Category Archives: Nationalism

Polish Political Scientist on the Alt Left

This is a very important article, the first review of the Alt Left ever written by an actual expert on politics, in this case a Political Science professor. The only problem is that he lives in Poland and he wrote this article in Polish! He seems to support the Alt Left. He discusses both me and Rabbit, but most of the focus is on me. And why not? I am the one who started this whole mess after all.

Here it is translated in the best translation I could do.

Alt-Left

Dr Hab. Jarosław Tomasiewicz

02-10-2017

For a decade I have criticized the Polish Left for intellectual impotence expressed in the mindless import of foreign designs. CTRL + C, CRTL + V. It is such a vicious circle: the peculiar combination of geopolitical, historical, socioeconomic and cultural factors has left the Left in Poland (aside from some historical exceptions) a lone minority.

The feeling of isolation meant that the Left waited for outside help (“Moscow yesterday, today Brussels”); elevating “brotherly international solidarity” instead of concentrating on the workers at home deepened the alienation of the Left. Where, a hundred years ago, the Left flourished intellectually (Brzozowski, Abramowski, Luxembourg, Kelles-Krauz, Machajski, Hempel – and many, many others), nowadays, after decades of importing foreign ideas and attempting to implant them in Polish culture, the Polish Left has become intellectually sterile. Bringing the Polish Left to the role of translator of external trends, I see not only me – a “very strange figure” as one of the leftwing editors once called me – but also the Left-leaning generals.

But there is no need to repeat myself as my position on this is well-known. On the contrary – I will criticize the Native Left of the Vistula Backwater for remaining unaware of the latest cutting edge Left political programs from our brethren born in the homeland of the World Creative Class, that is, America.

This latest development followed this pattern:

In recent years, the Hipster Left, now pretending to be a Radical Left, has sunk in the warm sun of a Liberal Mainstream now dominated by the geopolitical system. It was safe to fight for progress behind the back of the liberal state – obviously not to seek any pure utopia ostensibly criticized for “errors and distortions”, but it was still considered less evil than the menace of populism.

The Left was kept in check by the “enlightened absolutism” of the European Union and America reasserting itself as as the keystone of the global order under the leadership of  the benign Uncle Barack. In this way, a phenomenon characteristic of the final days of empires emerged.

First, the Imperialist Left who finance social reforms in the metropolis of the First World profited from the Developed World’s hegemonic oppression of the periphery – the people in the Third World – and therefore was interested in maintaining the existing oppressive geopolitical order This situation was described well by Bernard Semmel.

Next, the toothless Mainstream Right, centered on maximizing corporate profits, could still attempt to launch a Cultural War but was instead generally pushed into a deeply defensive position due to the increasing domination of culture by the Cultural Left.

Finally, the Far Right was more interested in their hysterical, sensationalist, and conspiratorial media than in the real world .

Until one day a Demon returned from the the past.

An “Alt Right” appeared on the scene. “The Alternative Right”: alternative to the Mainstream Right. The phenomenon is otherwise uneven. This is not a reactionary neoliberal/neoconservative New Right whose last expression was the Tea Party. Alt Right is the rebirth of the hard-core “Old Right” – ethnopolitical, traditionalist, populist – in new postmodernist forms. A unique return to the roots. And it was the Alt Rightists who managed to beat the mainstream left in its own field: to win the support of the workers using non-cultural terms (Thomas Frank was a bit outdated) and economics. Workers from the Core Belt backed protectionism against globalism.

For the Left, who has already forgotten the anti-imperialism that once characterized it, this is a geopolitical earthquake like a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles. Suddenly there was no point of support, no reference point. The Left must find himself given the reality of this new situation. We need self-criticism, reorientation, and re-evaluation. Answer the question: What is to be done? The most popular answer is: What we have always done, only moreso. Purge the ranks, dig in their positions.

This is a bourgeois reaction frightened by the status quo. The bureaucracies of the safe zones become the universities and the liberal self-governments of the big cities. Rolling Stone Magazine describes the formation of the anti-Trump coalition . There will be pro-immigrant groups, environmentalists, feminists, sexual minorities, gun control advocates, and  interestingly, “true conservatives” (the neoconservatives) who are reluctant to support Trump. Did I miss anyone? Did you notice? One group I failed to mention is the unions. It seems that the Left has insulted the workers. Instead of Democrats meeting with union leaders, Trump meets with them.

However, not all American Leftists are carnal cult members, confident that the repetition of certain rituals will provide them with prosperity. Some believe that the challenge of Alt-Right requires a symmetrical response: to create an alternative to the Left mainstream harkening back to the forgotten foundations of the left. Opponents see the emergence of the Alt-Left phenomenon as a new embodiment of the alliance of extremes, “the place where Pat Buchanan meets Ralph Nader, ” although Alt-Leftists reject any form of cooperation with actual fascists, hardcore racists, and obsessive and conspiratorial anti-Semites. Proponents argue that this is a de facto return to the tradition of the Old Left – “the Left as it was from the Second World War to the counter-culture of the 1960’s.”

