Category Archives: Conservatism

The Alt Left Position on Homosexuality and the Gay Lobby

I am not crazy about the Gay Lobby, though I do support gay rights at least to a certain degree. I actually participate in gay political campaigns and am on a lot of their mailing lists. On the other hand, due to a lot of bad experiences, I am not crazy about gay men, but that is more of a personal matter between me and them.

I also think that the Cultural Left is lying a lot about homosexuality, and we ought to tell the truth about this subject – Sexual Orientation Realism or Gay Realism, along with Gender Realism and Race Realism  -ought all to be pillars of the Alt Left.

In addition, I am completely opposed to the propagation of homosexuality as the Latest Cool and Groovy Trend. Sure, biological gays should be supported, but straight people have a tremendous potential for bisexuality, and it should not be encouraged or turned into a fad.

In addition, the mechanics of female homosexuality are not well understood at all. Furthermore, no one quite knows how biologically gay men get wired up either, and there is no guarantee that homosexuals will remain at 2% of the population of any society forever. Societies past and present have given the stamp of approval to cultural recreational homosexuality for men, although few of those men were biological gays. As you can see, levels of homosexuality can go up or down depending on society.

My opinion is:

  • 2% homosexuals is quite enough for a healthy society
  • Homosexuality in general is bad for society but nevertheless normal for a small number of people,
  • Levels of homosexuality in society ought to be kept to a reasonable minimum,
  • Homosexuality should not be propagated as a recreational activity or fad for the mostly-straight masses (who, as mentioned, nevertheless have a huge bisexual potential).

If you wanted to pin me down, I would of course support all truly biological bisexual men as I would support any biological gay men, but I would oppose recreational of fad bisexuality among predominantly straight men, the levels of which in any society are probably subject to dramatic changes in either and up or down direction. I do not think it should be normal for your average mostly straight guy to think that sucking a cock now and then is the latest cool and groovy thing to do.

I think we should also oppose the cultural conservatives’ line on gays, and we must also oppose homophobes. White I am not crazy about gay men, I dislike homophobes about 100X worse, partly because for some insane reason, they mostly brutalize and torment straight men. I am assuming they are enforcing norms of masculinity for men. Homophobes are in general probably not very healthy people who mostly bully, pick on, persecute, attack, assault and discriminate against people who are mostly minding their own business.

Whatever harm homosexuality causes to society is surely overridden by the tremendous damage that hate-filled homophobes cause in part because many of their victims are men who are 100% heterosexual. So you see that therefore, in addition to being vicious and cruel, homophobes are also stupid and absurd.

Surely homophobia is not an Alt Left value. Let’s leave that for the cultural conservatives. They do homophobia so well after all.


Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Political Science, Politics, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

The Alt Left Position on Feminism

On the woman question, Rabbit ( does not seem to care much about feminism, while I believe that Gender Feminism is nothing but a man-hating movement, and most women involved in it are there to nurture feelings of anger, rage and mostly resentment towards men. As a man, I do not see why I should support a movement of people who hate me.

I think we should support Equity Feminism though, the movement for women’s equal rights. We should support the Equity Feminist movements in much of the world where women’s rights are much worse than they are. These women deserve their just and healthy Liberation.

I would like to look into Sex-positive Feminism to see if it fits with the Alt Left. I feel good about the Sex-positive Feminism of the Jezebel website. One beef against gender feminists is that they are very puritanical and seem to hate heterosexual men, normal heterosexual male sexuality and even masculinity itself, which they call toxic.

The Alt Left supports straight men and thinks there is nothing wrong with heterosexual male sexuality. We also are not opposed to masculinity, do not think it is toxic but nevertheless do not believe it should be fetishized in a homophobic way. We feel that straight men ought to choose their own paths to their own particular brand of masculinity, even if that involves some healthy androgyny. Different straight men have different masculine styles, and this ought to be respected.

Nevertheless, effeminate behavior in straight men should be opposed, as it is disgusting, degrading and absurd. Effeminate behavior in gay men is simply normative and getting mad at gay men for being effeminate is like getting mad at your dog for barking. This is simply the way most of these men are, and I assume it is tied somehow in with their biological homosexuality.

