rich? I’m supposed to love them because they’re rich and hate those Arabs because they’re poor?

The commenter is an Indian, that’s why he thinks that way. We are socialists here; we don’t think like this. Actually I think the more money someone has, the worse of a person he tends to be, but that’s just me.

All of these arguments were used by the South Africans who practiced a very similar White settler-colonial project far after this stuff went out of style.

Arabs in Israel are not happy people. They’re angry, and they have no loyalty to the state at all. The Jewish fascists say the Arabs are traitors, and the Jews are actually correct on that score. Indeed they have no loyalty to the state and do not even see themselves as Israelis.

The similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa are striking. It’s notable that Israel was long one of South Africa’s strongest allies, and towards the end, it was one of their only allies. Arab Israelis are are institutionally treated as second class citizens in exactly the same way the Blacks were under apartheid. 

Were those Blacks happier on their South African Nigger Plantation because they had a higher standard of living? They were not, but this was the argument that was used to show that they were happy Negroes toiling away cheerfully in the sun for their beloved White slavemasters. Similarly, South Africa moved into the neighborhood and in a matter of time, like Israel, it was soon also embroiled in wars with most if not all of its neighbors. Similarly, South Africa, like Israel, had zero friends in the region.

Blacks in South Africa and Arabs in Israel don’t want money and stuff. White Gentiles and Jews only care about money, and they don’t care about humans, so they think everyone else feels that way too. But they don’t. People want to be free, even if being free means not having as much stuff. Stuff doesn’t make people happy. You can keep giving your slave the latest gadgetry in his slave quarters, but he’s still not a free man.

Same with South Africa. Hey look, these White European racist fascists came in here and built up the region and made a big economy because they have higher IQ’s! So what. I am supposed to like them more because they are rich and hate those Africans because they are poor? I realize this is Indian thinking, but we socialists do not think that way.

Arabs have more political rights in all of the Arab World. In the Arab World, they are not systematically discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity.

I would argue that those Arabs in Israel do not want all of those social freedoms. Freedom to do what?

And what social freedoms do they have there that they do not have in the rest of the region? How are the social freedoms of Arab Israeli Christians better than those of Arab Christians in Lebanon or Syria? Someone needs to clue me.

429 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Egypt, Europeans, Fascism, Government, History, India, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Lebanon, Libya, Malays, Malaysia, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Morocco, Nationalism, North Africa, Pacific, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, SE Asians, Settler-Colonialism, Singapore, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, South Asia, South Asians, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Whites

A Marxist Alt Left Critique on the Modern Left

From Facebook:

Well I’m basically Marxist myself, and I don’t really recall references to patriarchy or white supremacy in Marx’s writings. Patriarchy Theory was crapped out by one William Fourier, of whom Marx was a critic. Marx and Engels strayed into feminist territory a bit, with ideals the later would explore a bit more in The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.

But forms of socialism that emphasized race or nationalism they would have considered “reactionary.” They said next to nothing about racial and sexual identity, and it came down to later “Marxist-feminist” theorists to hash out what has since become the dogma of the Far Left on those matters, which is generally inapplicable and puritanical. Marxist Feminism was very marginal in both feminist and Marxist circles well into the 1960s.

I chuckled at the guy who said that patriarchy and White supremacy were more effective impediments to revolution than police repression. I can’t help but wonder how many “angry white dudes” who are really angry at their economic prospects, or lack thereof, have been put off of Leftism in the last forty years due to how anti-White and anti-male it’s become.

Leftism today is exactly what Marx was critical of in his own time: romanticization of some idealized past or foreign culture. In a lot of ways, this is what the Alt-Right has become also, only it’s their own feudal past rather than some African or North American society onto which they’re projecting their own disdain for technological society. As to the Woman Question, idealization of women typifies repressive and puritanical eras like both Queen Victoria’s and our own.

Male feminism reeks of a desire for young male radicals to regress to a childlike state where Mommy knew best, and Mommy was revered as nurturer. This is basically what I was in my late teens and early 20s, and it’s attractions are for males who have not fully matured and still tend to project maternal archetypes onto women as a whole. Once such men start actually getting some tail, they move on into adult forms of sexual (yes, sexual) relations and leave feminism behind.

