Category Archives: US

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

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

The War on Poverty Was Not a Failure

Jason Y: Sorry to be so in your face and frank, but why do you think the War on Poverty failed from an Alt Left viewpoint?

I do not think it failed in the first place and the Alt Left does not think it failed. The Alt Left supports the War on Poverty. In this way, we utterly reject the Alt Right which wants to wipe all those gains out.

How well did the War on Poverty work? I guess I would channel Deng and say, “It’s too soon to tell.”

But of course I supported the War on Poverty and I do not believe that it failed, at least not for the same reasons that the Right does. It worked great at least for a time, and we have a ton of evidence to prove it. They started Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 housing, I think food stamps, all that stuff goes back to the War on Poverty. Of course the DNC wants to get rid of all of that. The Civil Rights Act went right along with it along with the now overthrown Voting Rights Act. The Housing Rights Act came later. The EPA was created around this time as was HUD.

It was a great thing, but they started to defund it after a while. In other words, they surrendered in the War on Poverty and quit funding it. And then to some extent things headed back in the direction that they were before.

32 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Conservatism, Democrats, Discrimination, Government, History, Housing, Law, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, US, US Politics, USA

Death to America? Sure, Why Not?

I am one of the worst America haters you will ever meet. I am a very happy person. I am not miserable at all. I go on living my life and just say the Hell with the country and assume it’s hopeless anyway. I really hate this country. I hate the government of course, but the government is put in by the people, who know exactly what the Hell they are doing. You can’t hate a government without hating the people who put it there.

This is actually rather painful to me as America is a part of me like my arm or my leg is. Hating my country is almost like hating my own body. It’s hard to take. I would much rather love my country, but how can you? That would be like loving a serial killer. How could I do that? I couldn’t do it if I tried.

Death to the US elites? When do we start? Some people need killing.

Increasingly our elite is even going against what the people themselves want. I am starting to really hate the US elite. Elites everywhere suck balls to the max because that’s all they can ever do in time and space generally. Elites suck because they are human. When a human turns into an elite, he automatically starts to suck if he didn’t suck already.

Our elites are true scum. I haven’t felt this much hate for them in a long time. What is really starting to make me mad is that now the people are starting to catch on to their crap, and they don’t care. They are just blazing right ahead with their elite project, and the Hell with what all of us think. Sheer, utter contempt for the population. What vile people.

Death to America? Good idea. I would love to say it’s too soon to tell, but I will die before then. Anyway it’s been looking pretty self-inflicted for some time now.

Death to the American government? That’s a thousand times more true than the first statement. The US government has sucked balls forever. Even when they get it right on domestic policy (Andrew Jackson, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, LBJ, and even Nixon), the foreign policy has always been horrific, even before 1900 when US foreign policy was US-internal for all intents and purposes.

Death to the American people? I have always felt this way, but it seems we are finally starting to act sensibly for the first time in many years. Its been ages since I felt any love for the American populace, but in the last year or so, I have felt those faint stirrings in my heart once again. God bless. I am even starting to think that the American people are sort of ok.

But the fact that 40-45% are perfectly willing to elect an incompetent, terrifying, psycho maniac as US President once again makes me think that people who say Americans suck have a good point. No decent people anywhere would come close to electing such a nightmarish nutcase. So maybe half the people are ok, and the other half ought to be taken out and shot, but it’s been that way since the early 90’s.

Bottom line is we have been a ferociously reactionary people for most of our history. What’s to love? Read Dickens and De Toqueville about how much we blew, and that was over 150 years ago. Sucking is in our blood.

Under George Bush, another shameful face of collective America not far off in memory, polls regularly showed that very high numbers of people hated the US and by extension its people. And who could blame them? Bush was the face of America. Sure, he stole the 2000 election (and the press knew that full well and refused to report it) and was sworn in by the most corrupt Supreme Court finding since Dred Scott. And he stole the 2004 election out and out with hacked voting machines but the press was again too corrupt to find out.

But still any decent people should have caught onto this and filled the streets until he left office head in hands.

Lousy people make lousy countries.