The Men’s Rights Movements have made some valid points, but most of them have turned into the mirror of Gender Feminism. MRA’s hate women the same way most gender feminists are hostile to men. Neither movement is any more valid than the other, and neither sex deserves to be hated or even praised more than the other.

The sexes are different, but most of the differences are biological, and men and women probably have little control over their gendered behavior. Getting mad at women for causing drama and chaos (the bad side of the Feminine Character) is like kicking your cat for acting like a cat. This is simply women’s normative behavior, and while it should not be encouraged, neither should women be hated for their bad side. At any rate, the Male Character has an extremely bad side too, which appears to be much worse than bad side of the Female Character.

Bottom line is that the sexes have each a good and bad side to their characters, and neither sex deserves to be hated more than the other one. Misogyny is as irrational as misandry. All forms of hardcore sexism ought to be as proscribed as hardcore racism.

You can see where this is headed. The Alt Left thinks that the Feminist Movement has gone way too far and has verged off into Female Supremacism and hatred of men. That doesn’t sound like Liberation to me, and hence the Alt Left rejects the Gender Feminism of the Cultural Left as a hate movement against men that engages in hate speech towards men.

But the Alt Left, while rejecting Cultural Left Feminism, also rejects the regressive, discriminatory, prejudicial and demeaning anti-feminism of Cultural Conservatism. The movement for Women’s Liberation was to free themselves from the shackles of Cultural Conservatism, and at core, this movement was and still should be at least theoretically a good thing.

So the Alt Left position on feminism and women would be moderate, rejecting both Cultural Left Feminism Cultural Conservative Antifeminism.

I believe that one must not hate men in order to be part of the Alt Left. One of the pillars of the Alt Left is the rejection of the man-hatred of Cultural Left Feminism. If you hate men, you can’t be part of the Alt Left. It’s a dealkiller.


Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Masculinism, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex

Is the Alternative Left Degenerating into Everything Bad about the Alt Right?

Sarah writes:

If you simply want to be economically Leftist and socially moderate, then the answer is Communitarianism.

The current Alt-Left is quickly becoming the Alt-Right with all manner of white supremacy, conspiracy theories, antisemitism. If that isn’t your thing, you probably won’t be happy there for long. Also except for agreeing to hate the New Left and Identity Politics, neither side has a coherent set of positions that don’t contradict each other.

All the extreme Identity Politics, with the White hatred, calls for White genocide, and self-hating White people, is a product of the uniquely race-obsessed American academia. It has had some success in spreading its ideas to  academics in other countries and outside of academia in America, but just as quickly is drawing criticism from sensible people of all races.

The worst damage though is how successful it has been in convincing people both within the Left and outside the Left that there is a widespread conspiracy in favor of European genocide and causing them to move to extreme positions of racial identity in return. The new shared Alt-Left/Alt-Right mantra is, “Until we are safe, race is all”. A sensible method of survival in the face of an actual race-war conspiracy, but an excellent shortcut to a totalitarianism otherwise.

I suppose it all boils down to that. Do you believe there is a real, potentially successful conspiracy against Whites or not?

I cannot stand the American communitarians. Are they the folks led by Etzioni? They are barely even Democratic Party liberals. They seem like more of this Third Way between the Democrats and the Republicans insanity. Why is it a Third Way? Because the Democratic Party is “too leftwing!” Don’t make me laugh.

The current Alt-Left is quickly becoming the Alt-Right with all manner of white supremacy, conspiracy theories, antisemitism. If that isn’t your thing, you probably won’t be happy there for long.

What Alt Left? The Alt Left barely even exists. The Alt Left is like me and maybe three other blogs, and that’s it.

There is an Alt Left list on Reddit but they are way more Cultural Left than I am, and they are pretty antiracist too. They are sort of a Hard Left Zizek. There is the Leftypol list on 8chan which calls itself Leftist Politically Incorrect, but they are far to the Left of my Alt Left. They are very antiracist and even pro-gay. Plus they have officially come out and called the Alt Left, including this site, just another version of the Alt Right. You are welcome to go post on leftypol, but let me warn you that if you mention this site, they will bash you because they already said that they hate me and consider me to be “the Alt Right with leftwing economics.” They are also very far to the Left – they are basically Communists.

