Category Archives: Left

Hobbes Versus Rousseau

Check out the video of a rather typical day in a large Yanonamo village as captured by legendary anthropologist Nicholas Chagnon. I read the book he wrote about these people, The Yanonamo – The Fierce People.

A massive whirlpool of sheer Cultural Left nonsense has swirled around Chagnon and his work with the Yanonamo. Turns out these were noble savages after all, and these evil White men went into their peaceful villages and stirred up a bunch of trouble just so they could make lurid films and make a White Supremacist  point about the inferiority of non-Whites.

None of the charges against Chagnon were true. All lies. But the toilet bowl of Cultural Left bullshit swirled around this poor man for many years. He was nearly tossed out of the American Anthropological Association over this.

Anthropology, after all, is one of the most Cultural Left-poisoned fields of them all. Linguistics, a close cousin (there is actually a sub-field called Anthropological Linguistics), is not far behind, right on the tail of the Students of Men.

So we come to Rousseau versus Hobbes. The field of anthropology is now on the side of Rousseau, and Hobbes is the name that dare not say its name, the Leviathan in the living room that everyone pretends is simply not there. Let’s look at the evidence based on this video.

Rousseau

Noble? Are you kidding?

Savage? You got it.

Rousseau is 1-1. Now let’s see how Hobbes scores.

Hobbes 

Short? Yo.

Nasty? Damn straight.

Brutish? Oh yeah!

Hobbes wins of course, 3-0, clean sweep.

Anyway, I don’t think this video has anything to say about superiority or inferiority of Whites or non-Whites. The Yanonamo are simply what humans are like in their raw, native condition once you take off the fake civilizational veneer. This is us – you, me and everyone else. Killers, born killers. A bunch of Goddamned animals. As if you needed reminding, we humans are indeed animals, giant two legged monkeys if you wish.

Hobbes redeemed once again.

8 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anthropology, Brazil, Cultural, Cultural Marxists, Left, Linguistics, Philosophy, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, Venezuela, Whites

Now These Are Some Rightwingers I Could Get Behind

Supposedly this group of National Revolutionaries is referred to as part of the German “New Right.” If they’re rightwing, then so am I. And if this is what National Revolutionaries are like, I am one of them.

Assads, Saddam, Habash, Hillel, Le Pen, Ghaddafi, Saddam, Aflaq, Peron, Chavez, Morales, Ortega, Villa, Juarez, Dudayev, Ho, Fidel, Che, even the Kims, what the Hell, even Arafat, oh heck, let’s throw in Dugin, what are they all if not the ultimate nationalists?

A national economy for the people; a people’s economy for the nation. I even like some of those National Communists in Eastern Europe. If there’s anything in the toilet bowl of history, it’s internationalism. Nation comes first, the rest of you, noble as ye may be, are always second in line.

I am starting to think Michel Aflaq and the rest were onto something. And I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the great Gamel Nasser, hero of the Arabs. And as evil as Saddam was, at least he was for his people until his last day. “Long life Iraq!” he yelled before he swung from the rafters. I actually think Saddam was a better man than our traitorous nation-selling neoliberal elite which has taken over the Democratic and Republican Parties forever now.

You’re either for your people or you’re a traitor to the homeland. If you’re for  your people, you know that’s got to count for something. And traitors are why lamp-poles exist at all. Might as well make use of them.

“Outside of the Homeland, what else is there?”

– famous Iraqi Baathist.

“If I am not for myself, then who am I for?”

– Hillel.

Up with the nation! Up with the people! All power to the people!

When the National-Revolutionaries out ultra-lefted the ultra-left:

The strategy of the “basis group” demonstrated itself in the most spectacular fashion at the University of the Ruhr in Bochum. A group of neo-nationalist activists militated effectively there and founded a journal, the Ruhr-Studenten-Anzeiger. Around this militant newspaper, a Republikanischer Studentenbund (RSB ; League of Republican Students) organized in 1968 which aimed to become a counterweight to the leftist SDS.