 

38 Comments

Filed under Geopolitics, Government, History, Law, Modern, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US, US Politics, USA

The Hell with the Pentagon

As the agency which enforces US foreign policy at gunpoint, the Pentagon has always blown.

First of all, there is no such thing as the Defense Department. When has the Pentagon ever defended the country? Pearl Harbor? They did a fine job there, huh?

Obviously the task of the Pentagon is not to defend the US mainland, which is all it ever ought to do anyway.

Its task is to running around the world starting wars and killing people in other countries. Leaving aside whether that is sometimes a good idea (and I think it is,) what’s so defensive about that?

The real name of the Pentagon is the War Department.That’s what it was always called until World War 2, which the War Department won. After that in a spate of Orwellian frenzy, we named an army of aggression an army of self-defense and comically renamed its branch the Defense Department.

It’s like calling cops peace officers. You see anything peaceful about what a cop does in a typical day? Neither do I?

There was a brief glimmer of hope there in WW2 when we finally starting killing fascists and rightwingers instead of sleeping with them, but the ink was barely dry on the agreements before we were setting up the Gladio fascists, overthrowing Greek elections and slaughtering Greek peasants like ants.

Meanwhile it was scarcely a year after 1945 when the US once again started a torrid love affair with fascism and rightwing dictators like we have always done. We were smooching it up right quick with Europe’s fascists, in this case the former Nazis of Germany (who became the West German elite), Greek killer colonels, Mussolini’s heirs, actual Nazis in Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, Jew-Nazis in Palestine, Franco (who we never stopped sleeping with anyway), Salazar, the malign Mr. Churchill, the true repulsive Dutch royalty and disgusting European colonists the world over, who we showered with guns and bombs to massacre the colonized.

In 1945, a war against fascism, reaction, Nazism and malign colonialism had ended, and for some reason America had fought against these things instead of supporting them as usual.

1946, and we were back in old style again, hiring Nazis by the busload for the CIA, overthrowing democratic governments and putting in genocidal dictatorships, becoming butt buddies with fascist swine everywhere.

So you see we have always pretty much sucked. World War 1 was fought amidst one of the most dishonest propaganda campaigns the world had ever seen, the Korean War was a Godawful mess where we turned North Korea to flaming rubble with the population cowering in caves while slaughtering 3 million North Koreans.

The horrific catastrophe called the Indochinese Wars, such as the Vietnam War, the Secret War in Laos and the Cambodian Massacre, where we genocided 500,000 Cambodians with bombs, driving the whole place crazy and creating the Khmer Rogue.

Panama and Grenada were pitiful jokes, malign, raw, naked imperialism at its worst.

The Gulf War was a brief return to sanity but turkey shoots are sickening.

Of course that followed on with the most evil war in US history, the Nazi-like war on aggression called The War on the Iraqi People (usually called the Iraq War), the Afghan rabbit hole which started out sensibly enough but turned into another Vietnam style Great Big Mess.

I suppose it is ok that we are killing Al Qaeda guys and I give a shout out to our boys over there fighting ISIS or the Taliban and Al Qaeda in South-Central Asia, Somalia and Yemen. Some people need killing.

But I sure don’t feel that way about their superiors, the US officers who fund and direct ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. out of an Operations Center in Jordan with Jordanian, Israeli (!), Saudi, UAE, and Qatari officers.

And it was very thoughtful of the Pentagon to cover up the Ukrainian Air Force shootdown of the jetliner which we saw on the radar of our ships in Black Sea.

And it was nice of the US to relay the flight path of the Russian jet to the Turks 24 hours in advance so they could shoot down that Russian jet and kill that pilot.

One hand giveth and the other taketh away. For every good thing we do in Syria and Iraq, we do 10 or 20 bad things. Pretty much the story of the Pentagon.

Sure if you fought in WW2 or one of the few other decent wars, you have something to be proud of, and I can even say, “Thank you for your service,” but the main thing is that you signed up for the rightwing army of the rich that is dead set against the people and popular rule everywhere on Earth. Sure, it’s a great army, professional, super-competent and deadly, but it’s generally tasked with doing lousy things. Why anyone would sign up for that reactionary nightmare of an institution is beyond me. America needs to level the Pentagon and put in a true People’s Army instead. Like that would ever happen.