This implies first and foremost, the primacy of economics over culture, the primordial basis of superstructure, and a return to the Marxian thesis that “being forms consciousness.” Contempt for the poor and losers in capitalist society is condemned as one of the worst sins of all.

“We will be Left on economic matters [but] more Centrist on culture,” wrote Robert Lindsay, a leading Alt Left thinker.

This approach puts the Alt Left in opposition to both technocratic social democrats that have long since taken up neoliberalism while abandoning the working class on the Right and the “Cultural Left” on the other side of the political spectrum. The Alt-Left sees the Right as simply “traitors to the working class – our class enemies,” according to Lindsay. But it is towards the second group, which the Alt-Left sees as “rootless cosmopolitans,” that the Alt-Left devotes most of its polemical fervor.

Alt Left tolerates the Cultural Left as long as they are relatively quiet about their antagonizing views. The Cultural Left is criticized not for the legitimacy or direction of cultural change but rather for its extremism.

Lindsay writes:

Gay Rights – yes! Gay politics – no! Support and tolerance for biological homosexuals to live their lives as they wish in freedom and happiness. On the other hand, homosexuality should not be exalted or promoted […].

Women’s rights – yes! Women’s politics – no! The Alternative Left supports equity feminism while rejecting  the gender feminism of radical feminists who hate men.

According to Alt-Leftists, the “Identity Politics” promoted by the Cultural Left led to the replacement of class struggle with racial and/or sexual conflict. In this view, White people were evil…and anyone who was not White was automatically a saint. This meant not only that all Whites were part of a racist class but that they also all shared collective responsibility and guilt. Let us note that while class membership can be changed relatively easily, race or gender cannot, which makes any antagonism engendered by race or gender insurmountable.

Another aspect of the Alternative Left is internationalism, but here it is understood as anti-imperialism instead of cosmopolitanism. Lindsay emphasizes that the desire of people to have a national, ethnic or religious identity should be seen as a right that can not be interfered with. The result is an acceptance of  the multiculturalism of immigrants in the first generation but the promotion of assimilation in the next. On the one hand, extreme patriotism and Western imperialism are also criticized –  the Alt Left even singles out Bernie Sanders, as as a “Cold War liberal”. On the other hand, the view that “the West is pure evil” is rejected. The Alt Left detaches itself from both anti-Semitism and Radical Zionism, accepting anti-Zionists but also moderate Zionists.

The American Alt Left has been around for only little over one year (the site Altleft.com appeared in November 2015), and is a small movement made up of a number of different strands or wings.

One of Lindsay’s followers wrote:

Unfortunately, Alt Left attracts a wide variety of weird people, and each one has their own clichéd ideas for what Alt Left should be.

Well, beginnings are always difficult.

Should Poles mimic the Alt Left? No. It is enough to return to our native traditions, a matter-of-fact, homegrown analysis of reality – simply common sense. Swallows can be seen.

Dr Hab. Jarosław Tomasiewicz,.born in 1962, is a political scientist and researcher at the Institute of History of the University of Silesia, a journalist, and an author of a number of books in recent years, Terrorism against Political Violence: An Encyclopedic Outline (2000), Between Fascism and Anarchism: New Ideas for a New Era (2000), New National Democratic Party Groups in the Third Republic (2003), Evil in the Name of Good: The Phenomenon of Political Violence (2009) and National Revolution: The Nationalist Ideas of Social Revolution in the Second Republic (2012), as well as many magazine, newspaper and journal articles. He is a regular contributor to The New Citizen.

New Citizen 13
Publisher: Association of Citizens
Website: kooperatywa.org

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Immigration, Imperialism, Internationalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Obama, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, Vanity, Whites

“Russia in Ukraine: Enemy or Friend?” by Eric Walberg

My good friend Eric Walberg sets the record straight on the Ukraine War. Bottom line is every single thing you are being told in the Western media is propaganda of some sort. It’s either a distortion, misleading or out and out false. The number of Western media outlets offering the truth of what is going on over there is zero. This is what I mean by our controlled media and why I say that there is no dissident press in the West.

Russia in Ukraine: Enemy or Friend?

Eric Walberg

Putin is either an aggressive schemer, to be opposed and vilified at all costs, or a wise, restrained real-politician, balanced irreconcilable forces next door. Which is it?

The 2014 coup in Ukraine succeeded due to the fierce campaign led by neo-fascists, heirs to the Banderistas of 1940–50’s, now lauded as freedom fighters, but seen at the time as terrorists, murdering Ukrainians and Jews, and sabotaging a Ukraine in shambles after the war. They had almost zero support then, having collaborated with the Nazis to kill tens of thousands, but their hero, Stepan, was honored with a statue in 2011, erected by the godfather of the current anti-Russian coupmakers, the (disastrous) former President Viktor Yushchenko. Ukraine’s Soviet war veterans were outraged and the statue was torn down in 2013, just months before the coup, bringing the Bandera-lovers back to power.

The eastern Ukrainians, mostly native Russians, centered in Donetsk and Lugansk, saw the coup as a surreal rerun of WWII, this time with Banderistas triumphant. They had no real plan, but panicked at the thought of what was to come, and seized government buildings and declared themselves mini-republics, calling on Russia to come and rescue them, as was happening in Crimea.