Conflict would soon follow: the militants of the RSB criticized the SDS for organizing pointless strikes in order to consolidate their power over the student masses. In the course of a blockade organized by the leftists, the RSB took the university of Bochum by storm and proclaimed, in a populist-Marxist language, their hostility to the “exploiters” and “bonzes” of the SDS, having become stakeholders in the new establishment, where leftists had henceforth been accorded a place. The proclamations of the RSB, drafted by Singer, were stuffed with citations from Lenin, Marx, and Mao.

Singer also referred to the rhetoric of the German workers in Berlin against Ulbricht’s communist functionaries, during the June 1953 uprising. The revolting RSB students insulted the East German functionaries of the SED, calling them marionettes of the Soviets, “monkeys in glasses,” “fat cats,” and “paper-pushing reactionaries.” This appropriation of the Marxist vocabulary and style of Berlin Uprising of 1953 irritated the leftists as, ipso facto, they had lost the monopoly on militant shock-language and foresaw a possible intrusion of national-revolutionaries into their own milieus, with the evident risk of poaching and counter-attraction.

17 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, European, Germany, History, Internationalism, Left, Marxism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

One Man Businesses Are Inherently Noncapitalist

Stalin Tonks: All this talk about donations and paywalls makes you sound like a capitalist, Robert. I am so disappointed in you.

First of all, I live in a capitalist country. You have to do what you have to do survive in whatever country you live in. If you want to survive in a capitalist country, you have to play by the rules of capitalism. And it’s not anti-socialist to be rich or to invest in or own businesses. For instance, the FMLN revolutionaries owned and invested in businesses, farms and ranches all over Latin America. All of the money went for revolution – guns, bombs, uniforms, supplies, wages for soldiers, etc. The father of the famous terrorist Carlos was a Venezuelan millionaire and Communist. That’s not a contradiction, and he doesn’t have to give all his money away. A Communist can be rich in a capitalist country. I would like to think he would do good things with his money though and not use it to rip off the people or exploit workers. Engels was a rich businessman.

I am not a capitalist. No exploitation, no capitalism. I am simply a worker selling his labor on the open market. All one man businesses are noncapitalist. It’s just one guy selling his labor on the market mostly to other workers. It’s workers paying other workers for some service. Also I am not marking anything up, although the profit motive and marking up products as a middleman is not necessarily capitalist and is completely compatible with socialism. I also feel that small businesses are an important part of a socialist country.

Anyway, I’m not really a Communist. I am just a socialist, and I am OK with social democracy where you have private businesses and even corporations and where up to 93% of the economy is private owned, as in Sweden for instance.

Democratic socialism allows a lot of capitalism in it. It just modified it and regulates it, and that is the socialist part as capitalists accept no limits whatsoever on their profits. Any state that limits the profits of Capital is automatically acting in a socialist manner. All regulation of business is inherently socialist. It has to be. Capitalists do not accept the state regulating their businesses to limit their profits in any way, shape or form. That’s their nature.

4 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Government, Latin America, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Revolution, Socialism, South America, Venezuela

Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen, “This Land Is Our Land”

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

And I went walking that ribbon of highway
And saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me the golden valley
This land was made for you and me

I roamed and rambled and followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me, a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing
This land was made for you and me

In the squares of the city, in the shadow of a steeple
By the Relief Office, I’d seen my people
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me
As I go walking that freedom highway
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me

When the sun come shining, then I was strolling
In wheat fields waving and dust clouds rolling
The voice was chanting as the fog was lifting
This land was made for you and me

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest, to the Gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

Written by Woody Guthrie. Sung by Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger (age 80).

From the great inauguration of Barack Obama in 2008. I was in a doctor’s office and the news came on that Obama had won. I saw the crowds mobbing the streets, all marching towards the main park of Chicago. The volatile Spike Lee was there. “This changes everything!” He effused. There was a little Black girl sitting next to me, maybe seven years old. I asked her if she liked Obama. She nodded her head shyly. I had tears in my eyes. How dare these idiots call me racist! What sort of racist cries tears of joy when he hears that America just elected its first Black president?