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Asia, Britain, Cambodia, Caribbean, Central America, Cold War, Colonialism, Conservatism, East Africa, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, Greece, History, Imperialism, Iraq War, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Laos, Latin America, Lithuania, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Modern, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Netherlands, North Korea, Palestine, Panama, Political Science, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, SE Asia, Somalia, Spain, Syria, Ukraine, US, US War in Afghanistan, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War, World War 1, World War 2, Yemen

The Foreign Policy of the United States of America

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” Gen. Smedley Butler

This man was a general in the US military. And this is what he spent most of his time doing as a general in the US military – rampaging around Latin America overthrowing governments, raping countries, stealing resources and slaughtering people, all so US corporations could rule over their lands as de facto colonies of the United States. None of these countries were even given the opportunity to pursue an independent course of development. None of these actions were ever done in solidarity, instead they were all done in the name of neocolonial imperialism as part of the creation of the American Empire in Latin America, a project which is ongoing as I write this. That is correct, Latin America is still a colony of the United States. A few places tried to liberate themselves from US colonialism and achieve independence, and look what happened to them: Haiti, Grenada, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil. Earlier cases involved Guatemala, the Dominican Republican, Guyana, and Chile. Brazil and Argentina just got taken down and the Venezuela is finally in the process of being taken down after over 15 years of unrelenting US warfare.

As you can see, raw, naked US imperialism of the most vicious and brutal kind has always been the way of the United States, dating back all the way to 1900. So we were nice guys before that? Nope. We sucked in the 1800’s too. The US spent most of the 1800’s slaughtering American Indians, stealing their land and stabbing them in the back with fake treaties. That was when we were not invading Mexico and stealing and annexing Mexican land.

Although we didn’t do much in Latin America in the 1800’s, that was only because there was not much to do down there. The US did not have much of a foreign policy period, and US corporations did not tend to operate overseas. Further all of Latin America was in the hands of the vicious and voracious Latin American ruling classes which kept their nations in the most abject poverty and pitiful underdevelopment while the rich stole every nickel the economies ever created, leaving everyone else in rags holding the bag. Rule by the vicious 1% has always been a-ok with the US; in fact, this is how we prefer it. Any nation that overthrows rule by the rich to put in democratic rule by the people is usually taken out sooner or later by the United States, often using the very military that Butler lamented being a part of.

I would like to point out one very sorry thing. First of all, not one single thing has changed about US foreign policy since Smedley wrote those famous words. This is still exactly what US foreign policy in Latin America and to a lesser extent other places is composed of. And in between the time Butler is describing until our present day, what he describes has been US foreign policy the entire time. We’ve never had a decent foreign policy for a day in this country. Even the most liberal regimes pursued vicious foreign policies. FDR’s foreign policy in Latin America was monstrous – “Somoza may be a sonofabitch, but he’s our sonofabitch.” Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive reformer at home and a monster overseas. “Walk softly and carry a big stick” was his vicious, violent, brutal policy of conquest and dictatorial rule in Latin America. In fact, most of the continent was actually officially colonized under Teddy’s rule. This has always been the way in US politics. That disgusting foreign policy described by Butler has been fully embraced by both parties from Day One. The Democrats were down with it just as much as the Republicans. This is what was known as “the bipartisan foreign policy consensus.” The Democrats were only progressive on domestic issues. They were just as reactionary as Republicans on foreign policy. The two parties have always only differed on domestic policy. This year is no different. In fact, this year Hitlery’s foreign policy is actually much more rightwing and imperialist than even the Republican Donald Trump’s! Trump isn’t really an anti-imperialist, but he’s the closest thing to one in US politics – a good, old-fashioned isolationist. The upshot is that his foreign policy actually ends up being a lot more progressive than “liberal” Democrat Killary’s. Unbelievable! The Democrats are more rightwing that the Republicans!