Historical materialism and scientific socialism were critiques of “socialists” who idealized either their own pasts or some other culture’s. Pretty much what the Left has been since 19th century Romanticism was resurrected on such a massive scale by the 1960’s Flower Power movement.

Immaculate.

57 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Revolution, Sex, Socialism

The “Jews Help Fund the Bolshevik Revolution” Canard

From the comments:

While it’s true that wealthy interests from America and Western Europe helped fund the Russian Revolution, this was not the BOLSHEVIK Revolution. True, Bolsheviks fought in the initial revolution to overthrow the Czar (the February Revolution), but after that the (Pro-Western) Provisional Government was set up (which is what the wealthy interests such as Jacob Schiff wanted), so the Bolsheviks initiated a second revolution (the October Revolution) against the Provisional Government.

Western forces from 21 different nations then invaded Russia to protect the Provisional Government but ultimately failed (to the Bolsheviks’ credit). If the Western elites wanted the Bolsheviks in power, why would they support such an invasion of Russia? Again, they funded the February Revolution to get rid of the Czar and open up Russia’s resources to Western capitalists, but the October (Bolshevik) Revolution was not at all part of the plan.

I always wondered about this odd charge which seemed so nonsensical to me. Why would very rich Jews want to fund a Communist revolution which was going to do away with most of their wealth? It never made any sense. Nevertheless, this has always been a favorite of rightwing antisemites, including Nazi types. This ties into the whole “Jews are Communists” thing which was one of the main reasons that Hitler wanted to kill them in first place. He was fighting a war against “Jewish Communism” remember?

The canard continues long past WW2, when Jews are charged with being behind every Communist movement that arose on Earth, including the Chinese one I suppose. “Jews are Communists”, “Jews push Communism”, “Jews push Leftism”, and “Jews are behind the Western Left.” It goes on and on. According to the Nazi types, this is one of the main reasons why Jews need to be killed – because they were and are behind Leftism in the West which is seen as corrosive.

\This Jewish-sponsored Leftism is purportedly a plot to destroy the White race in various ways, including by subverting the traditional institutions of the West and therefore undermining out moral culture and causing the decline of our civilization. This is what is behind the whole Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism Theory, which I find a bit silly, though I would like to look  into it a lot deeper. A bunch of Jews screaming “conspiracy theory” and “It’s a lie – an anti-Semitic!” just doesn’t cut it for me as it does for most people. If it’s a big lie, how about proving it?

Now we have the answer to the riddle. The Jews only funded the initial revolution to get rid of the Czar because they hated the Royals so much. And this was not a Communist revolution in any way, shape or form. It was a democratic revolution, and it had some progressive and even socialist elements about it, but this government did not want to seize private property or anything like that. Another one of the reasons behind it of course was the desire of these very rich Jews to open up Russia’s resources to these capitalists so they could make money off of them.

19 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Economics, Eurasia, European, Government, History, Jews, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nazism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Revolution, Russia, Sociology, The Jewish Conspiracy To Subject Humankind, The Jewish Question, White Nationalism, Whites

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.

That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.

There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.

We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.

I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.

There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.

As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.

As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.

It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.

I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.

I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.

Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.

In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.

In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”

In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.

Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.

There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.

Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.

I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.

Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.

I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.

Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!

Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.

All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.

330 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

A Dark and Ominous Phoenix Rises from the Past

A Black Bird Rises in the West

My understanding is that in 1932, Jews were 1%* of the population of Germany. At that time, the Jews reportedly had 32%* of the wealth in the Germany.

The very next year, in 1933, Adolf Hitler of the Nazi Party was elected to rule German democracy. They quickly did away with that pesky democratic part of the state and imposed a dictatorship on a shocked but quite willing populace. This party had been trafficking in toxic anti-Semitism since its birth in German beer halls in the early 1920’s. Almost all of the leaders of this movement were very racist White men. All were White Supremacists and anti-Semites.