There is also the 3rd Positionist list on the same chan that calls itself “The Alternative Left.” The 3rd Positionists have been accused of being fascists. The good example of a 3rd Positionist group would be the National Bolsheviks or Nazbols led by Eduard Limonov in Russia. More or less Commie nationalists or National Communists.

I do not mind Natcoms at all, but they are in rather short supply. Some of the East European Communist countries have been accused of having Natcoms governments. The 3rd Positionist list has spoken highly of this site, but some on there dislike some essential elements of the Alt Left such as being pro- White, saying that there is no such nationality called “White.” They would be more for national identity at a national level. They have called this site somewhere in between the leftypol and the Third Positionist list, with me being closer to the Third Positionists on some points. This is probably correct. I am indeed probably to the right of Leftypol and to the left of Third Positionist. Even the sound of the word “fascist” makes me want to run and hide under the bed.

So where do people get this idea that the Alt Left is degenerating into “White Supremacy, conspiracy theory and anti-Semitism?” I certainly hope that this part of the Alt Left is not degenerating into something like that. That’s not where I want to take this movement.

All the extreme Identity Politics, with the white hatred, calls for white genocide, and self-hating white people, is a product of the uniquely race-obsessed American academia. It has had some success in spreading its ideas to  academics in other countries and outside of academia in America, but just as quickly is drawing criticism from sensible people of all races.

This is a superb summary of the anti-White nature of all IdPol movements at this point, along with a great description of its genesis, spread and emergent effects.

The current Alt-Left is quickly becoming the Alt-Right with all manner of white supremacy, conspiracy theories, antisemitism. If that isn’t your thing, you probably won’t be happy there for long. Also except for agreeing to hate the New Left and identity politics, neither side has a coherent set of positions that don’t contradict each other.

This is absolutely correct. Except for hatred of the Cultural Left and IdPol, the Alt Right and the Alt Left have absolutely noting in common, and sadly, we are actually enemies on many issues. The Left-Right divide in current US society is just too strong. Robert Stark’s recent interview with Keith Preston points this out very well. It would not be an extreme statement to say that the Alt Left (at least my wing) and the Alt Right, in their current formations, basically hate each other. It makes me sad to say that, but it’s still true, I have to admit.

The worst damage though is how successful it has been in convincing people both within the Left and outside the Left that there is a widespread conspiracy in favor of European genocide and causing them to move to extreme positions of racial identity in return. The new shared Alt-Left/Alt-Right mantra is, “Until we are safe, race is all”.

Once again, this is a superb summary of the genesis of both the Alt Right and the Alt Left, both of which frankly stem from the excesses of IdPol. IdPol has now gotten so extreme and crazy that even folks on the Left like me who have been supporters of the Cultural Left most of their lives are starting to abandon it. It is also an excellent summary of an/the essential component of the both the Alt Right and Alt Left at this moment, which is positive White racial identity.

A sensible method of survival in the face of an actual race-war conspiracy, but an excellent shortcut to a totalitarianism otherwise.

I suppose it all boils down to that. Do you believe there is a real, potentially successful conspiracy against whites, or not?

This is also brilliant and correct. Of course “Until we are safe, race is all” is a great mantra in the case of any actual conspiracy to wipe out any group, whether race, nationality, ethnic group or religion. On the other hand though, if there is no actual conspiracy to wipe out Whites then this mantra is just, in my opinion, silly or even stupid. It’s not evil as most would say it is. I just think that “Until we are safe, race is all” at this point in time is stupid. What’s the point? Why bother with a new White Identity Politics? It’s just another form of Idpol after all, with all of the baggage that goes along with all of the rest of Idpol. White Idpol is still Idpol. Let’s not kid ourselves here.

I suppose it all boils down to that. Do you believe there is a real, potentially successful conspiracy against whites, or not?

There is no real, potentially successful conspiracy against Whites in the West at the moment, but there is one in South Africa, that’s for sure. Whites are definitely under attack in South Africa. That’s just an indisputable fact.