There doesn’t seem to be any way out of this imperial bullshit. This crap has been the America way for so long that I am not sure that we as a country understand any other way of looking at the world. It’s gotten to where this vicious imperial foreign policy is the only thing we understand. We literally do not know how to act any other way. And when you get both parties in on the program along with ~100% of the media, you have what amounts to 100% US political, corporate and media elite consensus on the outlines of a foreign policy along with a full spectrum dominance way of promoting it. Poll after poll for years shows that Americans almost always support whatever shenanigans US foreign policy is up to at the moment. So the elites do not have to worry about the masses marching in the streets over foreign policy. Americans are always in complete lockstep with foreign policy probably due to media brainwashing. Deep state media control is so complete that the entire media spectrum typically supports anything and everything the Deep State does and believes foreign policy-wise. There’s literally no dissent. The media is that controlled, 100% controlled. With wall to wall 24-7 broadcasting, net and news publishing it’s no surprised that on foreign policy, Americans appear about as brainwashed as a North Korean.

9 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Conservatism, Democrats, Fascism, Geopolitics, History, Imperialism, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Liberalism, Mexico, Military Doctrine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, US, US Politics, USA

Repost: The Smallpox-infected Blankets

Repost from the old site. This is actually one of the most popular posts on this site and it has been linked to from all over, including Takimag. This is one of the best pieces on the Smallpox Blankets story that you will find on the Net. As an aside, there is a lot about an utterly brutal war called The Pontiac War that most have never even heard of. Bottom line is that the Smallpox Blankets story is pretty much bullshit, but it’s bullshit that gets repeated endlessly mostly because it shows how evil we Whites are and hence fits the current anti-White narrative very well.

Oh, how the American Indians love this story! I’ve heard it endlessly.

Did you know that the US gave these evil blankets to Indians all over the country, even here in California? Or Hudson Bay traders gave them to Indians in Canada? That those blankets wiped out “generations” of Indians? That the US gave them out to reservation Indians in the 1800’s? That Puritans gave out the blankets to Massachusetts Indians?

Neither did I.

Ward Churchill said the US Army gave Indians them diseased blankets. He lied, and he should have known better.

It’s always nice to track down a myth, or is it really a myth?

So let’s track it down.

Turns out, Americans never gave smallpox blankets to any Indians anywhere at anytime. Not the government, not the Army, not anyone. So we are absolved on that one. The incident in question occurred in 1763, before there even was a USA, before there even were Americans. And American colonists (pre-Americans) didn’t do it either. It was the British that done the deed, and the one man who is always accused of doing it never even did it.

Further, it was in the midst of a horrible and genocidal war (on both sides) called Pontiac’s Rebellion, which occurred around the Great Lakes area during this time.

This was really a followup to the French and Indian War, with which the rebellion is often incorrectly associated. In the aftermath of that war, the area which had been ruled by the French was now ruled by the British. And the Indians, far from reflexively hating every White man around, had previously adjusted well to French rule and were angry about now being ruled by the British.

The Indians hated the deal they were getting from the British, who were treating the Indians very poorly. There were only a few colonial settlers around at this time.

The Indian goal in the war was to get the French back so they could live under French rule rather than British rule. Towards the end of the war, they may have even wanted freedom.

But freedom for Indians was never going to work out, at least in the short term, because they were stupid. Stupid? Yes, which is why in the mid-1700’s, when the civilized world was starting to get themselves a country or something like a country (monarchical empires), no way could the American Indians have made one.

Why? Because they were so stupid that they had endless deadly blood feuds with most of the surrounding tribes such that they spent way more time fighting and killing each other than they did the White man. Any country they would have gotten would have fallen immediately into mad civil war, with no adults around to sort it out and send one to one room and another to the other.

If you ever find any of those old adolescent novels about the settling of the pre-US Upper Midwest and Appalachia (forget the name), they are a great read. I spent my early adolescence at the library reading those books.

It’s interesting that in the mid-1700’s, these Indians were well-supplied with firearms. They didn’t invent any firearms, but they were smart enough to figure out their great value as weapons quickly, and they even got to the point where they were expert gunsmiths – experts at stocks, barrels and even gunpowder and pellets.