A tall order. Putin empathized with his fellow Russians, now being bombed and boycotted by the Ukrainian forces, with a death toll of 10,000 so far. Between 22 and 25 August 2014, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a “humanitarian convoy”, crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.

This state of stalemate led the war to be labelled by some a war of aggression against poor Ukraine, a “frozen conflict”. The area has stayed a war zone, with dozens of soldiers and civilians killed each month. Close to 4,000 rebel fighters and the same number of ‘loyalists’ have been killed, along with 3,000 civilians. 1.5 million have been internally displaced; and a million have fled abroad, mostly to Russia.

A deal to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol, was signed on 5 September 2014 but immediately collapsed. It called for reincorporation of the rebel territories under a federal system, with full rights of the Russian-speakers and open relations with the Russian Federation. Russia stands by the principles of the protocol, calling for Ukrainian borders to stay as they are, despite the pleas of the rebels. This restraint pleases neither side. The Russians clearly will not abandon their fellow Russians, but at the same time, refuse to invade and start a war with their unpredictable, basket-case of a neighbor. Russians are surely thinking: Ukrainians — you can’t get along with them or without them.

The Russian position is clear and firm: give Russian Ukrainian their rights, make our borders porous for locals and their relatives, revive shattered economic links among common peoples with a thousand years of common history. Get on with it.

The Ukrainian position is mostly hysterical, calling for NATO and Europe to fight off the Russkies, salvage the bankrupt economy, and ignore the creepy fascists. WWIII if necessary. The coupmakers are unrepentant as Ukraine slides deeper into insolvency, and corruption is getting worse (if that’s possible). Poroshenko is as unpopular as a leader can get, and only the threat of a Ukraine shattered in pieces gives him a life preserver among his citizens.

WWII replay

The West incited the coup and quickly embraced it, ignoring its unsavory origins in nostalgia for fascism. While it feigns shock and anger at Russian actions, it certainly can’t ignore that the Russians really had no choice, that their actions were/are both necessary and measured.

It looks suspiciously like the West is sitting back and enjoying the fisticuffs, reminding one of how the West sat back and let the Russians do the dirty work in WWII, defeating the Nazis, with the ‘Allies’ joining in the last year to warrant their claims (now the official story) that the US won the war — with a little help from its friends and even the nefarious Russians.

A messy conclusion to that war, the ultimate ‘frozen conflict’, the Cold War, that spawned the current many mini-frozen conflicts (Trans-Dniester, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Kosovo, not to mention ones farther afield, like Taiwan and Somaliland — all legacies of the Cold War).

‘No Pasaran!’

The plan is evolving, depending on what the Russians do. Putin’s red line is that Ukraine cannot – will not — join NATO. The NATO creep eastward, a violation from 1991 on of the implicit understanding with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, will not be tolerated.

The Ukrainian coup created a new scenario. If Russia had moved to support the rebel territories, form a customs union with open borders, aimed at eventual incorporation in the Russian Federation, that would have given the NATOphiles their trump card, and NATO and the EU would be hard pressed not to move in and try to salvage a bankrupt dysfunctional state, with the final coup as its prize: NATO now lined up surrounding Russia, the last real holdout against US world domination.

The Baltic ministates and (almost all) the Balkan ministates are now in the NATO fold. There are a few loose ends for the EU in the Balkans, but EU hegemony economically and US hegemony militarily are the new playing fields. Then there’s Turkey as a key NATO ally.

Whether this is an actual conspiracy or not only Russian hackers can tell, but the logic is there. Putin sees this logic and is not biting the bullet. Better a tolerable federated Ukraine where Russians are left in peace or another frozen conflict than NATO breathing fire on Russia’s borders.

The West played the ‘shock and anger’ card over Crimea, ignoring the fact that Crimea has been a key part of Russia since Catherine the Great incorporated it in 1783, the heart of Russian naval power, thoughtlessly given to Ukraine when Soviet internal borders were meaningless, populated by mostly Russians and Tatars.

As Ukrainian nationalism heated up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still maintained its bases there, paying rent to Ukraine. But dreams by Ukrainian Russophobes to join NATO and the desire of NATO forces to occupy Crimea or that somehow Russia and NATO could share Crimean bases are nonsensical. Russia’s only option was to accede to Crimeans’ pleas.

‘Remember 1856!’

As if to taunt the Russians on Crimea, a British missile destroyer and a Turkish frigate docked at the port of Odessa in July for a joint NATO maritime exercise , several days after the US, Ukraine and 14 other nations deployed warships, combat aircraft and special operations teams for the ‘Sea Breeze 2017’ exercise off the Ukrainian coast.

It looks like a reenactment of western policy following the Crimean War in 1856, when Russia was denied its naval presence in the Black Sea, as Britain and France were preparing to take the Ottoman territories for themselves and keep Russia out in the cold. Combined with the NATO creep in the Baltics and Balkans, it also looks like a replay of the build up to WWII but without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. To Stalin’s (sorry, Putin’s) discomfort, there is no split among the imperialists anymore. Germany et al are postmodern nations, nations without a foreign policy, beholden to the world hegemon, the US. There is only one thousand-year Reich (sorry, Pax Americana) on the table these days. History may repeat itself but in its own ways.