The three bolded sections above are the “forbidden lyrics.” Although Guthrie included them when he wrote the song in 1940, they are seldom performed in modern versions as they were considered subversive as promoting socialism or Communism. The song is actually a great socialist anthem. Woody Guthrie was definitely a leftwinger.

Given the choice, I would rather have the land owned by me (the state) than owned by some private individual. What’s so great about private ownership of land? What’s better for me, land that I can walk on or land that I can’t walk on? How bout the land that I can walk on?

One of the reasons for China’s great success is that the state owns all the land. Everybody just leases the land where their home or farm is. In The Netherlands also, the state owns all the land. Everybody just leases out whatever land they use. Same thing in Cuba, but in Cuba now, almost everyone owns their own residence. And a great argument for China’s success against India’s failure is that much of the poverty, malnutrition, etc. in India is caused by the private ownership of land, especially in the rural areas. India said they were going to do land reforms and they claimed to do them over and over but the truth is that no real land reform has ever been done in India, and semi-feudal relations still prevail in the countryside. Hence the horrific poverty, starvation, etc.

One of the all-time great folk songs ever written. A purely American song like virtually no other. I believe we should replace that horrible Star Spangled Banner with this much better song. This song also captures the true American spirit. The land does indeed belong to all of us, you and me. All that land the government owns, it doesn’t belong to the government. It belongs to me! It’s my land, dammit! How dare the rich give away my land to malign corporations and the 1%! Forget that. You take my land, and you give it all away to the corporations and the rich to abuse and destroy. What sort of democracy is that?

Plutocratic rule is never democracy. How can it be? The plutocrats are what? 1% 5%? Where do idiot Americans get it in their heads that rule by the rich or the ruling class is somehow democracy. Aristocratic rule is never democracy at any time or in any place. It can’t be. You either have conservatism, which is rule by the rich or the aristocrats, or you have democracy, which is rule by the people. That’s your only two choices. One or the other? Which one do you want? The rich will never rule in favor of the people. They can’t. They literally cannot. They must rule in their class interests. It’s nearly a law of social science as hard and fast as a hard science rule.

Written by Woody Guthrie! One of the best working class folk singer-songwriters who ever lived. He was also a tough, macho guy, a redneck, a worker, a blue collar roughneck with a cigarette dangling from his mouth James Dean style. This is what the Left used to be before it was taken over by effeminate men, butch women, man-hating feminists, White-hating minorities who idolize common street thugs, anti-nationalists advocating to turn all of America into a teeming Third World Calcutta, all manner of sexual identity and sexual orientation freakazoids with so many weird subgroups that they are almost beyond classification, and in general idiots, fools, deviants and dumbasses.

Woody Guthrie is what the Left used to be. He’s what the Left is supposed to be. He was born too soon. He was Alt Left before there was an Alt Left!

This guitar kills fascists!

12 Comments

Filed under Asia, Caribbean, China, Conservatism, Cuba, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Folk, Government, India, Latin America, Left, Music, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Asia, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left

I Will Not Take Crap from a Woman

I realize that nowadays that the Cultural Left, PC and feminism have taken over society and the patriarchy has been overthrown and replaced with a repressive matriarchy, what I am going to say will seem like a horrible sexist attack on women, but I will say it anyway.

The thing is, I can take crap from a man. Online for sure. I just block him on Facebook or Quora or on my site. He’s just gone. Other than that, I just leave the conversation. I don’t usually start stuff with men online. I have started stuff with a few of them, but they came to my site walking right in the front door swinging fists at me. I wrote a few of them back emails cussing them out and vaguely threatening them. Vague threats are 100% legal by the way. If LE arrested everyone who engaged in vague threats, they would have to lock up half the population. Even people who make full and explicit threats are rarely charged, though they can be. If it’s done on the phone, you need to record the conversation. If it’s in person, you need to record it or have witnesses. And there are great problems with online threats, which are almost never prosecuted.