The Whites were selling and giving the Indians good quantities of muskets, pellets and gunpowder in this part of the colonial US at this time, but the stupid Indians were mostly using the firearms to kill their Indian enemies rather than to fight the Whites. This situation went on for decades in the US and seriously hampered the Indians’ anti-colonial wars of national liberation against the White invaders.

In Pontiac’s War, they added firearms to knives, hatchets (not a bad weapon), bow and arrow, flaming bow and arrow and even rocks and clubs. They ingeniously sawed off their muskets into sawed-off shotgun-type muskets so they could hide them under their blankets.

The Indians were horrible and vicious in the course of this war, and the British were too. But it was the British who were really getting pounded. Whole forts were being overwhelmed by 300-strong Indian armies, and after the storming, the Indians would kill everyone in the place, soldiers, women, kids, anyone.

The Indians were raiding towns, settlements and schools and killing every White they could find. These were some of the most hard-ass Indians in the history of the Indian Wars. Further, the Indians actually made an alliance of many tribes living in the area during this war, which is incredible, since the Indians usually hated their neighbors so much they would not even ally with them to fight the Whites.

In the course of the Pontiac Rebellion, a famous British general named Lord Jeffrey Amherst wrote a letter to his subordinate among the besieged British troops in one of the forts suggesting that they give the Indians smallpox-infected blankets. Turns out that this had already been done by that very subordinate. Simeon Ecuyer, the Swiss-born British officer in command of Fort Pitt, was the man who did it.

Although we do not know how the plan worked out, modern medicine suggests that it could not possibly have succeeded. Smallpox dies in several minutes outside of the human body. So obviously if those blankets had smallpox germs in them, they were dead smallpox germs. Dead smallpox germs don’t transmit smallpox.

In addition to the apparent scientific impossibility of disease transmission, there is no evidence that any Indians got sick from the blankets, not that they could have anyway. The two Delaware chiefs who personally received the blankets were in good health later. The smallpox epidemic that was sweeping the attacking Indians during this war started before the incident. The Indians themselves said that they were getting smallpox by attacking settler villages infected with smallpox and then bringing it back to their villages.

So, it’s certain that one British commander (British – not even an American, mind you), and not even the one usually accused, did give Indians what he mistakenly thought were smallpox-infected blankets in the course of a war that was genocidal on both sides.

Keep in mind that the men who did this were in their forts, cut off from all supplies and reinforcements, facing an army of genocidal Indians who were more numerous and better armed than they were, Indians who were given to killing all defenders whether they surrendered or not.

If a fort was overwhelmed, all Whites would be immediately killed, except for a few who were taken prisoner by the Indians so they could take them back to the Indian villages to have some fun with them. The fun consisted of slowly torturing the men to death over a 1-2 day period while the women and children watched, laughed and mocked the helpless captives. So, these guys were facing, if not certain death, something pretty close to that.

And no one knows if any Indians at all died from the smallpox blankets (and modern science apparently says no one could have died anyway). I say the plan probably didn’t even work and almost certainly didn’t kill any of the targeted Indians, much less 50% of them. Yes, the myth says that Amherst’s germ warfare blankets killed 50% of the attacking Indians!

Another example of a big fat myth/legend/historical incident, that, once you cut it open – well, there’s nothing much there.

The tactics in this war were downright terrifying. At one point the city of Detroit itself was surrounded and besieged for weeks on end.

Pontiac was a master tactician, and the history of the war is full of all sorts of evil acts of deception. Fake peace treaties and fake peace delegations. Devious Indian women working as undercover spies for both sides. Indian mistresses tipping off their White lovers to Indian attacks. And the converse, Indian undercover female agents, disguised as workers in the forts, secretly letting the Indians in to massacre the Whites, and Indian mistresses deviously leading their White officer-lovers and the soldiers under them to their deaths.

It took forever for the British to resupply the forts, and many reinforcement missions were ambushed and annihilated by Pontiac’s men. It was not a good time to be White in the Great Lakes region, no sir.

At the end of the day, no one won the war, neither the Indians nor the British.