Filed under Africa, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Left, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Sane Pro-White, South Africa, US Politics, Whites

Nazis and Communists Fighting in the Streets of Sweden

Fascinating. The real violent people here are the Left, honestly. They are attacking the fascists and Nazis, and the fash are mostly just fighting back from what I can tell. However, some of the Revolutionary Front fighters say that they have gotten death threats from the fascists, so it looks like both sides are ramping up the violence.

It’s fascists/Nazis and Communists/socialists, the Right and the Left, fighting in the streets of Europe. In other words, it’s 1920’s and 1930’s Europe (Germany especially) all over again. History is once again repeating itself.

A Marxist analysis would say that this situation of Hard Right and Hard Left always arises in any capitalist system during a time when the capitalist system is in crisis. They would say that capitalism inevitably leads to oligarchy, the rich inevitably get richer and the poor inevitably get poorer until sooner or later extreme inequality leads to a crisis. In other words, it is inevitable that capitalism will experience periodic crises.

It’s not even a bug of the system. It is actually supposed to work that way! Every time we have an economic crisis in this country, listen to Ron or Rand Paul talk about what is happening. They will simply say that this is part of the natural (boom and bust) business cycle that will correct itself sooner or later, since capitalism is a self-regulating mechanism. Do you understand what they mean when they say that? When they talk like that, they are saying that periodic crises are an unavoidable fact of the capitalist system and that these crises are not bugs at all, but instead they are features!

And in the late 20’s, Herbert Hoover spoke exactly the same way. My father said Hoover advocated doing nothing about the Depression because he did not want to upset the natural rhythm of the business cycle. In other words, the Depression wasn’t awful, it meant the system was working as intended!

In other words, when capitalism is in crisis, that is “how the system is supposed to work” – well, part of the time anyway.

So capitalism inevitably leads to oligarchy and a crisis, and Marxists would add that capitalism inevitably leads to fascism at some point or another, as a fascist response is one of the unavoidable consequences of a capitalist economic crisis.

So capitalism inevitably leads to fascism sooner or later. However, I would also add, optimistically, that capitalism inevitably leads to some form of socialism too. The rich get richer and richer, and the poor get poorer and poorer, and in addition to  the fascist response, there is also an inevitable Left, socialist or Communist response, the consequences of which are often welded into society via legislation.

Note that the Depression led to both socialist/Communist and fascist responses in the US. The fascist response was rather muted, but Father Coughlin and Mr. Lindberg sure were popular there for a bit. My mother remembers Father Coughlin on the radio. She says that every time you turned on the radio, there he was.

The Left response was melded into society as the New Deal, aspects of which continue to be part of our somewhat socialist society to this very day.

So the situation in Sweden at the moment is replaying Germany of the 20’s and 30’s all over again. If you want to understand the current fighting, go back and study the street fighting during that era.

I do not have much more to add here except that my political development is finally to the point where I not only understand this fighting, but I realize that it is actually normal, natural and inevitable given the economic situation. I shrug my shoulders and say, “Well, of course.”

It sure feels nice to have that sort of understanding of political reality. There is a real sense of mastery that comes with that. Further, you end up a lot calmer because you realize that all of these things are happening for logical reasons.

Whereas before, the world seemed chaotic, unpredictable and irrational. So many things seemed to happen for no reason. This feeling causes fear, insecurity and anxiety.

But with a sense of mastery over political developments, comes instead a feeling of peace that things are not happening for no reason anymore.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Left, Marxism, Nazism, Political Science, Regional, Socialism, Sweden, US

There Are Good Ruling Classes and Bad Ruling Classes

William Playfair Web writes:


The ruling classes of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras leaves lower and middle income people few options but to leave

The ruling class is typically descended from the people of the European nation of Spain who are white or at least whiter than the native inhabitants of those countries. Hence, they are of higher IQs.

Do you believe higher IQ people rising to the top to become a ruling class is a good thing? I take it you are not a libertarian?

Yes, ruling classes exist all over the world. China, Iran, the Arab World, all of Europe including Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have ruling classes. As do New Zealand and Australia.