Thing is, I can hold my own against men, especially if I have done something wrong. If I screw up, I just apologize and try to calm the guy down. Or maybe I just walk away and call him some name as I am out the door. I don’t want to get into it with a man. I accept because it’s man to man, so it feels “fair” to me.

In Man World, if you insult a stranger or someone you do not know well, all men know that you can very well get hit. Or worse, you can be killed. I sort of feel that  other men have a right to punch me in the face, and that’s why I suck up to almost all men when I am out in public. And if there are any serious bullies, I usually just apologize, back down, go submissive and try to get them to back off.

People do not understand the world of men. When a bully challenges you and threatens you, he is not necessarily going to hit you. He is going to hit you if you don’t back down. What he wants first and foremost is a sign of submission. So you go seriously submissive to the guy and apologize floridly. Generally speaking, the bully just backs down. It’s like when a cat attacks another cat and the other cat goes submissive and rolls on its back exposing its stomach. That’s all the attacker wanted. He just wanted to dominate that other cat. Once the other cat goes submissive, it’s over, and the has proven its dominance and is free to walk away.

Most displays of aggression are often just dominance games. The attacker is trying to dominate the other party, and he wants him to go submissive in front of him. Once the attacked person has gone submissive or apologized, it’s all over because the attacker has now shown his dominance over the attacked.

The thing is, I absolutely will not take crap from women at all. Period. Not even 1% really. Especially from strangers either online or in meatspace. I almost never get any crap from women in meatspace.

The thing is, I have an end to the bargain to uphold. I have to behave with basic common courteous politeness and decency in general and to any woman that I am interacting with in particular. If I start acting like a serious ass, men and even women around me are going to start giving me crap and rightfully so. So in order to not invite justified aggression against myself, I behave like a gentleman in public.

I pretend to like people all the time.

I can take it from a woman if I know her and she has some power over me. My landlord chews me out sometimes. I just go submissive to her and apologize whether I did anything or not. She’s my landlord. I have to kiss her ass. I have to at least pretend to like her, and for the first five years I lived here, I did just that.

Does anyone know why I feel this way? When I react this way, I am not even thinking. It is raw and primal. It feels as natural as urinating, defecating, eating or drinking. My mind just goes into automatic and I act completely unthinkingly. Afterwards I often ask myself, “Why did I blow up and cuss that woman out, anyway””

 

67 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Anatomy of a Conservative Lie: China is a Capitalist Country

Conservatives and reactionaries keep saying that China has adopted capitalism. What a stupid joke that is. All conservatives lie, no exceptions. There is no such thing as an honest conservative. I have never met one in my life. Conservative ideology is based for the most part on lies, though some Libertarians are quite honest.

For the most part, conservatives lie like they breathe. Conservatives literally need to lie to live.

Let me tell you something.

China is one of the most Communist or socialist states on Earth today. Fully 45% of the Chinese economy is publicly owned, and it does extremely well. Much of the very high economic growth has come from the public sector.

How on Earth can conservatives say that China is capitalist when 45% of the economy is state-owned? How ludicrous. But realize that all public firms in China operate on the profit model. They all compete with each other, so you have a steel mill run by one city competing with a steel mill run by another city. Many of the fastest growing industries are run at the municipality level.

China’s fully state-owned firms also do very well. In fact, they do so well that Republicans say that China’s public firms are “not fair” because American capitalist corporations can’t compete against them! The reason is that China’s firms get subsidies from the state. Poor capitalist corporations! They’re too inefficient to compete against Communist state owned firms. Poor babies!

Do conservatives realize that the state owns every single inch of land in China? How on Earth is that possible in a capitalist country? Capitalism is primarily based on the private ownership of land. No private ownership of land, no capitalism. Real simple.