The Indians had foolishly allowed themselves to become dependent on the fickle Whites for gunpowder and pellets, which the Indians quickly ran out of when the Whites wisely quit supplying them during the hostilities.

Lesson: don’t buy your war supplies from the enemy. When war breaks out, he’ll cut you off.

A little-known aspect of US colonial history.

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

10 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Britain, Colonialism, Europe, France, Health, History, Illness, North America, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, US, USA, War, Whites

How Did Blacks Become 25% White?

To Trash:

American blacks are supposedly 14% – 20% white and this is surprising to me.

So many English colonists pulled their pants down and raped African girls in the Deep South?

Certainly there were violent sexual assaults by white men on black women but you need to look clearly at the early history of the US and slavery. Consider the following – no more than 388,000 black slaves (and some freemen) arrived on the US shores which led to the current 42 million black Americans which are predominantly derived from those slaves reproducing with each other, native Americans, whites, and Chinese plus later immigration from the Caribbean and Africa.

For the first 150 years of European immigration (and black slave importation) into the US blacks and whites could and did intermarry legally and FWIW the first slave owner was allegedly a black man. The color line (and laws to enforce such) became more rigorous after Bacon’s rebellion in the late 16th century. So with such a small population combined with loose rules for more than 100 years it’s not surprising that there were many voluntary unions between blacks and whites.

18% of the mtDNA of black women in the US is European in origin, meaning at some point these women had a white female ancestor which I doubt resulted from a white woman sexually assaulting a black man. Also there were multiple voluntary unions between blacks and whites after the civil war and blacks in Northern states, where slavery was banish before the civil war, have a higher percentage of ancestry than Southern blacks. If the British/US whites had the same sexual attitudes towards black women as say the Portuguese in Brazil, we’d probably have a “black” population that was majority white.

In fact, many of these unions were voluntary. Towards the end of the slavery era into the 1800’s, the plantation economy became so huge that the population of slaves was not large enough to do all the work. Many lower and working class salt of the Earth White types in the South began working in the fields alongside the Blacks. They were paid wages while the Blacks were slaves. Although one would expect these Whites to be brutally racist, in fact, they were a very downtrodden group themselves who had more in common with the slaves than with the rich Whites.

The atmosphere in the fields was congenial and White and Black workers worked side by side in harmony. As one might imagine, quite a bit of romance and sex grew out of this proximity and there were a large number of Black-White unions resulting in mulatto children, mostly from White male workers and Black female slaves. These unions were mostly consensual.

Also there was a lot more consensual sex between slaves and the master’s family and friends than you might believe. Many Black female slaves quickly figured out that sex with the master or his relatives was a great way to earn lots of nice privileges, including moving from the fields to the house and all sorts of other goodies, including possibly even freedom.

After Liberation, there was a lot of sex between Blacks and Whites in the South. White women were very puritanical and were expected to be virgins until marriage and White men were supposed to protect their honor. It became nearly a ritual for White men to lose their virginity on the wrong side of town with a Black woman. There were also quite a few more or less clandestine Black female-White male unions in the South on the wrong side of town, although generally Whites did not care much what young single White men did with their dicks on the other side of town.

Deep into this century, Black women often reported being groped, sexually harassed and propositioned by White men as they walked down the street or went about their business in town. This sort of thing occurred in broad daylight. Alpha told me that some of her relatives related that White men had expressed interest in them and that is was very common in the South of their time. Really no one much cared if White men had sex with Black women, as they were seen as loose, slutty, and fair game – basically free prostitutes. Perhaps the actual sex should be kept out of the public eye somewhat. Young White men often regaled each other with tales of sexual romps on the wrong side of town.

This was sort of an open secret in the South. Everyone knew about it, but you were not supposed to talk about it.

The only real taboo was children resulting from these White male-Black female unions. Any child born of these unions was simply lost to the Whites and White society. The White men would not raise such a child and marriage or living with the Black woman was a no-no. So she simply raised the child herself and the child was raised Black as a part of Black society.