They preached ethnic ultranationalism and taking back the nation from the (((liberal and decadent cosmopolitan Establishment))) that had run Germany into the ground in the previous decade. It was time to take the country back from these (((liberals usurpers))) and make Germany great again. A vicious antisemitism was imposed very early on and quickly assumed savage and even homicidal proportions. Several years afterwards, those homicidal tendencies detonated into a full-blown genocidal project targeting not only Jews but also many other hated peoples such as Slavs and Gypsies. For four short years, this unstable and deranged party set the world on fire worse than it had ever been lit up. The fading remnants of that darkly incandescent blazing inferno leave traces that to reverberate among us to this day.

Of course I opposed (to put it very mildly) the Holocaust, the whole Nazi antisemitic project and the German/Japanese alliance in World War 2. It was as if a dual headed Satanic hydra had simulatenously risen in both the West and the East to menace all of mankind itself.

But then I look at that figure. Jews were 1% of the population and they controlled 32% of the wealth in a nation with an increasingly immiserated, disenfranchised and enraged majority.

I look at that figure. 1% of the population controlled 32% of the wealth. And I think, “You know what? There’s not too many countries in the world where people would put up with that for very long. At some point, the majority is going to rise up and try to take back a lot of that money from that tiny group that is monopolizing it.

In Another Century in Another Land…

In 2016, Jews are 2% of the US population. At this time, they reportedly have 28% of the wealth of the nation in a nation with an increasingly, immiserated, disenfranchised and enraged majority.

That same year, a fascist-like movement was elected to rule American democracy. They planned to quickly do away with some of the pesky democratic part of the state and impose an authoritarian government on a shocked but significantly willing populace. This party had been trafficking in increasingly toxic racism since its rebirth in the orange groves of the nation in the early 1980’s. A significant number of the leaders of this movement were quite racist White men. A few were White Supremacists and antisemites.

This movement preached an increasingly ethnic form of hyper-nationalism and taking back the nation from the (((liberal and decadent cosmopolitan Establishment))) that had been running America for most of the previous two decades. It was time to take the country back from these (((liberal usurpers))) and make America great again. A vicious racism loomed very early on. No one knew if this unstable and deranged party would set the world on fire in the next four years.

Let’s look at these two paragraphs again.

In 1932, Jews were 1% of the German population. At this time, they reportedly had  32% of the wealth of a nation with an increasingly immiserated, disenfranchised and enraged majority.

In 2016, Jews are 2% of the US population. At this time, they reportedly have 28% of the wealth of a nation with an increasingly, immiserated, disenfranchised and enraged majority.

I suppose my position would be that if the Jews, 2% of America, really do have 28% of my country’s wealth, I would say that not many countries in the world would put up with that for very long. I would also say that being 2% of the country and having 28% of the wealth is definitely not good for the Jews. Of course I don’t always support what is good for the Jews (Why should I?) but in this case, I definitely would, out of worry, fear, alarm and compassion for my fellow man alone.

37 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, East Indians, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, History, Jews, Liberalism, Modern, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Roma, The Jewish Question, Ultranationalism, USA, War, White Racism, World War 2

Equality and Inequality under Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

Hizzle writes:

Rob,

Two honest questions:

Are there different manifestations of capitalism just as there are of communism? For instance, the kind of “Capitalism for the rich, socialism for the poor” that has afflicted us for a long time along with crony capitalism (people in Gottfried’s managerial state helping each other out with no-bid contracts and quid pro quo) is pretty sick and poisonous.

But what about my local hardware store owner whose perception of capitalism is that he works hard for his middle-class lifestyle so he should live better than someone who doesn’t work hard? Why in any moral, sane system, would all people be rewarded equally when they don’t work equally hard? I understand plenty of wealth is inherited, and the reality of capitalism doesn’t fit the model, but there’s always a gulf between model and instantiation, isn’t there, even in communism?

Other question: I think humans are generally selfish or at least somewhat obviously motivated by their own interests, so what do you think would happen tomorrow if someone poured blandishments on you, and you woke up as a billionaire on your own island with your own mansion and jet, titty-fucking the supermodel of your choice, while two concubines fed you grapes? Would you rail against capitalism? The question isn’t rhetorical because I believe some leftists (like Lukacs) came from bourgeois to upper class backgrounds.

Thanks in advance.

Sure, there are all sorts of different capitalist models.

