Category Archives: Conservatism

Neoconservative Central

Center for Security Policy.

As you can see looking at the authors, the group is a mixture of Jews and non-Jews, but considering Jews are only 2% of the US, the CSP must be 50% Jewish. Nevertheless, there are many non-Jews in the group who share an agenda with the Jews.

CSP was originally a hardline Cold War group that grew out of the Reagan Era’s stepped up war on the USSR. Paul Nitze (gentile), Frank Gaffney (gentile), Richard Perle (Jewish), Paul Wolfowitz (Jewish), and Jeane Kirkpatrick (gentile) were some of the big Reagan era names that continued on in the 1990’s, graduating from Reagan era Cold Warriors to the new War On Terror nonsense of the 2000’s and 2010’s. Later members included Roger Noriega (gentile), Newt Gingrich (gentile), John Bolton (gentile) and Donald Feith (Jewish).

CSP’s current concerns are a fanatical obsession with Iran and extreme anti-Muslim fearmongering, along with a focus on combating extremist Islam which in itself is laudable. Looking at the front page, you can see that the connection with Netanyahu and the Israeli Right is still very strong. One article appears to be actually authored by the Israeli ambassador himself!

As you can see, the big names are a mix of Jews and non-Jews, but they all share a strong alliance with the Israeli Right represented in the flesh now by the very reactionary Netanyahu. I do not think most Americans realize how far right Netanyahu is. He is like an Israeli George W. Bush for lack of a better comparison.

It was from here and a few other organizations that the entire neocon project was launched during the 1990’s. It was from these groups that such seminal documents as Securing the Realm and the founding document of the Project for the New American Century.

Another huge group is called JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

The entire neocon project of the 2000’s, including the Iraq War itself, was cooked up by just a few of these organizations. I imagine that we can pin down maybe 25 people in Washington and Tel Aviv who were primarily responsible for setting the stage for the Iraq War. And yes, many but not all of them were Jewish.

22 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Iraq War, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, War

Zionists, Nazis and a Bit of History

I agree with the general tone of this article by the Saker.

Zionists, Nazis and a Bit of History

The Zionists

Oh this is too good!!!  My two “favorite” Russia-hating Uber-Zionists join forces in the New York Times to call for the salvation of the Nazi Junta in Kiev by a massive injection of capital.

Priceless.

Here is what they wrote: (full text)

Save the New Ukraine

A NEW Ukraine was born a year ago in the pro-European protests that helped to drive President Viktor F. Yanukovych from power. And today, the spirit that inspired hundreds of thousands to gather in the Maidan, Kiev’s Independence Square, is stronger than ever, even as it is under direct military assault from Russian forces supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The new Ukraine seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine, which was demoralized and riddled with corruption. The transformation has been a rare experiment in participatory democracy; a noble adventure of a people who have rallied to open their nation to modernity, democracy and Europe. And this is just the beginning.

This experiment is remarkable for finding expression not only in defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity from the separatists, but also in constructive work. Maidan’s supporters have moved from opposition to nation building.

Many of those in government and Parliament are volunteers who have given up well-paying jobs to serve their country. Natalie Jaresko, a former investment banker, now works for a few hundred dollars a month as the new finance minister. Volunteers are helping Ukraine’s one million internally displaced people as well as working as advisers to ministers and in local government.

The new Ukraine, however, faces a potent challenge from the old Ukraine. The old Ukraine is solidly entrenched in a state bureaucracy that has worked hand in hand with a business oligarchy. And the reformers are also up against the manifest hostility of Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, who wants at all costs to destabilize Ukraine.

One drawback is that the new Ukraine is a well-kept secret, not just from the rest of the world but also from the Ukrainian public. Radical reforms have been hatched but not yet implemented.

It is instructive to compare Ukraine today with Georgia in 2004. When he became president that year, Mikheil Saakashvili immediately replaced the hated traffic police and removed the roadblocks used to extort bribes from drivers. The public recognized straight away that things had changed for the better.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has not yet found a similar demonstration project. Kiev’s police force is to be restructured, but if you need a driver’s license, you must still pay the same bribe as before.

Mr. Saakashvili was a revolutionary leader who first stamped out corruption but eventually turned it into a state monopoly. By contrast, Ukraine is a participatory democracy that does not rely on a single leader but on checks and balances. Democracies move slowly, but that may prove an advantage in the long run.