With enough of this going on, you ended up with some awfully light-skinned “Blacks” over there on the wrong side of town and it became common for such folks to try to get a leg up by “passing” as White. Many were in fact able to pull this off (Black women perhaps more than Black men) and there have been a number of books written on this topic including some well regarded works of literature.

Those who “passed” could have sex with either Blacks or Whites in both cases of which the offspring would be light enough to pass for White. If “passers” or light-skinned Blacks had sex with Blacks, the result was lighter than the Blacker partner. Light-skinned Black men were often brighter, more educated and had more money and hence were sought out by Black women for social climbing. In addition, lighter skilled Black women with Whiter features have always been prized by Black men who selected for them to a high degree.

Recent studies show a convergence of Black and White skull phenotypes since the Civil War. It is almost as if we are merging towards a common single race.

39 Comments

Filed under Blacks, History, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, South, US, USA, Whites

Ugly Race Riot in Milwaukee

I am just hearing about this right now, but it has been going on for a couple of days now ever since Saturday night, August 13. There was more rioting on Sunday night on August 14 and early this Monday morning on August 15.

This is a very ugly race riot. It reminds me of the Watts Riots and the LA Riots in 1993. The things that remind me of those riots:

  • Ongoing rioting for more than a day. A riot lasting more than a day is always an ugly riot.
  • Multiple buildings looted and seven businesses set ablaze or destroyed.
  • Eight police wounded. That’s a lot.
  • Heavy gunfire through much of the rioting. During the very bad LA riots mentioned above, there was usually a lot of gunfire such that police were often pinned down and unable to respond.
  • People wounded by gunfire. People getting shot is always bad news. A lot of people got shot in the Watts Riots.
  • Attacks on fire trucks and firemen. When they start attacking the fire trucks and firemen, you know it’s a bad riot. There were a lot of attacks on firefighters in both LA riots. The Watts Riots were especially bad in that regard.
  • Attempts to pull White motorists out of their cars so they can assault them. This is how the famous assault on Reginald Denny occurred in the LA riots. This sort of thing was also going on in the Watts riots. When a bad race riot like this breaks out, all Whites really need to stay the Hell away and not go lookie-looing at it.
  • Two police cars set ablaze and several more damaged. When they start setting police cars on fire, it’s always a bad riot.

When things like that start happening, it is more than just a police riot. Now you have an out and out race riot similar to the ones we had so many of back in the 1960’s.

August 13, Night

Several cars, including one police car, set on fire.

BP gas station, O’Reilly auto parts store, beauty supply store and BMO Harris branch bank set on fire. The gas station was looted before it was burned.

Supermarket and liquor store destroyed.

Metro PCS along with other stores looted.

When police arrived, gunshots were heard. Firefighters could not put out gas station fire at first due to gunshots but eventually got the fire under control. Rioters attacked fire trucks with bricks. One fireman injured when hit with a brick. Reporters and photographers attacked. One shoved to the ground and assaulted.

Four police wounded.

17 rioters arrested.

August 14, Night

Crowd threw objects at police.

White man shot and wounded near the rioting, apparently by Black rioters. Possibly targeted due to his race. Police needed armored car to retrieve him.

Rioters attempted to pull White motorists out of their cars in order to assault them them.

Gunfire reported. 30 shots fired during the rioting.

August 15, early AM

Three police cars and one BearCat vehicle damaged.

One vehicle and one dumpster set on fire.

Windows broken on store.

Four police wounded.

14 rioters arrested.

61 Comments

Filed under Blacks, California, Crime, History, Law enforcement, Midwest, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, US, USA, West, Whites, Wisconsin

Repost: The Fake White Slavemaster Rape Epidemic

Here.

This is an oldie but goodie that got posted around a lot back in the day. It even got linked on Amren, though sadly all the comments have been deleted, though you might be able to find them on Wayback Machine. Why Taylor deletes all of his old comments I will never understand. The Amrenners ate it up.

Amren was actually rather more tolerable back then back when Ian Jobling was running the show. He was trying to do something different with the pre-Alt Right, and honestly I think he was sort of an incipient Alt Left guy all along. He finally had enough of being half retard at Amren and left to form his own site, which was sort of an early Alt Left split from the Alt Right. It was sort of like Amren for decent, sane, intelligent people. But then something weird happened and he did a complete 180 to become a completely nuts SJW antiracist.