The difference is that the ruling classes of Latin America are stone evil. Those are the most evil ruling classes on the face of the Earth. I am convinced that the only way to deal with them is simply to eliminate them altogether, to take them out. That’s what the Cubans did, and they did the right thing. They wiped the Cuban ruling class off the face of Earth. Yes, they went to Miami, where they are now the ruling class of Miami, but the ruling class of Cuba was simply exterminated. That’s the only way to deal with these monsters. You just need to flat out get rid of them.

I include the ruling classes of Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay in this category. However, the elites in Peru and Venezuela often ruled via fake “socialist” parties that were actually members of the Socialist International!

These people are just evil. They do not believe in democracy, much like our vile and despicable conservative ruling class. Whenever the Left comes into power, these ruling classes overthrow it in some way or another. They used to do it by military coup, and they still do (see Honduras) but now they have other methods (fake impeachment in Brazil and Paraguay, fake corruption scandal in Brazil, economic sabotage and street rioting in Venezuela and Brazil, fake claims of human rights abuses/dictatorship and assassinations in Venezuela).

So there is really no peaceful road to socialism (or even social democracy) in Latin America. Maybe Lenin was onto something with his talk of parliamentary cretins. The Leninists have always said that it would be nice if the Left could take power peacefully, but the ruling classes will not allow the Left to come to power peacefully because power does not give up without a fight. Therefore the ruling class has to be overthrown by force. I really do believe that they are correct. Look what happens when you try to do it peacefully: Allende, Chavez, Gaitan, Zelaya, Juan Bosch, Cheddi Jagan, Dilma Rouseff, Arbenz, Father Aristide. It doesn’t work.

I would put the ruling classes of Mexico and Costa Rica in a different category.

Mexico’s ruling class is actually part of a revolutionary party that is a member of the Socialist International. The reason Mexico did not have a Leftist revolution in the 1980’s was because, as my mother put it when I asked her why not, “They already had their revolution.” Mexico has long had great relations with Cuba and for the entirety of the war, the Marxist FMLN guerrillas of El Salvador had their head offices in Mexico City itself. They have national health care, free education to the university level and most of the rural land is owned by the state as “ejidos,” which are rented out for use by any peasants who wish to farm them.

However the elite did steal an election from a Left candidate in 1988, 25 years ago. The Mexican ruling class will only go so far with their shabby socialism.

The ruling class of Costa Rica for some reason made a class compromise and a social contract with the people sometime after WW2. They also decided to get rid of their military altogether. The fact that Costa Rica has historically been one of the Whitest countries in Latin America may have been one of the reasons that they were able to put in a social democracy. Reagan ordered them at gunpoint to destroy their social democracy in the 1980’s. I understand that they took much of it apart, but a lot of it still exists.

I have not heard a lot of bad things about the ruling classes of Panama, Belize, most of the Caribbean islands, the Guyanas and even Uruguay.


Filed under Americas, Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Economics, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fascism, French Guyana, Government, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Revolution, Socialism, Sociology, South America, Uruguay, Venezuela

They’re All the Same

Trump endorses Clinton

Trump endorsing Hillary Clinton in her run for Senate.

You might say that their first loyalty is to the 1%, and that loyalty “Trumps” (wink) any other loyalties that they may have to party, ideology, nation, faith, morals, allies, really anything.

In other words, the 1% is the 1%.

There is the “Democratic” 1% and the “Republican” 1%.

There is the “liberal” 1% and the “conservative” 1%.

But at the end of the day, they’re all just the 1%, and I assume that they are all holding hands with each other, going to same conferences, endorsing each other, plotting together, partying with one another, marrying each other, etc.

Marx would say that these people have one loyalty and one loyalty only: they are loyal to their class interests, and everything else be damned. Marx would be right. People don’t read him enough.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Best of Friends


Best friends Billary Clinton and Donald Trump get together with Republicrat Rudy Giuliani and Dempublican Mayor Bloomberg for a friendly game of golf.

They’re all the same. I keep telling you all that the whole elite is all the same. Both parties are run by and for the 1% or at least the top 10% of America. The rest of us lower 90% can go pound sand.