One I like very much is called Fordism, named after Henry Ford who is often called far rightwing and racist, but he really wasn’t. He wasn’t even much of an antisemite really. The Jews acted pretty bad here back then and he was appalled by their behavior. He said they were out for themselves and not for everyone. At the end of the supposedly antisemitic The International Jew, in which he forcefully condemns pogroms, Ford writes, “Come, Jews! I call on you to come join us to build a better America!” He wanted Jews to be Americans first and Jews second but Jews don’t tend to think like that.

Anyway Ford was hardly a reactionary. At the time, cars were quite expensive and out of the reach of most people. I would argue that they still are. He looked out at his auto plant and he thought, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the average worker could afford to buy one of my nice cars here?” So Ford said, “You know what? I am going to pay my workers high enough wages so they can afford to buy my cars.”

So that is Fordism. Pay workers good wages so they can afford to buy the stuff you make or sell. There was a strong Fordist element to our society for many years, but that went out maybe in the 1970’s and now there is a vicious capitalism that thinks only of profits and never asks itself if people can still afford to buy their stuff. It’s all about paying your worker as little as possible to maximize profits. Hell a lot of companies outsource all their manufacturing so they don’t pay US workers one nickel to buy any of their nice products that they import back here from their plant. I guess paying the workers to buy your overseas built stuff is someone else’s job.

There are many other varieties that I need not go into here. Anyway almost all if not all countries are a mixture of capitalism and socialism in some form or another. The “capitalist” countries of the world are usually not that capitalist, but one can argue that maybe they have less socialism than other places. The socialist or Communist countries are just places that have a lot more socialism mixed in with their capitalism.

So it’s a bit retarded to talk about pure capitalism and pure socialism or Communism but everyone does it really because people are not well educated and also there is a tendency to think of things in their most stripped down, easiest to understand form, which helps neural efficiency but also leads to many concepts being poorly or falsely understood. Humans don’t like to think much. They want to think as little as possible and most do a great job of it. I think maybe your brain wants shortcuts too. Why not? Most other things do.

Rich Communists are rare indeed. Carlos the famous terrorist had a millionaire father who was a Communist, but that is an exception. The rich are almost always conservative, and rich liberals are often not all that rich. The rich generally want to keep as much of their money as possible no matter how they obtained, which is normal. The thing is, let’s face facts, wealthy socialists are working against their own economic interests. We rail against the class-cucked poor and working class who do the same thing, but it’s a bit more noble for a rich man do it as it’s more rational for a rich man to want to share with poorer people than it is for poor or working people to advocate giving lots of their money to the rich. The former seems like a saint; the latter seems like a moron.

I’ve long been in favor of small businesses. They cause very little damage to society. Cuba is full of small businesses now. However, your hardware store owner is deluded because he will claim that he works harder than some field worker or ditchdigger, but he really doesn’t. In fact, those outdoor workers probably work quite a bit harder than he does.

There’s a lot of silly self-justification going on with people who have managed to make a fair amount of money. Somehow they deserve every nickel of it because they did such and such noble thing (work, study, whatever) and others didn’t. And capitalist fanboys often say that the rich work harder than poor workers. Bull. I guess they figured out how stupid that was so the latest one is that the rich “worked harder and worked smarter” than others. There’s no answer to that because no one even knows what working smarter even means.

I have never believed that everyone should be equal. Why should a ditchdigger be paid the same as a surgeon? It’s crazy. Why would anyone be a surgeon. Also the surgeon is obviously contributing more to society and he studied for much longer to be a surgeon. Should he not be monetarily awarded for that.

The problem in capitalism is not inequality, which is fine by me, but instead it is the degree of it. The inequality under capitalism is so vast that it is preposterous. Doesn’t Bill Gates have as much money as 40% of the planet? If aliens landed tomorrow and you told them that one guy owns as much wealth as almost half the 8 billion population, they would shake their heads, say they’re insane morons here, and there’s obviously no sign of intelligent life, so we’re taking off.

Only in this crazy planet could there be hundreds of millions of humans who actually nod their heads like that’s normal and even stand up and cheer for it. It’s absurd the way humans think here on Earth. I doubt if it is even normal either. Earthly humans are quite idiotic. Maybe it is all down to selfishness. Humans are incredibly selfish. It’s adaptive in a sense. If you don’t put your own interests first most of the time, you will soon be dead – but it is also one of the worst traits of this supposedly highly intelligent species.

How about a pay scale? Even in Communism, pay the surgeon say eight times more than the ditchdigger. Fair? Communist societies all had pay scales. In Cuba right now the average monthly wage is ~$25. But no problem as most everything is cheap or free. For instance your rent on that salary would be $1.50/month (!) and a bowl of ice cream costs 2 cents (!). However, IT workers are being paid $2,000/month in Cuba for some reason. No idea why. Maybe to encourage people to work in the field. So you see there is fair amount of inequality in Cuba. It’s just that there people are so much more equal and less unequal there than in most places.

Communist societies need not be so poor. Belarus has an economy that is 80% Soviet style, maybe upgraded for the times. Belarus and Ukraine always had by far the highest incomes in the USSR, and it seems those are two places where Communism sort of worked. Somehow those two places figured out how to make it work. On the other hand, much of the manufacturing in the USSR was located in those two countries. The average income in what is basically Communist Belarus is $16,000/year. Almost every family has a computer and a car. Does that sound like privation to you? Communism need not lead to privation.

And Swedish society is not as equal as you think. The Swedish rich have an unbelievable amount of money. Some are among the richest people in the world. The thing about Sweden is that just about everyone is afforded a decent living. There are few very rich in Sweden, but there are also few very poor. So most everyone is somewhat more towards the middle. And Belarus and Finland have wiped out homelessness. There are zero homeless people in either country.

12 Comments

Filed under Belarus, Capitalism, Caribbean, Conservatism, Cuba, Economics, Europe, Finland, History, Labor, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Modern, Political Science, Regional, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, Sweden, Ukraine, US, USSR

“Working Musicians,” by Alpha Unit

One of the most recognized and beloved mandolin solos in popular music is in the final minute-and-a-half of the song that propelled Rod Stewart to fame as a solo artist – “Maggie May.” The mandolin part adds a touch of charm to a song about lust, love, and regret. But the musician who played it didn’t even get a proper credit in the notes on the album cover. Stewart had written:

The mandolin was played by the mandolin player in Lindisfarne. The name slips my mind.

His name is Ray Jackson. Stewart had asked him for a creative contribution to the song, and Jackson crafted the part on his Columbus acoustic-electric mandolin. He was paid £15 for his work, the standard Musicians’ Union session fee at the time. The song, and Rod Stewart, went on to make rock music history.

The standard session fee for a non-classical recording today is £120, a standard session running three hours. For 15 minutes of overtime, a musician is paid an additional £30.

Over here in the United States, a side musician gets $397 for a standard three-hour recording session. For 15 minutes of overtime, he or she gets an additional $66.

Naturally we think of musicians as artists, as do many musicians themselves. But musicians are very practical people. Since the late 19th century especially, musicians have made it known that they are ordinary working people with some of the same concerns as any other group of laborers.

Angèle David-Guillou writes of a seminal event in the history of musicians’ unions. It took place in 1893 in New York. A dispute had arisen between the conductor Walter Damrosch and the American National League of Musicians, which had been founded seven years earlier.

Against the union’s persistent demands, the conductor was employing a non-unionist Danish cellist in his orchestra. Damrosch was himself a member of the union and knew its rules all too well, as he had already been fined for a similar offense.

Spectacularly, during a representation at Carnegie Hall on the seventeenth of December 1893, as Damrosch raised his baton to signal the start of the concert, not one musician moved, leaving the room filled with an uncomfortable silence.

That was all the entertainment the audience got that night, as the concert was effectively canceled. The conductor was fined ultimately, and the Danish musician was dismissed. The power of the union had been established.

Whether it was praised or criticized, this act of resistance on the part of American artists had a resounding effect on professional musicians around the world. After all, it was the first time that musicians had so publicly stepped out of their artistic roles to become for a moment simple workers.

Historically, says David-Guillou, music didn’t have a commercial value. Court musicians would receive a pension to allow them to create freely. There was never a payment in exchange for production. “Only the vulgar street musician was paid for his song,” she writes. It was the industrialization of music that shook those conventions and forced musicians not only to put a value on their work but to fight for it.

The life of a musician had always been marked by struggle – and sometimes destitution. Competition only got worse as popular music grew more successful. Previously, traditional musical associations were able to control access to the profession. But amateurs now saw musicianship as an easy way to make money in a booming industry.

The entry of unqualified newcomers created competition between skilled and unskilled musicians, and wages, predictably, went down. Tavern owners figured that they could increase their clientele by providing music and other types of entertainment. But the welfare of their employees wasn’t a priority. As David-Guillou writes:

Musicians who were absent through illness often returned to work to find that someone else had replaced them for good. Amongst other things, rehearsals, which took several hours of the day, went for a long time unpaid. Of course, if musicians dared to protest against their treatment they were happily shown the door where many anxious candidates were waiting to replace them.

Because of their meager salaries, musicians would often have multiple simultaneous contracts inside and outside the trade. Engagements were mostly short-term, ranging from weekly to seasonal. Musicians were perpetually unemployed, and those who registered with agencies could end up owing the agent up to 25 percent of their earnings.

It was in this context that travel became an essential feature of a musician’s life. As they changed employers and colleagues on a regular basis, musicians saw that others were going through the same difficulties. This helped spread the unionist word.

Whether in Europe or the United States, musicians faced similar problems: the absence of a minimum wage, the way agencies operated, the absence of a standard contract, the difficult relationship with conductors and theater directors, competition from foreign musicians, and the treatment of “amateur” musicians. The concern about amateurs was especially divisive.

Untrained musicians were flooding the music market, which the most highly qualified musicians objected to. Some of their fellow unionists felt that the best solution was to include amateurs and semi-professionals, which would increase membership and actually enforce the establishment of a minimum wage, one of the principal demands of unions. The Amalgamated Musicians’ Union in Britain was the first union to specify clearly that “anyone practicing the art of music” could join, its General Secretary stating, “Good music does not mean classical music.” The Fédération des Artistes Musiciens followed suit.

American unionists had long seen musicians primarily as workers. The formation of the American Federation of Musicians in 1896 settled the issue of whether or not musicians should be able to go on strike. The 1893 Damrosch incident had been the turning point.

The American Federation of Musicians is the largest union of musicians in the world, with 80,000 members in the United States and Canada. Wherever music is performed, you’ll find their members. They work in orchestras and bands. They perform at clubs and festivals and in theater, whether on Broadway or on tour. You hear them on movie soundtracks, TV shows, and commercials. Of course they make a lot of the music we purchase or otherwise listen to.

The AFM’s Sound Recording Agreement sets minimum wages and working conditions for musicians who work on audio recordings both in the studio and in live performances that are recorded. Musicians also receive “new use” payments when their product is used in another medium – for example, when recordings are later used in films, TV, or commercials.

The AFM still has plenty of work to do to secure the rights of musicians to be compensated for their work. The union is deeply concerned about what it calls greed and profiteering in the music industry, which comes at the expense of those who create music. There are ongoing disputes over licensing agreements between record labels and streaming services like Pandora and Spotify, where everyone seems to be making money except musicians.

In Austin, Texas, the music industry generates almost $2 billion a year for the local economy, according to Veronica Zaragovia, but some musicians say they’re lucky if they leave a gig with $5 in their pockets. Local musicians are going without necessities like health insurance and are wondering how Austin will keep musicians in town if they can’t afford basic expenses.

Kalu James has been working as a musician in Austin for several years now and says that when he’s not at the club, he’s hustling to pay his bills. As he said:

Being a full-time musician means you have three other side jobs.

That’s one thing about the business that hasn’t changed.

References

David-Guillou, Angèle. 2009. Early Musicians’ Unions in Britain, France, and the United States: On the Possibilities and Impossibilities of Transnational Militant Transfers in an International Industry. Labour History Review, 74 (3). pp. 288-304.

12 Comments

Filed under Alpha Unit, Britain, Canada, Europe, France, Guest Posts, History, Labor, Left, Modern, Music, North America, Regional, Rock, Texas, USA, West