I would also like to point out that the Chinese state spends an absolutely incredible amount of money on its people. Since 45% of the whole economy goes directly to the state, they have a lot of money to spend. And they spend it very wisely too. As I understand it, US capitalists believe in a minimal state, and there is nothing they hate more than state spending. Huge state spending is seen as wasteful tax and spend policies by all capitalists on Earth. Wherever you have massive state spending, you do not have a capitalist system. But I would like to thank conservative and reactionaries for praising China, the finest example of modern Communism!

34 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, China, Conservatism, Economics, Government, Left, Libertarianism, Local, Marxism, Political Science, Regional, Socialism

What Is Capitalism? What is Socialism? A Look at Some Noncapitalist Modes of Development

Mayur: I am all against uninhibited and all pervasive capitalism. Of course,the government enterprises should have an active role to play in the economy which should, however, vary from time to time. All the citizens should have access to the barest essentials, but strictly on need basis. Besides, I am all for giving teeth to the working class.

But communism, in my opinion, is a bit unnerving. In the societies which are quite addicted to liberty, people will find it unbearable to have the government’s boot on their throat everywhere,all the time. Capitalism existing side by side with socialism, that’s what I advocate. Wealth distribution and wealth creation both are important. There has to be a good incentive to create wealth, and, the economic inequalities have to be made tolerable. Enterprise, prosperity, and, the general well being of the masses. Something for everybody.

Yes this is what I want as a socialist.

To me socialism just means anything less than totally unregulated capitalism.

Socialists are people who are willing to limit the profits of the capitalists. Of course capitalists are people who believe in no limits their profits.So anyone who believes in limiting the profits of capital is anti-capitalist in a sense. Those people who want to let a market exist but to limit the profits of capital are called socialists.

Socialists also believe in redistribution. This means taking or even stealing money from the rich to give to the middle classes, working classes and the poor. This is antithetical to all models of capitalism. All models of capitalism call that theft.

Really what I am talking about here is social democracy.

Also, you can have workers running enterprises for themselves and keeping the profits. This is socialism to me.

Socialism to me is compatible for the profit motive. Capitalism to me is exploitation. No exploitation, no capitalism. Just because someone makes a profit, they are not necessarily capitalists.

One man businesses are not capitalist. This is simply a worker selling his labor power on the labor market to other workers. Labor markets are compatible with socialism as is single proprietorships.

The Cooperative Mode is a noncapitalist mode.

Actually the Japanese model, which is similar to the economics of Nazi Germany or National Socialism, is also a noncapitalist model.

My credit union is owned by the its consumers. That is a noncapitalist mode of development.

Many nonprofits do extremely well and hire many workers. That is a noncapitalist mode of development.

This thing that some call State Capitalism is actually a noncapitalist mode of development. Some call Russia State Capitalism.

The Chinese model is also a noncapitalist mode of development. This has also been called a form of State Capitalism.

City and town operated businesses can often be run very well especially if they compete against other cities and towns. This is the Chinese model. This is a noncapitalist mode of development.

19 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, China, Economics, Eurasia, Government, Japan, Labor, Left, Marxism, Regional, Russia, Socialism

The Lie of the 20 (or 40, or 60, or 80, or 110) Million: How Many People Did Stalin Kill?

Here.

In 1991, after the Soviet archives were opened, a wild debate raged in the journals for many years. The subject of the debate was how many people did Joseph Stalin kill. Most people assume that Joseph Stalin killed 20 million people at the very least. That figure is considered unassailable. Other figures of 40-60 million are considered to also be possible.

The fascist hero and traitor Solzhenitsyn said that Stalin killed 110 million people. We have little data about how many were killed by early Bolsheviks in peacetime. Much of their time was spent in a brutal Civil War and there were many deaths associated with that. There was also a brutal famine that occurred in the context of war. But all indications are that the Leninists were not responsible for a lot of deaths. I would be surprised if they killed 100,000 people in 10 years. From 1926-1953, we have readily accessible data however.