Half retard to full retard is never a good thing like any reversion, but at least he wasn’t evil anymore. That’s right. SJW’s aren’t evil. They’re just brainwashed and deluded, the poor things. I agree that their hearts are in the right place, and Michael Levin, who has spoken at Amren conferences, agrees with me on that. Their hearts are right, but their brains are wrong. And the biggest fool of all can never be fully evil as long as their hearts are properly anchored. Resisting evil always deserves a tip of the hat.

This about sums it up. Written by a Black Caribbean man.

One of the conceits of the militant Black movement in the US (in practice, that means most US Blacks) is that they are convinced there was some evil White rape epidemic against Indians and Black women. According to this hate Whitey line, White men are the biggest rapists in the past 500 years, or I guess ever. The whole history of White men has been a history of rape of Indian and Black women.

When a Black woman looks in the mirror, she sees centuries of violence, of rape, evil rape, in her veins, in her soul, in her genes. This was a sexist campaign of extermination against Black women. We White dudes conspired to pollute their illustrious and Nobel Prize winning Black gene pool! Such a crime against humanity! And we thought we were just “mejorando la raza” as they call marrying and breeding up-White in Latin America.

What’s curious about all of this is that White dudes pretty much stopped raping Black chicks altogether in recent years. Most of you have seen the figures that drive White nationalists into conniptions. 37,000 White women raped by Blacks every year. Zero Black women raped by White men every year. So, the greatest rapists that ever lived have suddenly knocked it off for decades now.

What happened? For one thing, it’s not legal anymore. At one time, it was about legal for a White to rape a Black woman, and maybe for a Black man too. No one cared. Black female victims did not count.

An interesting figure is that by 1865, 75% of US Blacks were yet unmixed. Yeah, some rape epidemic. Any Latin American country can do better than that. Now, supposedly 75% of US Blacks got some White in dey veins. Now, how’s abouts did dats happen? I figger a lot of sexin of White guys and Black ladies afta 1865. Mostly consensual, too, I bet.

There is a phrase in the South that women cringe at. It’s called “splitting the Black Oak”. It means that young single White guys, back in the day, before sex was free and all that, would go lose their virginity and become a man by sexing a Black girl or lady. They lived on the other side of town and no doubt could be had for a price. Women and girls have never given it away for free too much, sadly.

At the time, loose White chicks were probably in short supply in the South, and most single White women were probably virgins. So you want to pop your cherry, you head over to the dark side of the tracks. Probably not much raping going on here. Black women were very poor and probably screwing White was moving up in the world, as it is to this day. White men offered money, favors, whatever men always do. Black women were happy to trade.

Much of the fake rape epidemic occurred from about 1830 on. After slavery was outlawed, it was awfully costly to go buy yourself a slave. By 1830 or so, 30% of workers in the fields were White “wage slaves” working for hourly wages alongside Black slaves. By 1860, it was 70%. Slaves by that time were largely contained to the largest plantations. No one else could afford one.

The Civil War, like Sendero’s rebellion in Peru in the 1980’s, was a race against time. Slavery was dying anyway. By the Civil War, a slave cost $60,000 in today’s dollars. Few could afford one. We have many reports of owners distressed about White workers having sex with Black female slaves, often for money or various favors. These women were slaves, and they needed every break they could get.

It’s well-known that many slave owners had mulatto mistresses, often to the wife’s consternation. She was a kept woman. For a slave, this was moving up in the world big-time. No doubt it was voluntary on the part of many female house Negroes.

The same Black women who scream that we White guys are the Greatest Rapists That Ever Lived also fume that we say Black women are “unrapeable”. The ultimate insult. Cognitive disconnect anyone? These same Black women fuming about the White male as the most evil creature that ever stalked the Earth openly admit that they want to marry and have kids with a White man.

Go figure.

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

3 Comments

Filed under Blacks, Crime, History, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sociology, US, USA, Whites