And there is the reason for the Trump-Sanders phenomenon right there. Anytime there is a severe crisis in capitalism or if wealth starts getting too maldistributed, you almost always see a militant red or socialist-Communist challenge from the Left. There’s Sanders.

And at the same time, you often get a militant brown or fascist challenge from the Right. There’s Trump.

And then you start getting street fighting between the Left and Right mobs as in prewar Germany or present day Thailand, or an armed Right and an armed Left killing each other with weaponry as in Latin America, India, Ukraine and the Philippines.

Remember the 1930’s? Communists and fascists fighting in the streets (prewar Berlin and outside Trump rallies)? Vast fascist rallies (Hitler, Mussolini and Trump)? Rightwing goons attacking their enemies (Italian blackshirts, German brownshirts, Salvadoran death squads staffed by street thugs from the lower middle class, Trump’s lower middle class and lower class goons)?

Humans are basically stupid. They could learn from the past but they don’t, but they simply refuse to or else they are too stupid to draw an analogy between one era and another.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, History, Left, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics

We Are All Israelis Now, or the Israelization of the West

From, a great site if you can get past the Libertarian bullshit ideology that permeates the entire site. In their defense though, I will acknowledge that in recent years, the site now has many leftwing and liberal commenters too. They seem to have moderated their views and are now willing to enter into an anti-intervention coalition made up of the Libertarian (and Trumpist) Right and the liberal-Left anti-interventionists and better yet anti-imperialists.

It’s a crazy coalition, but many coalitions are pretty nutty. Two winged movements representing two very different colored birds look at each other, find a small group of feathers that match and unite into one political avian species on that basis. As much as I hate Trump, he is correct when he says life itself is “the art of the deal.” If you can’t make deals in life, you will get nowhere. Even my own father, very much a hardline Cold War liberal ideologue something along Bernie Sanders lines, used to shrug his shoulders and say, “politics is the art of the possible.” I say let them flower. When it comes to coalitions that advance our cause, let a thousand coalitions bloom.

Israeli hawks prefer ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Hamas to Saddam, Assad, and Arafat, because the people of the West are less likely to be willing to co-exist with the former than the latter. Especially as terrorist attacks and refugee crises mount in the West, the rise and reign of the terrorists may finally overcome public opposition to troop commitment, and necessitate the Western invasion and permanent occupation of the Greater Middle East, followed, of course, by its perpetual exploitation by, among other Washington favorites, Israel and Israeli corporations.

The West may become a Global Israel, forever occupying, forever dispossessing, forever bombing, and forever insecure. And the Middle East may become a Global Palestine, forever occupied, forever dispossessed, forever bombed, and forever desperately violent. That is how war is realizing the Israelizing of the world.

Pretty interesting. All of the West will become “Global Israel,” forever occupying, dispossessing and bombing Arabs and in turn making itself forever insecure. The Arab World itself will become Global Palestine, forever occupied, dispossessed and bombed by the New Israel (the West) and in turn becoming itself desperately violent.

The first sentence in the quote is not really true though. Yes, Israel much prefers Hamas to the PLO because the PLO seems somewhat reasonable and foreigners might be inclined to work with them to try to force a deal on Israel. The one thing Israel does not want is a peace agreement. Instead of a peace agreement, the Israelis feel that they should just fight a war are against the Arabs forever or until the Arabs are finally defeated.

This mindset is nothing new.

And the reason Israelis prefer Al Qaeda and ISIS to Saddam and Assad is simple.

Leave a comment

Filed under Arabs, Conservatism, Democrats, Geopolitics, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Middle East, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Terrorism, US Politics, USA, War

Republicans for ISIS

I have been checking blogs about the Syrian Civil War for some time now. One thing has become very clear. I now have a handle on what the supporters of the Syrian “moderate rebels” are all about.

Here is the profile of supporters of “Free Syria” and the “moderate rebels” including supporters of the “Free Syrian Army:”

They all and I do mean all, love ISIS. Every time ISIS succeeds on the battlefield, all supporters of “Free Syria” roar with approval. The also love the Nusra Front (Al Qaeda), Jaish al Islam and all of the rest of the Islamist groups.