                     Deaths

Executions           900,000

Anti-Kulak Campaign  400,000

Gulag                1,200,000

Total                2,500,000

I am leaving out deaths during wartime here, as we should not be counting those. However, there were some serious population transfers during World War which ended about 10 years later. The death tolls from these transfers were very high. Populations in the Baltics, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush and other Caucasian people were transferred, sometimes en masse, to gulags in Siberia. Death tolls were extremely high. I am not sure whether to include these totals, so I am leaving them out. Anyway, I do not have a good source for the deaths.

Surely there were executions and deaths in the gulags after 1943, but after Stalin died, the system was very much loosened up under Khrushchev and certainly under his followers. I doubt once again if there were 100,000 people killed between 1953-1989, a 36 year period.

I am also leaving off deaths due to famines because there is no evidence that these famines were artificially engineered. The most famous fake famine of all, the fake Holodomor, simply never even happened. What I mean was, yes, there was a famine, and many people died – 5.4 million in fact. But those deaths were not all in the Ukraine. Many died in the cities and 1 million died in Siberia. The death toll was higher in the fanatically pro-Stalin Volga than it was in Western Ukraine.

Even in Ukraine, the deaths were as high in the pro-Stalin East as in the anti-USSR nationalist West and Center. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that any “terror famine” occurred at all. There was simply a famine that occurred for a variety of causes, mostly a simple harvest collapse. Most died of disease instead of starvation. Much of the death toll was due to the kulaks.

The kulaks killed 50% of the livestock in the USSR to keep them from being turned over to the state. In the famine year, wheat fields were torched all over the Ukraine. Harvests were piled in the fields and left out to be rained on until they spoiled. Much of the crop failure was due to these dumbasses setting their fields on fire or piling harvests in the rain to spoil. They destroyed all their food crops, and then they sat around and said, “We ain’t got no food!” Duh. Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”

There was an armed revolution in the Ukraine with 20-30 armed attacks per day. Collective farms were attacked and set on fire. Workers in the collective farms would be shot and the women would be raped. This went on all through the years around the famine. The state crackdown was very brutal and that is why I listed 400,000 deaths during this time. If you want to count those 400,000 as “Holodomor” deaths, be my guest. But it ain’t no 6 million and there was no terror famine.

Look, if anti-Communists want to go on and on about Stalin killing 2 1/2 million people, please knock yourselves out. But they’ll never do that because it’s not sensational enough. You say the phrase “20 million killed in Communism” and everyone sits up and takes notice. You say Stalin killed 2 million and most will yawn and ask, “That’s all?” and turn back to the TV show.

This crap is all about propaganda. It’s not about real history or social science of any of that. It’s about lying for political purposes, which is what most of modern history is anyway.

How shameful that is.

41 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Chechens, Death, Eurasia, Europeans, Health, History, Left, Livestock Production, Marxism, Modern, NE Asia, Near Easterners, Nutrition, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, USSR, War

DNC Democrats Burn in Hell

Here.

Take your studies and stick em where the sun don’t shine. They’re not in parallel markets anyway. ATT and Time Warner “compete” in the cable market. In a typical city, you have one DSL provider and one cable provider.  You also have one satellite provider. In truth,  none of them compete at all. They all offer extremely slow service and criminally usurious rates. High speed Internet is much faster and much cheaper in the rest of the world where the government often owns the lines. We capitalist retards in the US let the capitalist crooks build their own phone lines and lay their own cable, hence, every city has a monopoly DSL and phone carrier and a monopoly cable carrier. Cable service is horrific in most US cities. Comcast is usually rated as the worst company in the US.

Another Hillary clone. Jon Ossoff, who lost in Newt Gingrich’s district in Atlanta, was another Clinton/Obama corporate Democrat “Centrist.” There is really nothing Centrist whatsoever about this Clintonite cancer that has taken over the Democratic Party. It started under Bill Clinton when the DINO named Bill created the DLC to take over the DNC which had become too pro-people and not sufficiently pro-rich and pro-corporate. Hence the lead DINO himself engineered a coup in which the DLC basically took over the DNC. Around the same time, a similar tumor called “New Labour” grew in the UK, destroying the once pro-worker and pro-people Labour Party and leaving the UK with two Tory parties.

Corbyn’s recent victory in the last election is part of a brutal civil war in Labour between New Labour Tories and the real Labourites under Corbyn. The entire UK media, including the “leftwing” corporate Labour outlet The Guardian have come out ferociously against Corbyn. Similarly, the Guardian absolutely hates Bernie Sanders and has always supported the Clintonite usurpers and traitors. Surprise surprise it is also a leading member of the (((Western media))) that lies constantly about the war in Syria in order to start another War for the Jews in the Levant.

“Centrist” Dems and “Centrist” Labourites are frankly a cancer, mostly because there is nothing centrist about them. Or, if that’s centrism, let me off the bus please. I signed up for progress, not another party of the corporations and the rich.

1 Comment

Filed under Britain, Capitalism, Capitalists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Government, Israel, Journalism, Labor, Law, Left, Middle East, Obama, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Syria, US Politics, USA, War

Fabricio Orjeda, Presente!

In support of one of my newest heroes, Fabricio Orjeda, leader of the FALN of Venezuela from 1962-1966. I also like this group, which I just learned about. They hardly killed a soul. Kidnapped a few people for ransom, including a US military colonel! Cool! That’s some real style. I like that! Back in those days, a lot of these groups kidnapped people and even robbed banks to get money for revolution. There were a number of groups in El Salvador in the 1970’s that did this quite a bit.

Hey come on. A revolution needs money. Get real. How you going to have a revolution without money?

_mg_7626

This photo makes it clear that Chavismo really is a racial movement. Note how dark most of the Chavistas are. There look to be maybe two fairly White looking people in that crowd. In contrast, the opposition is overwhelmingly White and light-skinned. Of course, Whites at 22% are the minority in Venezuela. Most of the rest are a mixture of Black, Indian and White for which is there is no name. Indian-White mixes are mestizos. White-Black mixes are mulattoes. Black-Indian mixes are called Zambos. Bet you never heard that one before. There is no word for White-Indian-Black mixes, unless you just want to call them “Brazilians.” White nationalist phrases like mystery meat are a bit cruel for my tastes, sorry. Haven’t you clowns heard of hybrid vigor? It’s not really anti-White. Nobody thinks that way in Latin America. It’s just that the Whites and lighter people have all the money, and for centuries, they monopolized the whole economy, stealing every nickel in the place without leaving  the vast majority even a pot to piss in. Everyone screams about the “evil Chavismo” and the “failed Venezuela.” Don’t these idiots realize that Venezuelan capitalism failed from 1823-1989, when Chavez came in? In 1990, in an oil rich country, 91% of the population lived in poverty and 89% could afford only one meal a day,  while 10% of the population luxuriated in unheard of riches. Think about it. Even if all the rich were White, this model was still failing over half the Whites in Venezuela. 60% of Venezuelan Whites were living in poverty when the Opposition ruled Venezuela. So much for the White rich paradise. Alt right White nationalists cheering for the ancien regime in Venezuela don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. There’s no future in White workers making alliance with their deadliest of class enemies, the White Rich. And whatever you think of non-Whites, I think any sane and intelligent White nationalist would have to realize that the worst enemies of White workers are the White Rich. Blacks and Hispanics are quite a ways down the list. Only a fool makes alliance with his class enemies!

There was a march and a ceremony in Caracas recently honoring this great man. They reburied his remains in the National Pantheon, where he belongs.

1 Comment

Filed under Amerindians, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Capitalism, Economics, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Revolution, Socialism, South America, Venezuela, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites, Zambos