The big question is, will there be a long run? Although Russia is in a deepening financial crisis, Mr. Putin appears to have decided that he can destroy the new Ukraine before it can fully establish itself and before an economic downturn destroys his own popularity.

The Russian president is stepping up the military and financial pressure on Ukraine. Over the weekend, the city of Mariupol came under attack from forces that NATO said were backed by Russian troops, undermining the pretense that the separatists are acting on their own.

Ukraine will defend itself militarily, but it urgently needs financial assistance. The immediate need is for $15 billion. But to ensure Ukraine’s survival and encourage private investment, Western powers need to make a political commitment to provide additional sums, depending on the extent of the Russian assault and the success of Ukraine’s reforms.

The reformers, who want to avoid the leakages that were characteristic of the old Ukraine, have expressed their wish to be held accountable for all expenditures. They are passing extensive legislation but also want the International Monetary Fund to go on exercising oversight.

Unfortunately, just as democracies are slow to move, an association of democracies like the European Union is even slower. Mr. Putin is exploiting this.

It is not only the future of Ukraine that’s at stake, but that of the European Union itself. The loss of Ukraine would be an enormous blow; it would empower a Russian alternative to the European Union based on the rule of force rather than the rule of law. But if Europe delivered the financial assistance that Ukraine needs, Mr. Putin would eventually be forced to abandon his aggression. At the moment, he can argue that Russia’s economic troubles are caused by Western hostility, and the Russian public finds his argument convincing.

If, however, Europe is generous with its financial assistance, a stable and prosperous Ukraine will provide an example that makes clear that the blame for Russia’s financial troubles lies with Mr. Putin. The Russian public might then force him to emulate the new Ukraine. Europe’s reward would be a new Russia that has turned from a potent strategic threat into a potential strategic partner. Those are the stakes.

The way the NYT presents these two bloodthirsty clowns is also typical. One, Soros, is a “philanthropist,” while the other, Levi, is a “philosopher”. They might as well have presented them as modern-day saints.

Clearly, the Neocons and their Zionist allies are in a full war mode, they fear that their Russophobic Nazi regime in Kiev is going to tank, and they are terrified at the consequences. As they should.

The Nazis

Well, just as predicted, the Rada in Kiev has declared Russia an “aggressor state“.

Now all that is needed to “prove” their point is a major false flag to show that hordes of Spetsnaz GRU throat-cutters are slaughtering babies in their cribs (Kuwait), blowing up peaceful shoppers (Markale market), committing genocide (Srebrenica), massacring villages (Racak) or using Viagra as a weapon of war (Libya). Then Putin needs to be upgraded from “new Stalin” to “new Hitler” (or both) and, voilà, the US and NATO will have to “shoulder their historical burden” of having to defend “civilization, human rights, freedom and progress” against the revanchist Russian aggressor.

I am sorry to have to say that, but I consider a large-scale false flag a virtual inevitability by now. God willing, the Junta is in too much disarray and chaos to make it happen, but I think that everybody in the Novorussian resistance needs to go to “red alert” for some crazy move by the Junta.

The Belly Is Still Fertile from Which the Foul Beast Sprang

Guys, I am constantly getting a flow of comments about “Jews this, Jews that”, “Nazis this, Nazis that”, and the “killer argument” of “Jews cannot be Nazis, and Nazis cannot be Jews”. Guys, think again. Look at all Zionists and Nazis have in common:

1) the belief in the existence of races/ethnicities
2) the belief in the superiority of their own race/ethnicity
3) the morbid obsession with blood and racial purity
4) a phenomenal propensity to use violence to achieve their goals
5) the belief that their opponents are not really human
6) a morbid interest for the occult (Ahnenerbe, Kabbalism)
7) a rabid hatred for Russia, Russians and Orthodoxy

Now, of course, they also happened to hate each other. So what? Trotskists hated Stalinists and vice versa, the SS hated the SA and vice versa and the Jesuits hated the Lutherans and vice versa. But in each case these movements spring from the same well (Bolshevism, National-Socialism and Frankish Papism).

Zionism and Nazism are born from the same fetid womb: 19th European secular nationalism and, as Brecht so well put it: the belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang. This is also the root of Ukrainian nationalism, Russian pan-Slavism, and many other ideologies. Most of them have lost traction and have been repudiated, but in Israel Zionism is still the main official state ideology, and the same is true for the part of the ex-Ukraine run by the Nazi junta in Kiev.

Now, since there are apparently quite a few of you who still hold on to racist/racialist ideas, I feel the need to repeat here what I wrote in my post AngloZionist: Short Primer for the Newcomers:

Now this might seem basic, but so many people miss it that I will have to explicitly state it: to say that most US elites are Anglos or Jews does not mean that most Anglos or Jews are part of the US elites. That is a straw man argument which deliberately ignores the non-commutative property of my thesis to turn it into a racist statement which accuses most/all Anglos or Jews of some evildoing. So to be very clear: When I speak of AngloZionist Empire, I am referring to the predominant ideology of the 1%ers elites which form this Empire’s “deep state”.

By the way, there are non-Jewish Zionists, (Biden, in his own words) and there are (plenty of) anti-Zionist Jews. Likewise, there are non-Anglo imperialists, and there are (plenty of) anti-imperialist Anglos. To speak of “Nazi Germany” or “Soviet Russia” does in no way imply that all Germans were Nazis or all Russians Communists. All this means it that the predominant ideology of these nations at that specific moment in time was National Socialism and Marxism, that’s all.

This is why the listing of Jews in power in Kiev because what is missing from the picture is either a list of all Jews who are not in power in Kiev or the list of all non-Jews who are in power in Kiev, or both.

Zionism is to Jews what National Socialism is to Germans and what Communism is to Russians: a pathology triggered by a slight but crucial modification of these nation’s “spiritual DNA”. This is like comparing healthy tissue to a malignant tumor: very similar but different enough to be fatal.

The real enemy:

The real enemy is not the Jew, the German or the Russian, of course. The real enemy is evil, satanic ideologies. As Saint Paul so eloquently put it: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12). He did not say the “1%ers” of course, but if you ask me, this is close enough.

I recently got an email from a friend who asked me to stop using the word “Ukie,” and I decided to follow his advice because even if some or even most Ukrainians nowadays might support the regime of freaks in Kiev, some, even maybe most, do not.

Yes, Soros and BHL are Jews. Really evil, bloodthirstily and ugly buffoons who I despise from the very bottom of my heart. And yes, their ideology is the kind of Neoconservative Zionism which has become so popular in the USA and in the past decades in Israel (the original Zionists were dramatically different, socialists, secularists, and actually, I think – honest if mistaken idealists). Oh, not that I believe for one second that either one of them sincerely cares about his fellow Jews or about Israel. Not at all. Contrary to the popular belief, one does not need to care for Israel at all to be a Zionist. Are you shocked by that statement? Okay, hear me out. Here is what I wrote in my “primer”:

Let’s take the (hyper politically correct) Wikipedia definition of what the word Zionism means: it is “a nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the Land of Israel”. Apparently, no link to the US, the Ukraine or Timbuktu, right? But think again.

Why would Jews – whether defined as a religion or an ethnicity – need a homeland anyway? Why can’t they just live wherever they are born, just like Buddhist (a religion) or the African Bushmen (ethnicity) who live in many different countries?

The canonical answer is that Jews have been persecuted everywhere and that therefore they need their own homeland to serve as a safe haven in case of persecutions. Without going into the issue of why Jews were persecuted everywhere and apparently in all times, this rationale clearly implies if not the inevitability of more persecutions  at the very least, a high risk thereof.

Let’s accept that for demonstration sake and see what this, in turn, implies.

First, that implies that Jews are inherently threatened by non-Jews who are all at least potential anti-Semites. The threat is so severe that a separate Gentile-free homeland must be created as the only, best and last way to protect Jews worldwide.

This, in turn, implies that the continued existence of this homeland should become an vital and irreplaceable priority of all Jews worldwide lest a persecution suddenly breaks out and they have nowhere to go.

Furthermore, until all Jews finally “move up” to Israel, they better be very, very careful as all the goyim around them could literally come down with a sudden case of genocidal anti-Semitism at any moment. Hence all the anti-anti-Semitic organizations a la ADL or UEJF, the Betar clubs, the network of sayanim, etc.

In other words, far from being a local “dealing with Israel only” phenomenon, Zionism is a worldwide movement whose aim is to protect Jews from the apparently incurable anti-Semitism of the rest of the planet. As Israel Shahak correctly identified it, Zionism postulates that Jews should “think locally and act globally” and when given a choice of policies, always ask THE crucial question: “But is it good for Jews?“.

So far from being only focused on Israel, Zionism is really a global ideology which unequivocally splits up all of mankind into two groups (Jews and Gentiles), which assumes that the latter are all potential genocidal maniacs (which is racist) and believes that saving Jewish lives is qualitatively different and more important than saving Gentile lives (which is racist again). Anyone doubting the ferocity of this determination should either ask a Palestinian or study the holiday of Purim, or both. Even better, read Gilad Atzmon and look up his definition of what is brilliantly called “pre-traumatic stress disorder”.

So we need to be very careful here.

First, we cannot fight an Empire whose nature and essence we do not understand.

Second, we cannot fight an enemy who we cannot even name. I therefore submit that speaking of the AngloZionist Empire is not only correct but even crucial: “Anglo” refers to historical roots and geopolitical reality, “Zionist” refers to its ideological world view. HOWEVER, as soon as we start “counting Jews” or saying that Nazis and Jews cannot be in the same junta, we are immediately falling back into a completely discredited 19th century West European ideology which has triggered many millions of deaths in all the major wars of the past couple of centuries.

This is bull. Acting like a bull. In a corrida.

Personally, I don’t even believe in the word race. Here again, I will quote my “primer:”

First, I don’t believe that Jews are a race or an ethnicity. I always doubted that, but reading Shlomo Sand really convinced me. Jews are not defined by religion either (most/many are secular). Truly, Jews are a tribe. A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education, or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. I fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are racist but not a race.

Second, I don’t even believe that the concept of “race” has been properly defined and, hence, that it has any objective meaning. I therefore don’t differentiate between human beings on the basis of an undefined criterion.

But I am aware that there are people out there who consider themselves as Jews or Jewish (never understood the difference between these two terms, but never mind). I say – let them. But let’s not paint them as the enemy when the enemy is a tribal ideology which is shared by millions of people who do not consider themselves as Jews (US Evangelicals, for starters, millions of them).

If we miss the real target and get distracted by the fake one put in front of us by the real enemy, we will act just like a bull in a Spanish corrida: we will always miss the real enemy who will exhaust us and then kill us.

Let us please be smarter and stop constantly chasing the wrong enemy. Let’s hit the real enemy where he really is, where he hides, where it will really hurt him. Let’s accurately name him. His name is “Legion” because he has many ideologies and manifestations, and he shows up in any and all human groups.

Please read the above post carefully, please re-read my “AngloZionists: a short primer” for a fuller discussion.

Kind regards to all, cheers,

The Saker

5 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Conservatism, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Georgia, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Journalism, Middle East, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Neoconservatism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Russia, The Jewish Question, Ukraine, USA, War, Zionism

Is There Such a Thing as a Rightwing Socialist or a Racist Socialist?

Jason Y writes:

White Nationalism is pretty much a “straight up” right wing thing. No tolerance for the left, as they seen as the “devil” At least that’s the way it is on Stormfront, and in the USA.

As for Republicans, they seem to be some kind of “gateway drug” into white nationalism.

Not really.

There are a lot of racist socialists over at Stormfront. There is a whole large section of them over there. I am not sure what they are, if they are National Socialists or what, but a lot of them like socialism and hate capitalism. They want some sort of “white socialism.” I always found them interesting and even though they are scumbags, I would rather ally with some harmless Nazi socialist loudmouth than a boutique upper middle class Cultural Left neoliberal from the Democratic National Committee. The latter is probably going to cause a lot more damage. The Nazi is annoying, but he probably won’t hurt anyone.

These racist socialists really do not exist at any other sites like American Renaissance.

I am not sure what other movements like that are out there, but the National Bolsheviks and Third Positionists are sometimes said to be racist socialists, nationalist socialists or rightwing socialists. I know the Baath Party Arab socialists were very much racist socialists or nationalist socialists. A lot of people say that Marie Le Pen’s party is a rightwing party, and they call her a racist and a fascist. However, her economic program is very populist and extremely socialist. The Khmer Rogue were racist Communists.

I know a socialist who is more or less of a White Nationalist. He is allied with Putin’s Eurasianist project and the National Bolsheviks. I know a Communist who is very much an anti-Semite. He has since converted to Islam. Israel Shamir is a Russian-Israeli Jewish Communist who is often called an anti-Semite (correctly so).

Often these leftwing racist types start moving to the right the deeper they get into their racism. There is some dynamic about racism that seems to naturally make the racist person rightwing or drive them further to the right if they are already on the right. This makes me think that racism is sort of inherently rightwing project that simply does not fit in well with the Left.

As former liberals and Lefties get deeper into racism (as some people do become racist or more racist later in life) they seem to automatically move towards the Right. They also start speaking favorably about the racist Right, especially the fascist Right, who after all hate the same groups that the racist Lefties do, and they start advocating tactical alliances with the fascist Right. They use phrases like “getting rid of Left and Right.” I get a nervous feeling every time I hear that phrase because it is associated with these racist Leftie types.

Leftwing anti-Semites often convert to Islam because, let’s face it, Islam is an anti-Semitic religion.

We do not really have a word for most of these type of “rightwing socialist” or “racist socialist” groups. The idea is that all socialists are non-racists, but that is not necessarily true. I will tell you being into Left politics in any way, you will get a lot of pressure to tone or shut down any racism or even “PC-racism” (which isn’t even racism) that you might have.

As racist Lefties get bashed more and more by their Left colleagues telling them to tone it down, most of them tend to play down the racist stuff more and more over time. The Left is extremely intolerant or racism to the point where it has invented an entire fake category of racism (PC-racism) which is really hallucinated racism that doesn’t even exist and persecuting people for telling the truth.

The socialist project is frankly an economic project. A lot of working class people are socially conservative. They don’t like gay marriage, want to keep their guns, do not like abortion and may not be too wild about Black folks. The Left has blown these people off and now they are voting Republican for no good reason. A lot of them have become Obama haters. A union member was on the radio yesterday telling about how the Obama people had passed out Obama stickers at their last union meeting, and a lot of the rank and file workers tore them up or threw them away.

If the socialist project is about economics – socialism or some sort as an alternative to laissez faire capitalism – then really all of the rest of the dross has nothing to do with it. What does feminism, antiracism, abortion, gun control, gay rights, animal rights, open borders and the Cultural Left freakshow have to do with socialism as an economic project? Nothing, and in some cases such as open borders, you have a wildly anti-socialist project being pushed by Lefties.

At the end of the day, Leftwingers are human beings like all the rest of us.

Quite a few are sexist. Back in the 60’s, they asked Eldridge Cleaver what the position of women in the Movement was and he said, “On their backs.” That is the way a lot of men in the Movement felt and that gave impetus to the Women’s Movement.

A number of leftwingers are homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic. I was on a forum once with Arab Communists, hardcore Communists all right, and they were raving anti-Semites all the way down to Holocaust Denial. George Orwell was said to be an anti-Semite.

Really leftwingers are just human beings who have an interest in a particular economic project. Human beings are often homophobic, sexist, racist, anti-Semitic, etc. That’s just the way they are. Since Lefties are human, they are of course susceptible to all of these quite human foibles also.

 

9 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics, Useless Western Left, White Nationalism, White Racism

Support Housing for the Political Homeless

Mark Graybill writes:

Hey Robert, are you really politically more left than right? I ask because reading your blog the last few days, you sound more conservative than I do. I know you’re economically left-wing, but given your conservative social attitudes, maybe really what you are is anti-libertarian, rather than liberal. Have you ever taken a political inventory?

Yes I have. I came out standard super-liberal on social and economic stuff. My chart is below.

I am not sure how to interpret this chart, but it looks like I am a standard hardcore libtard.

I am not sure how to interpret this chart, but it looks like I am a standard hardcore libtard.

I am very leftwing on economics, but I am also rather conservative on social issues. Most liberals and Leftists really hate my guts. The Leftists all say I am a conservative, a reactionary, a fascist, a Nazi, a KKK member, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. A number of Left sites have active bans on linking to me and others have been me from their site as a “reactionary.”

For a while there, I was thinking, “Ok these idiots all say I am a conservative, so let’s go to some conservative sites and see if I am one.” I went to some, but as soon as I started commenting, they started tearing into me like rabid wolves. Most of these sites banned me too under monikers like “liberal” and “anti-American.” Also I am absolutely horrified by conservative websites. I agree with them on almost nothing, and the politicians, the commenters and the authors all seem like monsters. I have nothing in common with them at all, and frankly I hate them and their whole ideology.

I also went to Libertarian sites. Some like Reason Magazine I can actually resonate with on a lot of things. They are very anti-authoritarian. They hate cops, hate the military, hate belligerent imperial foreign policy. But their economics is horrifying.

Everyone keeps telling me I am a racist, so I used to go hang out on White Nationalist sites. They do not like me one bit, and they all call me “liberal, anti-White, nigger-lover, anti-racist, antifa,” etc. Also those racist sites are just horrifying. They are so full of hate. I am on the mailing list of a number of more or less antiracist groups such as Color of Change and I do participate in their campaigns sometimes.

People keep telling me that I am sexist, so I go to misogynistic Manosphere sites a lot. While there is a quite a bit of truth to be read there sadly, I always find the level of misogyny there to be terrifying. I almost want to smash the screen when I read that stuff. Also I am a former member of NOW and I participate in a lot of feminist campaigns as I am on their mailing lists. I mostly participate in campaigns around abortion as the rest of the feminist project seems wacky.

I am politically homeless. There is no place in US politics for people like me. It is a lonely place to be. I have a feeling there are a lot of people like me though.

6 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, US Politics, White Nationalism

Do Good Businesses Drive Out Bad Ones or Is It the Other Way Around?

Dave writes:

a “choice” between:
> Scumbags R’ Us
> Criminals Incorporated
> The Devil Himself Ltd.
> Worldwide Sociopathic Enterprises, LLC.
> Evil Scum Industries
> Ted Bundy’s Spawn Corporation

Are corporations the problem or the people running them? I ask because I have 2 corporations, and I believe they have done zero harm. Where am I wrong?

Couldn’t the argument also be made that your above list applies to everything in life from finding a mate to politicians?

I doubt there is any police manual that says to shoot unarmed kids, yet human officers keep doing it. I doubt there is any corporation policy that says to screw people, yet humans use corporations to screw people. I doubt any government constitution says to strip citizens of freedoms yet human leaders have used the power of government for centuries worldwide

Isn’t the real problem humans?

Unfortunately, this is the typical conservative argument whenever anyone brings up the significant downside of capitalism. If they acknowledge it at all, they generally say that the problem is human nature. The moral to the story is that nothing can be done.

I am not saying that all corporations are evil. Personally I think there are many good businesses in the US and elsewhere. But you end up with the diabolical list above when you refuse to regulate an industry. Look at the Internet. Totally unregulated. A very large % of for-pay Internet sites are apparently run by criminals. I have never seen so many criminal businesses as I have seen on the Internet. Obviously there is nothing inherent about the Net that causes criminals to flock to it to run their ugly enterprises. So many Net businesses are evil because the Net is totally unregulated. The % of raw, naked fraudulent businesses on the Net would blow you away.

For example, let us look at dating sites. Really there are no good dating sites. There are scummy sites, less scummy sites, more scummy sites and extremely scummy sites. The vast majority of the people running dating sites are criminals and most of them belong in jail or prison in my opinion. You ever wonder why every dating site is headquartered in Panama or Cyprus? Because that way they will not be susceptible to our laws.

The proliferation of evil businesses under the rubric of Internet dating sites gives the lie to the Libertarian propaganda that good businesses will drive out the bad ones. Libertarians acknowledge that due to the sociopathic nature of capitalism, quite a businesses will spring up that will be very bad for consumers. However, Libertarians argue that if you are a consumer and some business is screwing you via their product, you can simply vote with your wallet and take your business to a more consumer-friendly business. If enough consumers are angry at consumer-hostile businesses in some industry, consumer-friendly businesses will spring up to lasso all of that demand. Consumers will flock to the consumer-friendly businesses and abandon the consumer-hostile ones.

Problem is it doesn’t happen. Instead you get whole industries where all of the businesses, or maybe 95% of them, are fraudulent ripoffs run by the scum of the Earth. Where are you supposed to go? In many industries, it seems that the worst, most consumer-hostile businesses drive out the better, more consumer-friendly ones, presumably because the more you rip off and screw the consumer, the more money you make. And this doesn’t work in industries where every business is run by a crook.

Unregulated capitalism is a world of shit. Properly regulated capitalism allows us to harness the significant benefits of the market while limiting the inevitable sociopathic downside in any capitalist economy. With unregulated capitalism, you get the panoply of the bad side effects of capitalism and few if any of the good effects. It’s great for the crooked capitalists, but bad for workers, consumers, the environment and society.

7 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Capitalists, Conservatism, Crime, Economics, Libertarianism, Organized Crime, Political Science, Scum

Why Does the Left Support Mass Legal and Illegal Immigration?

A commenter writes in regard to this post:

Then why are they importing them? Cheap labor? To incite a culture war? I’ve been wondering for a while. I can only speculate.

I think they are just on some sort of a PC crack.

Here in the US, the Right wants to import as many 3rd Worlders as possible for cheap labor.

The Hispanics want total open borders with Mexico. Here both parties are competing for the Hispanic traitor vote.

The Left goes along with this and says they “do jobs that Americans won’t do,” which is a complete lie.

If you are going to be on the Left nowadays, you have to support unrestricted mass legal immigration and apparently unrestricted illegal immigration. And once they get in, they all get amnesty. The Left thinks that opposing unrestricted mass legal and illegal immigration is “racism.”

You simply have to be for this if you are on the Left, otherwise they throw you out of the Left and call you racist, fascist, KKK, bigot, hater, White Supremacist, reactionary, Republican, conservative, etc. I have been called all of these names and have been thrown out of the US Left simply because I oppose illegal immigration and mass legal immigration. There is a lot of pressure to go along, and people are trying to be PC and are afraid of getting called racists.

6 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Left, Legal, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Useless Western Left

First Thing the New Republican Congress Did Was Try to Destroy Social Security

For the 100th time.

And they did this first things first, on their very first day in power. Talk about priorities! Apparently the Republicans want to destroy Social Security above all other goals they have.

What is at stake is a routine reauthorization of funds that has been done 11 times since 1968 with little or not controversy. But this time we have probably the most rightwing Congress in US history, and that makes all the difference.

The Republicans are blocking the reauthorization of funds necessary to keep the SSDI or Social Security Disability program going. Without this routine reauthorization, the program will fall short by 20%, and SSDI checks will have to be cut by 20% across the board. I doubt if the consequences will be devastating as SSDI recipients tend to receive $1,200-1,400/month, so instead they will receive $960-1,120/month. I don’t see how you can live on any of that, although I suppose $1,200-1,400 is marginally doable as that is about what I make these days.

I would say that a lot of people are going to have a hard time making it and may have to do without such things as cars. They may also fall behind in their bills and run out of money period towards the end of the month. It is not unusual for me to have ~$2 to my name or less for 3-4 days at the end of the month and God help me if my car breaks down.

This is part of a larger sleazy Republican project to divide and conquer Social Security recipients. They want to divide them between the deserving ones – the good old people who worked their whole life and are now getting their deserved pension and the lazy, able-bodied scammers who are faking disability in order to milk the system. They are trying to turn the former against the latter and they may well succeed considering how stupid so many of America’s elderly are. This is part of a general war on the Disability program which Republicans have been plotting for some time now. It is being aided and abetted by the US media, including NPR of all places, who are running programs detailing scamming in the disability program.

Conservatives love to rant about people scamming social programs. Since people scam these programs, conservatives say, we need to get rid of the programs. But that makes no sense. There are bad cops, so let’s do without police. There is waste in the military, so let’s get rid of the military. Like almost all conservative thinking, this relies on logical fallacies and crappy reasoning but the thing about logical fallacies is that they work great because most people are too stupid to realize what a fallacious argument is.

8 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Government, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Comments Rules Regarding Capitalism and Economics Discussions

Mark Graybill writes:

I wish you allowed people to express capitalist ideas on your blog. Posts like these make me want to discuss your economic attitudes, but I don’t think you would allow it.

Yes you cannot cheer for laissez faire capitalism on here. You can support some sort of a market, but you aren’t supposed to cheer it on, more like you have to say at least that it has a lot of good points and also a lot of bad points.

You can support highly regulated capitalism, state capitalism, capitalism with social liberalism, social democracy, a mixed economy, market socialism, socialism with a market, or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics like in China, but laissez faire, Hell no, I ban on that.

You also have to support some sort of a safety net and some sort of social programs, even as meager as US social liberalism. You are not allowed to advocate gutting or getting rid of essential social programs. I ban on that too.

We used to have Libertarians and economic conservatives on here all the time, and all I did was argue with them constantly. It took up a lot of time, and I do not feel like wasting that energy anymore. I also had to waste a lot of time chasing down rejoinders to their arguments, which were almost always lies or untruths of some sort.

At one point, almost everyone on here was an economic conservative, and I thought, “Wait a minute! I am a socialist, and this is supposed to be a pro-socialist website, and all the commenters are free marketeers! Screw this, this is stupid!”

So I made some rules about that. I hate to say it, but economic conservatives actually bug me a lot more that White nationalists, anti-Semites or White racists. One Republican is worse than 100 American White nationalists. I consider those racist types to be unpleasant yet mostly harmless, but the economic conservatives are in power now, and they are committing tremendous harm to millions of  people. Lots of people are being hurt, and lots are dying. They are the enemies of all mankind, are dangerous as Hell, sadly are quite popular in some lands, and they really need to be resisted.

6 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Government, Liberalism, Meta, Political Science, Socialism

The Myth of the Champagne Socialist and the Limousine Liberal

JMS writes:

For Champagne Socialists and Limousine Liberals

(who know it’s safe to masochistically support socialist / communist systems which have serious hope of coming to pass)

it’s all about the social signalling.

I have been around people like this my whole life. Not very rich people but people who definitely have some money and are still quite liberal. I used to be very active in the local Democratic Party in Orange County, California. I was also active in a group called Campaign for Economic Democracy. These people were absolutely sincere. They were not advocating something because it will never happen.

Also it is extremely difficult to be like this because as you get up into the moneyed classes and start living in moneyed neighborhoods and working at high paying jobs, just about every single person around you is a rightwing asshole. So everyone at work will be a rightwing asshole. Work will turn into a minefield. All of your neighbors will be rightwing assholes. Those neighborhood barbecues are going to be painful. If you are doing business, almost all of the businessmen you will be working with will be rightwing assholes. Have fun doing business with them when they find out your politics. Your colleagues in your profession will almost all be rightwing assholes. Those conventions are going to be awfully lonely.

Truly rich liberals/socialists making over 350K/yr are not common. I have met a few of them. I used to work in a law office, and there were some leftwing and liberal attorneys there who made that kind of money. I know my boss, a liberal, did. He loved JFK and hated McNamara for instance. All due to the Vietnam War.

But the truth is that the moneyed classes, which means everyone making over $106K/yr (top 6%) are rightwing. Period. You won’t find a lot of liberals or certainly God forbid socialists among these types. Instead your class will be swarming with rightwingers. Among the truly rich making over $340K/yr (top 1%), liberals are not very common, and socialists are truly rare. Even among the upper middle class making $75K/yr or more (top 20%), liberals are not common, nor are socialists. I almost think you might find these types more among the rich than among the mere upper middle class.

In short, all of this about champagne socialists and limousine liberals being phonies is nonsense. It’s a red herring. I have met quite a few such types, and they are quite sincere. They really are ready to take a pay cut or a cut in their net wealth due to their politics. I know it is hard to fathom. Also they are not masochists. They think they are doing the right thing, and they really do not care about money all that much. They think they have plenty anyway. They are dedicated, passionate ideologues – true believers in an unpopular cause.

5 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics

Stratfor Is CIA

Stratfor, a private intelligence forecasting casting group, is widely considered to be a CIA front. These private sector corporations are often referred to as “private CIA,” the “shadow CIA” and other such terms. Whenever you hear the word “contractor” in association with some devious US government conspiracy in some foreign land, the reference is to one of these CIA front corporations.

Stratfor is run by George Friedman (R-Tel Aviv), a neoconservative agent who infiltrated our government and inserted himself into the highest echelons of the US defense and intelligence establishment.

Another top Stratfor executive is Robert D. Kaplan (R-Tel Aviv). This dual citizen of dubious loyalty is a former soldier in the Israeli military. Like Friedman, this mole has also managed to worm his way into the highest echelons of US military and intelligence, all the way up to the Joint Chiefs.

Stratfor’s lair on the Net is here.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Government, Neoconservatism, Political Science