Frozen conflicts have a bad reputation, but peace is always better than war. Tempers cool over time, and past wrongs can be ironed out with reason and compromise. Donetsk and Lugansk will not hoist a white flag to Kiev given the bad blood. They will continue to get electricity and gas from Russia and revive their economies by reviving trade and industry with their real ally. Kiev should be careful in its game of trying to starve the rebels into submission. Russians as a people have never backed down when faced with a hostile enemy.

The longer the freeze continues, the more willy-nilly integration with the Russian economic sphere will proceed. Or rather the Eurasian Customs Union (EACU) that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed in 2010, eliminating obstacles to trade and investment that went up after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Moscow stands to benefit as a natural hub for regional finance and trade, and Ukraine is welcome. Win-win. A free trade pact as an economic strategy elevates the prospects of the entire region where Russia is a natural center of gravity. In 2015 the EACU was enlarged to include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia imports labor from the ‘Stans’ and could well help Ukraine by inviting Ukrainians to work as well.

Sensible realpolitik by the West would take NATO away from Russian borders and push Ukraine to make an acceptable deal on a federal state structure to keep its own Russians and its neighbor happy. Sensible realpolitik by Ukraine would be to join the EACU, bringing ‘Little Russians’, ‘White Russians,’ and plain old Russians back together. This would be welcomed with relief by EU officials who have no military ax to grind and are not happy about the billions it would take to get Ukraine off life support.

More here and here.

24 Comments

Filed under Armenia, Asia, Belarus, Britain, Cold War, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, France, Geopolitics, Germany, History, Imperialism, Journalism, Kazakhstan, Modern, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Political Science, Regional, Russia, South Asia, Turkey, Ukraine, USA, USSR, War, World War 2

Just Got Interviewed by Al Jazeera

Just got interviewed by a writer from Al Jazeera for an upcoming piece on the Alt Left . The real Alt Left, not this fake crap the conservatives refer to as Alt Left, which they mean the Hard Left, PC Left, SJW Left, or Antifa Left. The real Alt Left is opposed to all of those factions in one way or another.

I just counted up members of Alt Left sites on Facebook and there were over 18,000 members of groups that appeared to pushing real Alt Left ideas. On the other hand, I would probably renounce 50% or more of those people. Alt-Leftist Empire is the largest group with over 10,000 members, and I completely renounce them. These entryists have captured the movement and turned it into some sort of Cultural Left Libertarian Nationalism. Or something. Most support Trump and neoliberal capitalism. Supporting either is grounds for expulsion. No Alt Left person should support Trump except in a perverse way (accelerationism) and of course you can never support neoliberalism.

This movement is like a runaway train and it has gotten out of the hands of the people who started it in a very bad way, but a lot of political movements are probably like that.

So an article on me and the Alt Left, including quotes, should run in Al Jazeera fairly soon. Another may appear in Alternet at some point later. The author was not real friendly to the Alt Left, but I would not say he was extremely hostile either. I really don’t care how they portray us. In Hollywood they say all publicity is good publicity and that may well be true in politics also.

43 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Journalism, Left, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, US Politics, Vanity

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.

37 Comments

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

Up with Alexandr Dugin

It’s quite popular to hate this guy, and everyone calls him a fascist, but he doesn’t seem very fascist to me. He never talks about race. All I know is if this guy is a fascist, I guess I must be a fascist too then.

He’s a Russian nationalist, and Russian nationalists don’t care about race. There was one armed Russian nationalist group fighting in the Donbass, and their only requirement for joining was to follow the Russian Orthodox religion and speak Russian fluently. I saw some very Asiatic looking faces in the group of armed men. Some of them were so Asiatic they could have been Kazakhs or even Tuvans.

Putin’s Defense Minister is a Tuvan. Putin is a Russian nationalist.

Russian nationalism is based on the theory of a Russian Empire. Traditionally, many non-Russian languages and several non-Russian Orthodox religions were part of the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire now would seem to imply everything encompassed in the Russian state.

There many official ethnicities and there are many official languages spoken throughout Russia today. Many to most of those languages have official state support, and with many of those languages, you can attend school in your native language. In some cases, I think you can even attend university in your native language. There are state-sponsored TV and radio stations and newspapers and magazines all in these languages. Many Russian ethnicities still grow up speaking their native language. Putin’s record on this has not been optimal, but he is driven by fear of secessionism as is the case with nearly all official languages of nation-states. Nevertheless, the language situation that was set up by the USSR still largely stands, and in many cases has expanded in recent years.

An ominous and alarming country on the other side of the ocean. Without history, without tradition, without roots. An artificial, aggressive, imposed reality, completely devoid of spirit, concentrated only on the material world and technical effectiveness, cold, indifferent, an advertisement shining with neon light and senseless luxury; darkened by pathological poverty, genetic degradation and the rupture of all and every person and thing, nature and culture. It is the result of a pure experiment of the European rationalist Utopians.

Today it is establishing its planetary dominion, the triumph of its way of life, its civilizational model over all the peoples of the earth. And over us. In itself and only in itself does it see ‘progress’ and ‘civilizational norms’, refusing everyone else the right to their own path, their own culture, their own system of values.

How wonderfully exactly does all this remind us of the prophecy concerning the coming into the world of the Antichrist… The king of the dead ‘green country’, that arose out of the abyss of the ancient crime…

To close down America is our religious duty…

– Aleksandr Dugin

40 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Education, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Fascism, Journalism, Linguistics, Nationalism, Orthodox, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, Sociolinguistics, USA, USSR

How I Determined Intelligibility For Turkic Lects

Steve: This is amazing. Well done. But how can you possibly know the degree of mutual intelligibility between two languages you don’t speak or know if something is a language or dialect when you don’t speak it? That seems strange. How is it worked out?

Linguists don’t speak all these languages we study. We just study languages, we don’t necessarily speak them. This is confused with the archaic use of the word linguist to mean polyglot. Honestly, many linguists do in fact speak more than one language, and quite a few of them have a pretty good knowledge of at least some of the languages that they study. But my mentor speaks only Turkish and English though he studies all Turkic languages. I don’t believe he has ever learned to speak any Turkic lect other than Turkish.

In reference to my paper here.

We are not looking for raw numbers. We just want to know if they can understand each other or not.

A lot of it is from talking to native speakers and also there was a lot of reading papers by other linguists. I also talked to other linguists a lot. Linguists typically simply state if two lects are intelligible or not. Also there is a basic idea among linguists of what the boundary is between a language and a dialect, and I used this knowledge a lot.

Can they understand each other? Yes or no. That’s pretty much about it. Also at some degree of structural difference, we can see the difference between a language and a dialect. It’s a judgement call, but linguists are pretty good at this.

There is a subsection of very loud linguists, mostly on the Internet, who like to screech a lot about this question cannot be answered by answered because of this or that red herring or some odd conundrums that work their way in. The thing is if you ask around enough, you will be able to get around all of the conundrums and you should be able to eventually reconcile all of the divergent responses to get some sort of a holistic or “big picture.” You finally “figure it out.” The answer to the question comes to you in a sort of a “seeing the answer as part of a larger picture” sort of thing.

The worst red herring is this notion that speakers from Group A will lie and say they do not understand speakers of Group B simply because they hate them so much. If this was such a concern, you would have think I would have run into it at some point. A much worse problem were ethnic nationalists who lie and say that they can understand neighboring tongues when they can’t.

The toxin called Pan-Turkism or Turkish ultranationalism comes into play here. It is almost normal for Turks to believe that there is only one Turkic languages, and it is called Turkish. All of the rest of the languages simply do not exist and are dialects of Turkish. I had to deal with regular attacks by extremely aggressive Ataturkists who insisted that any Turk could easily understand any other Turkic language. Actually my adviser told me that my piece would not be popular with the Pan-Turkics at all. I don’t really care as I consider them to be pond scum.

Granted, some of it was quite controversial and I got variable reports on intelligibility for some lects like Siberian Tatar vs. Tatar, the Altai languages, Kazakh vs. Kirghiz, Crimean Tatar vs. Turkish.

Where native speakers differ on such questions, often vociferously, you simply ask enough of them, talk to some experts and try to get a feel for that what best answer to the question is.

Some cases like Gagauz vs. Turkish probably need raw intelligibility testing. That’s the only one that is up in the air right now, but it is up in the air because the lects are so close. Intelligibility between Gagauz and Turkish is somewhere between  70-100%. In other words, they have marginal intelligibility at worst. My Gagauz expert who knows this language better than anyone though feels that Turkish intelligibility of Gagauz is less than 90%, which is where I drew the line at language and dialect.

It is also starting to look like Nogay is a simply a dialect of Kazakh instead of a separate language, but that might be a hard sell.

Some of these are seen as separate languages simply because they are spoken by different ethnies who do not want to be seen as part of the same group. Also they have different literary norms. Karapalkak is just a Kazakh dialect, but the speakers want to say they speak a separate language. Same with Bashkir, which is simply a dialect of Tatar. The case of Kazakh and Kirghiz is more controversial, but even here, we seem to be dealing with one language, yet the two dialects are spoken by different ethnies that have actually differentiated into two separate states, each with their own literary norm. Kazakhs wish to say they speak a language c called Kazakh and Kirghiz wish to say they speak a language called Kirghiz although they are probably really just one language.

We see a similar thing with Czech and Slovak. My recent research has proven that Czech and Slovak are actually a single language. But the dialects are spoken by different ethnic groups who claim different cultures and histories and they have actually divided into two different states, and each has its own literary norm.

It is here, where dialects become languages not via science by via politics, culture, history and sociology, that Weinrich’s famous dictum that “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy” comes into play.

Scientifically, these are all simply dialects of a single tongue but we call them languages for sociological, cultural and political reasons.

2 Comments

Filed under Altaic, Balto-Slavic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Bashkir, Comparitive, Crimean Tatar, Czech, Dialectology, Gagauz, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Kazakh, Kipchak, Kyrgyz, Language Classification, Linguistics, Nationalism, Political Science, Slavic, Slovak, Sociolinguistics, Tatar, Turkic, Turkish, Ultranationalism

A Very Unusual Request to My Readers

I know this is a very unusual request, but bear with me.

I have a friend in India. He absolutely hates India, he hates the culture, the religion, everything. To him, it’s just rotten. And of course he is right. It is rotten. India is where you soul goes to die. He’s a Christian, so the whole society offends him.

He is a very smart guy, an intellectual, and he’s quite learned. He seems to have quite a bit of money. He is part way through completing a course in Accounting. I have no doubt that he can become an Accountant. He seems to be a nice looking guy to me, but I am not much of a judge of male looks. He is 36 years old. His English is excellent, albeit with a strong accent. He is very Aryan in looks. Honestly, if you met him, you would not even know he was Indian. He looks like a European, albeit a rather swarthy one, maybe a Med.

He’s not particular at all about women. He has almost no requirements that way.  Just under 40, speaks English and no Indian women for some reason.

This guy wants to get out of India even though he has money. The place is literally killing him, basically because he is a good  person, and Indian society is rotten. He is also very afraid of the new fascist BPP party in power. He says there is no place in India for people like him and he is afraid that the Hindutva fascists will beat him up or even kill him.

He will do anything to get out of that place.

He figures his best shot is to marry an American woman. However, he absolutely does not want to do a VISA fraud immigration marriage. That’s a fake marriage just to get into the country. It’s a felony and he wants nothing to do with that. He was formerly married to a Frenchwoman, so he is compatible with Western society and Western women. As Indian men go, he’s not much of a pig at all. He genuinely loves women. He will only marry in a real marriage to a real woman who really wants to marry him. Anyway there’s nothing in it for her for a fake marriage anyway.  He won’t pay her a nickel for that.

She  could talk to him on Facebook, and he can call her and talk to her on the phone. He calls the US all the time. If she talks to him on Facebook and on the phone and likes him, he will fly her to India so she can meet him. She can spend some time with him there to see if she likes him or not. He wants a woman under 40.

The thing is, if one of my readers can help me with this  problem and run an amateur marriage bureau for this fellow and find him a wife, he can make it very much worth our while. And there is nothing whatsoever illegal about that.

If he is lying to me and he is really trying to do a fake immigration marriage, well, that is a felony and he may well be caught. At that point, he will have to face the music.

I do not get involved in shady schemes, but this is 100% legal for you and me, and he seems to be on the up and up. He wants to do this in a legal and proper way.

My haters are going to rake me over the coals for this post, but so what. The thing is that if one of my commenters can help me with this, this fellow promises to pay for being a marriage bureau for him. And he will pay well.

Most  people are going to say this is nuts and blow it off, but if you think you can do it and you want to make some money, comment or shoot me an email and we will talk about it.

Thanks in advance.

258 Comments

Filed under Asia, Christianity, Culture, East Indians, Hinduism, Immigration, India, Law, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Romantic Relationships, South Asia, South Asians, Ultranationalism

There Are No Good Guys

A frequent cause of retardation which afflicts the vast majority of people is the tendency to divide the world into “good guys” and “bad guys.” Trust me. It’s crap! It’s just another cognitive lie, a mental trap, quicksand for your brain.

This is particularly true in terms of politics and geopolitics. There is a human tendency towards black and white thinking, which is automatically retarded. Anyone who engages in black and white thinking is a retard. As you can see, most people are Goddamned retards. The tendency is to divide the world into the good guys and the bad guys. This is seen in most horrific fashion in politics, geopolitics and nationalism, three forms of brain poison sure to melt the brains of most who tread their way.

The overwhelming majority of people are black and white thinkers when it comes to politics. I have known a number of people near gifted and even genius IQ’s who engaged in this brain mush their entire lives.

My father was a notorious case. Democrats were good, always good, always pure, 100% white, angelic, detergent clean and smelling nice. The Democrats could do no wrong.

Republicans were always evil. They were the enemy, the Orcs. They were never right. They were always wrong. They wore black. They snarled a lot. They smelled foul. Their breath was sulfurous. They had forked tails and carried pitchforks.

Everything the Democrats did was good. They were always good. Everything. Everything. I mean everything. If you suggested that Democrats were human, that is, yes, they acted good a lot but they also acted evil a lot, you got a raging torrent of abuse from my father.

All through the Clinton years, as Clinton committed one political atrocity after another, I would bring it up to my father.

“Did you see the way he just got rid of welfare? Just like a good Republican, huh?…Did you how Billary just got rid of Glass-Steagal? Real “progressive, huh, Dad?…Hey Dad, did you notice that in the past week, Clinton did 12 different horribly anti-environmental things? What’s so liberal about that, Dad?…Huh?”

He would always tense up his face and start pounding the table with his fist like he always did.

“He had to! You don’t understand! He had to! He had no choice!”

OK so whenever Bill was being a good liberal once in a blue moon, he was doing what he thought was right, but all the rightwing atrocities and political crimes were because he “had to.” Why did he have to? Apparently because if Bill caved like the good Eisenhower Republican that he was (a misnomer – actually Billary was much worse than Ike), it was because Republicans were putting a gun to his head and forcing him to. And if Billary didn’t commit this reactionary outrage, he would lose the next election, the Republicans would get in, and the sky would fall. The only way to keep Democrats in office was for the Dems to spend four years acting like liberal Republicans. Because if they didn’t, you know, the real Republicans would get in, and that would be so much worse.

Really you are giving me a choice of two shit sandwiches to eat, the Democratic shit sandwich, which according to my father, was actually quite tasty, and the Republican shit sandwich, which was sure to make you retch.

The Democrats could do no wrong. When they were liberal, they were good. When they were mushy centrist invertebrates, they were good too, and why I don’t know. And when they were imitating Republicans, which was most of the time, they were good too. And how is it good when Democrats imitate Republicans?  Because they only do so in a mild way, and if they didn’t, the Republicans double down with the real 190 proof reactionary poison.

This gets very tiresome. Conservative and reactionary politics suck, everywhere and at all times. They suck now, they sucked in the past, and they will suck forevermore because there’s nothing good about conservatism. It’s rotten at its very core. I assure you that conservatism blows just as much when Democrats do it as when Republicans do it. An outrage is an outrage, whether you friend or your enemy commits it.

I still know a lot of people like this. Democrats can do no wrong.

By the same token, US foreign policy is always right. We are never wrong.
Why?

Um, um, um…

Because the flag and the troops and bullshit bullshit democracy and city on a hill and exceptionalism delusion. Because because because. Because for no reason because. Because we’re not thinking because. Just because. Because America. Because patriotism. Because love it or leave it. Because support the troops.

Because America is always the good guy. Because the friends of America are always the good guys. Because the enemies of America are always 100% evil, dark, black, Satanic black holes of pure malice and wickedness.

Because we’re not thinking. Because we’re patriotards. Because the media told us and we believe the lying media. Because America would never lie. 

Because we’re the good guys, dammit!

I’m crying! You’re talking about my country now! My country must always be good. It can never be bad. Everything must be black and white. Because I can’t think.  Because I have a 150 goddamn IQ, and I still can’t think. Because I’m an idiot. Because I’m a highly intelligent idiot, but I’m still an idiot. Because I don’t have the balls to think like a man.

Got some news for you.

Good guys are often bad in politics. Bad guys are sometimes good in politics.

There are no good guys in politics. In politics, there’s bad guys and worse guys, and that’s it. 

Geopolitics is worse. There are no good guys in geopolitics because geopolitics is based on pure Machiavellian evil. Power politics is wicked at its very core. When it comes to geopolitics, only sociopaths need apply. Anyone else will have a moral crisis. Hence all US Presidents, Vice Presidents, State Department officials, CIA directors, Defense secretaries and Pentagon generals must be some variety of sociopath. A decent person would not be able to do such a criminal job and still look himself in the mirror in the morning. He would either quit or blow his brains out.

In power politics, domestic and foreign, there are no good guys.  There’s bad guys and worse guys, and that’s it.

Pick your poison. Get it through your damned heads.

There are no good guys. There’s bad guys and worse guys, and that’s it.

3 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Geopolitics, Government, Liberalism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Republicans, US Politics

No Conservatives Allowed on This Website!

We have had a few conservatives posting here in the past few days. These are US-style conservatives, which are the worst kind of all. US-style conservatives are absolutely banned from posting here in any way, shape or form.

Conservatism means different things in different countries, so conservatives from much of the rest of the world (except Latin America and the UK) can continue to post. Even Canadian conservatives can continue to post, as I do not mind them. It’s not conservatism itself that is so awful. Almost every country on Earth has people who call themselves conservatives, and there are conservative parties in almost every country on Earth. But being a conservative just about anywhere outside of the Americas is more or less an acceptable position for me. I probably won’t like their politics much, but I could at least look at them and say that this is an opposition I could live with.

US conservatives and their brethren in the UK, Latin America, the Philippines, Nepal and and Indonesia are quite a different beast.

I have to think hard about conservatives in Eastern Europe, especially Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. These fools had such a bad experience with Communism that they went 180 degrees in the other direction. I would have to see the positions of these conservative parties in those countries to see whether they would be OK or not.

Just to give you an example, Vladimir Putin is considered to be a right-winger, and his party United Russia advocates a politics called Russian Conservatism. Looking at the party’s platform, this is not only a conservatism that I could live with but one I might even vote for!

Conservatives in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and most other places in Asia are acceptable. The conservatives in the Stans, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia can be rather awful, particularly in the nationalist sense, but I will not ban them.

I dislike Indian conservatives, but I will not ban them.

Conservatives from the Muslim World are all acceptable. In the Muslim World, conservatism just means religious and sometimes nationalist. I can live with that. Even the ones in Iran are orders of magnitude better than the US type.

Conservatives in the Arab World are acceptable. They are mostly just religious people.

Turkish conservatives are awful, but I will not ban them. They are just religious and a particularly awful type of nationalist.

African conservatives are OK.

Conservatives in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany,  the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Italy, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania are sometimes good, sometimes pretty bad, but they are all acceptable here. Conservatism in Europe mostly means nationalism. I am actually rather fond of the conservative running Hungary, Orban. LePen conservatives leave something to be desired, but they are acceptable. They’re mostly just nationalists. Hell, I might even vote for Marine LePen! If it was down to LePen versus Macron, I would absolutely support LePen!

Conservatives from Indonesia, Nepal and Philippines are not OK. These are an “everything for the rich elite, nothing for anybody else” type of conservative. Some of them even hide under the labels of Socialist or even Communist.

The word conservative has no real inherent meaning. It means whatever people say it means.

Anyway, the conservatives in the US are pure garbage and recently they have become out and out fascists after moving in that direction for a long time. And a particularly horrible type of fascist at that, a Latin American/Filipino/Indonesian style fascist. I will not allow any US conservatives to post on this board. You all are lucky I even let you lurk here. That’s an idle threat as I can’t ban lurkers, but if they all stopped lurking, I would not mind frankly.

You all really ought to go back to the gutters you crawled out of.

PS This especially applies to Libertarians, the very worst of all the US conservative vermin. We shoot Libertarians on sight here, so you better watch out.

*This applies only to economic conservatives. If you are not an economic conservative, and your conservatism is only of the social variety or you are only conservative on race, religion, guns, law and order, respect for tradition, American nationalism, the military, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity issues, you can stay. I’m not crazy about some social conservatives, but I can live with them. I will probably even let patriotards post as long as they are not economic conservatives.

I am an American nationalist myself. I just don’t like patriotards. Of course, I very much dislike and even hate the country as it is right now, but I sure don’t want to make it worse! I have to live here too you now, and it might as well be as pleasant as possible as long I stay here.

I want what’s best for my country. I don’t want to harm this country or screw it over. That will be bad for me! And believe it or not, most US patriotards do not want what is best for the country! I have dreams of a greater and better America. It’s not impossible, but we will have to undergo some serious cultural changes. One of the reasons I am so against illegal immigration is because it is ruining my country and making this place even worse. Also illegal immigration is terrible for US workers and I am for the workers. I am against H-1B visas for the same reason – they are wrecking my country. IT workers are workers too, so they are my comrades. I want what is best for America and American workers.

I cannot live with economic conservatives. I like cancer way more than I like US conservatives. Cancer is much more decent and respectable.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Armenia, Asia, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Cambodia, Conservatism, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Fascism, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Illegal, Immigration, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Islam, Italy, Japan, Labor, Latin America, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near East, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Political Science, Portugal, Regional, Religion, Romania, Russia, SE Asia, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, USA

Why the Cultural Left Lies So Much

One of the many idiocies of the Cultural Left is that it hates so many traditional beliefs that human groups have. It hates them because these bits of traditional wisdom are typically not PC. The Cultural Left has an odd way of diving the truth.

Their exegesis goes like this:

If a statement is not PC, it is false.

If a statement is PC, it is true.

Wow! That’s quite an impressive philosophical view of the Truth they have there. Plato must be rolling in his grave!

So in a sense, the Cultural Left is waging war. One of the principle wars they are waging is a war against Normality. The Cultural Left hates the very idea that any human behavior is normal. If you say you are a normal person, the Cultural Left hates you. The only way to be accepted by them is to be a pervert, deviant or weirdo. Normal people are evil because they are insult to the freaks we all must become.

The other war that the Cultural Left wages is against Truth. The Cultural Left defines truth as PC. Falsehood means not PC. This stupid belief system is why the various Identity Politics Cultural Left groups lie so much. These IP groups just end up being propaganda vehicles for whatever group they are agitating on behalf of:

Gay Identity Politics is just propaganda for gays.

Feminism is simply propaganda for women.

Transsexual Politics is simply propaganda for trannies.

Modern antiracism is simply propaganda against racist beliefs since  the truth about Race violates many tenets of Antiracism, hence the need for propaganda to turn Truth into Lies and Lies into Truth.

Ethnic nationalism, all of it, is just propaganda for that particular ethnic group.

Islamic IP is simply Islamic propaganda.

Nationalism (the oldest form of IP, as IP is simply tribalism) is simply propaganda for that particular country.

Immigrant IP is just propaganda for immigrants.

Fat IP is propaganda for landwhales.

Looksist IP is propaganda for fuglies.

And on and on. Propaganda of course is based on lies. That’s pretty much the definition of it. Because the various IP forms are simply propaganda vehicles for the groups in question, the Cultural Left ends up lying continuously. Any blemished truths about the group must be denied. Anything positive about the group, if anything, must be exaggerated to the point of absurdity. You can’t have a belief system that says what’s good for my guys is Truth and what’s bad for my guys is Falsehood. If you do, every other statement out of your mouth is going to be a lie designed to protect and promote your group.

5 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Cultural Marxists, Ethnic Nationalism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Immigration, Islam, Left, Nationalism, Political Science, Racism, Scum, Sex, Sociology