Secular or nationalist groups make up maybe 10% of all fighters, but even they engage in the worst sectarian language such as calling the Alawi Nusayri. Nusayri is a vicious Sunni insult for Alawites and it has a murderous or even genocidal history and current project behind it. All of the secular or nationalist groups fight alongside the Islamist groups, in particular, they all fight alongside Al Qaeda or Al Nusra. So really all of the Syrian rebels are just Al Qaeda, ISIS, other Islamists or their close allies. Those are your moderate rebels for you.

They all hate Russia. This extends to general Cold War style propaganda against “Russian Communists” where Russia is conflated with the Soviet Union as all propaganda of the current Cold War 2 does.

They all describe themselves as conservatives. On these boards, all of the conservatives are cheering wildly for ISIS and Al Qaeda. So I guess conservatives love ISIS and Al Qaeda, at least in Syria, right?

Like all conservatives, they have an extreme hatred of liberalism and socialism. Anti-Communist language is very common, and Obama and the Democrats are called socialists or Communists as all Republicans do.

They all have an insane hatred for Obama along the lines and intensity of the Birther Tea Partier crowd.

The Chavista government in Venezuela is bashed on a regular basis as an example of the “failures of socialism” even though the whole economy is in the hands of the capitalists and obviously the fault for the shortages is 100% the fault of the Venezuelan capitalists. There are shortages of this or that product which is made or imported only by Venezuelan capitalists? Well gosh, then why don’t these capitalists start manufacturing more of that product, or barring that, importing it? The Venezuelan capitalists are fault out refusing to manufacture more of the products in shortage and they are also flat out refusing to import more of the products in shortage.

They do not like Trump one bit. In fact, they repeat the Economist line that Trump is the #1 threat to the world economy. Along with the Tea Party thinking, I would assume that these people are supporters of the US Republican Establishment – Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, etc. All of them have voiced strong support for the Syrian rebels which in effect means that these Republicans are all backing ISIS and Al Qaeda. Trump is the only candidate who has questioned arming the Syrian rebels and he said Putin was right to go in and help Assad. On the Democratic side, both Hillary and Sanders have voiced support for the Syrian rebels – in other words, both Hillary and Sanders are supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda, at least in Syria.

Their line about Syria mirrors almost exactly that of the US government and the US media. I conclude then that the US government, both political parties and the US media are all supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda, or at least they are supporting them in Syria. Really the truth is that the entire US establishment is behind ISIS and Al Qaeda at least in Syria. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that the US is using ISIS and Al Qaeda to try to destroy the Syrian regime.

They all have an extreme hatred for Iran. They make a big deal about Obama’s supposedly poor nuclear deal with Iran. When they do this, they sound just like the US Republican Party.

They all use extreme sectarian language. For instance, they say things like there is a Russia-Assad-Iran-Hezbollah project going on right now to genocide the Sunnis. They sound just like the Saudis when they talk like that.


Filed under Alawi, Arab Nationalism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Eurasia, Geopolitics, Iran, Islam, Middle East, Nationalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Shiism, Socialism, South America, Sunnism, Syria, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, War

Sanders Voters for Trump?

There are a few but not too many.

I have seen many Trump supporters writing in the comments on articles on the Net. Except in the piece linked above, I have not yet seen one liberal, progressive or leftwing person who commenting saying that they are voting for Trump. Hell, I haven’t even seen a moderate or centrist who says they are voting for Trump.

All, and I do mean all, of the Trump voters I have seen so far on the Net have been rightwingers – even worse, real wingnuts. This is the Fox News crowd, the base of the Republican Party. They’re all Obama haters and not because he’s too conservative. These are the Birthers. The kooks. The crazies. As I said, the base. As far as I can tell, that’s all who’s voting for him.

Apparently there are some left, liberal, progressive or even moderate people voting for Trump. It’s just that I never see any of them. I assume that that means that they are few in number.

If it’s a choice between a rightwing neoliberal, neoconservative and a fascist maniac , I don’t have much choice but to pick the former. I have been voting for the lesser of two evils for as long as I can remember. I usually hate the Democrats that I end up voting for, but vote for them I do anyway.


Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Fascism, Left, Liberalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Obama Birther Whackjobs, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics