Category Archives: Nationalism

New Radio Show Contains a Discussion of Me

Here.

I will have more to say about this later.

Robert Stark talks to Ryan Englund about the SJW Riots

Robert Stark, co-host Pilleater, and Rabbit talk to Ryan Englund. He blogs at Samizdat Chronicles.

Topics:

The The UC Berkeley antifa/SJW Riots against Trump and Milo.
The parallels between Milo’s colorblind Civic Nationalism compared to the Alt Left and Rabbit’s Identitarian Alt Left.
How Fox News and other mainstream conservatives outlets have described the rioters as Alt Left, and how that contributes to SJW entryists into the Alt Left.
Alt Left founder Robert Lindsay disowns the Left Wing of the Alt Right over Trump and calls for an Alliance with the PC/SJW Left against Trump and the Republican Party.
Ryan’s point that there cannot be an Alt Left/SJW Alliance.
Ryan’s critic of SJW’s antifa from a classical Marxist perspective.
Ryan’s article Are You Tired of Winning Yet? on Trump’s performance, both the good and bad aspects.
Trump’s accomplishment stopping the Trans Pacific Partnership and his immigration policies.
Trump’s plutocratic cabinet and talk about repealing financial regulations.
Trump’s foreign policy, his saber rattling against Iran, and how the combination of Trump’s friendliness to both Israel and Russia has divided the neocons.
Saudi Arabia and the Petrodollar.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, oil nationalization, and alternative energy.
Romantic racism, and how it has affected the environmental and antiwar movements.
Social Credit, and the Alberta Social Credit Party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Asia, California, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Environmentalism, Eurasia, Geopolitics, Government, Higher Education, Immigration, Iran, Israel, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, US Politics, USA, Vanity, West

The Alt Left Is Not a Harmful Left Splinter Movement

Alt Left? Alt Left? And meanwhile, whilst the Left splinters off into subgroups crying about Jews or Transsexuals, the Far Right railroads on, picking up more followers whilst bunch of fuckwits delay and confuse any leftwing action. Twats!

First of all, the Alt Left is a tiny movement right now. Most people have never even heard of it. What everyone thinks is the Alt Left is not the Alt Left at all. In fact, it is just the Left in all its Cultural Left SJW glory, with an emphasis on the more left elements like Sanders.

The Alt Left doesn’t talk much about Jews or trannies these days. To the extent that we do, it is only because these are interesting topics of discussion. There’s nothing much to be done with Jews or trannies or any similar entities politically anyway. Neither are going to change or go anywhere. They will stay right where they are doing just what they do.

The Alt Left is not splintering away the Left. It has extremely limited appeal on the Left anyway. Most of its adherents seem to be splitting off somewhat from the Right.

It’s a great new movement with a lot of potential. It’s not bad for the Left at all. In fact, it’s great for the Left. It doesn’t matter anyway as most of the Left thoroughly rejects the Alt Left.

Right now, the Alt Left priority is fighting against Trump and the Republicans in the US. In the UK, the Alt Left should be fighting against Cameron’s ultra-Thatcherism and the growing fascistization of your land. It should be the same in most places. The primary enemy of the Alt Left is the Right, all around the world. We do argue with some of the Modern Left because they think the Modern Left has gone insane, which is true, but the Cultural Left is not our primary enemy at the moment. They are mostly just annoying foolish morons.

Although we do not like the Cultural Left, we will make alliance with them against Trump and the Republicans if they will ally with us. Right now the Alt Left is supporting the protests against Trump, even the violent ones. We are supporting the riots, the antifa and the Black Bloc. We believe non-peaceful protest should be an option.

The Alt Left are “conservative Leftists.” We are Leftists who are somewhat socially conservative. We are also nationalists. We are similar to the Old Left in the US before the early 1960’s. We are also similar to the ideology of a lot of older Communist regimes.

  • I am having a very hard time seeing how the Alt Left harms the Left at all. They don’t even like us anyway. Someone needs to explain to me how the Alt Left hurts the Left. I am just not getting it. Basically we are grabbing people who are drifting towards Trumpism and the Alt Right and shoehorning them into a corner of the Left. Our intention is to grow the Left, not shrink it.

13 Comments

Filed under Britain, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Europe, Fascism, Left, Marxism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA

Israelis, Islamists, Hindutvadis and Fascism

William: Robert- I suppose it may be splitting hairs, but isn’t Israel about the Jewish faith? I mean it’s not like they’re all secular Jews – they’re linked by faith as much as bloodline.

Jews by blood but who have never been religious are not granted citizenship to Israel, although they are allowed to immigrate/reside there (green card equivalent).

RL: So Israel’s about the Jewish faith? “So what,” I would say. What does that have to do with anything?

William: Lindsay- I’m just saying it makes it not blatantly fash. Just kind of crypto-fash. There is a pretense not about race/bloodline.

OK, I can go along with that. I have always worried that these Lefties people calling Christian fundies Christo-fascists and the Islamists Islamofascists were going too far.

But in India, those Hindutvadis, well, they are pretty close to real deal fascism. They are not racist fascists. I suppose they are religious fascists. But the Hindutvadis are far more fascist than the Israelis or Islamists are.

There is a real question and a good debate going on regarding whether a religiously based fascism is even possible. But there was something resembling that in Croatia under World War 2. There was a racist-fascist (Nazi) regime called the Ustashe that killed Serbs, Jews, and, well, anyone who was not a Croat. However, a number of Serbs were given opportunity to convert to Catholicism and become in effect Serbs. The opportunity was given at gunpoint. It was covert or die, just like the Muslims did and sometimes still do. This would seem to be a Nazi-like regime that seemed to be based on religion at least in part.

There were also Chetniks roaming around in the mountains. These were Serbian Far Right guerrillas, often with a Serbian Orthodox priest traveling with them in the bands, who killed everyone who was not a Serb – Catholics, Muslims, etc. I believe they also fought against the Nazis though. The Chetniks would seem to be a sort of religiously-based racist fascism. There were also much more numerous Communist guerrillas roaming around the countryside at the same time, and they and the Chetniks did not have good relations.

Some Leftist theorists have recently been suggesting that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was actually fascist in a sense, and they laid out a theory on why that was. I am not sure if I bought it though.

63 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, European, Fascism, Hinduism, History, India, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Modern, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Serbia, South Asia, Ultranationalism, War, World War 2

The Old “Arab Israelis Have It So Good” Argument

Malla: Well, I did some research on this and it seems the Mizrahi had a more realistic opinion about Arabs and non Whites in general, while the Ashkenazim (and maybe Sephardics), especially during the early days of Israel, had a more idealistic opinion of the Third World. But the Mizrahi themselves are non-Whites. If Arabs and non-Whites then so are Mizrahis because Mizrahis are just Arabs. Besides, many Ashkenazis came with socialistic ideas of kibbutz farming and hippieness, while the Mizrahi were more realistic.

Check this interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80NnYflDU8

Check out the Ashkenazi/Mizrahi couple at 6:52. So it seems more Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) are more right wing and support predatory violent behavior towards Arabs and Palestinians, while the Ashkenazis (Euro Jews) vote more left and are friendlier to Arabs (idealistic mindset). I do not know how the Sephardics and Ethiopians Jews vote.

Besides, Israel has a massive poverty rate, one of the highest in OECD countries. No wonder they get pissed by migrants from Africa taking way their jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSd0rgTc1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPuQwFX2J2A

But Israel has an overall high standard of living. Arabs in Israel, in spite of whatever racism they face, have a higher standard of living and social freedoms than most other Arab countries. Only Tunisia and Christian-dominated Lebanon come close in social freedom, and the Gulf states are the only ones who have more income among Arabs.

This is similar to the case in Rhodesia and South Africa where the Blacks had a higher standard of living than Blacks in the rest of the African continent. Or Singapore, where the Indians and Malays have a higher standard of living than Malaysia and definitely (much, much, much) higher standard of living than India thanks to the huge Chinese population. Singapore’s quality of life is comparable to other Chinese majority developed places like Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. One may ask that if Anglo-Celts and other Northern Euros never came to Australia would such an Australia (Australia full of only aborigines) be so developed as it is today or it would be more like Papua New Guinea.

It’s pretty bad to compare the surrounding Arabs with New Guineans and Aborigines. The whole Arab World is built up to Hell. They’re all modern countries over there. I have seen photos of Libya before the war, and it looks like Miami. I saw a recent photo of Casablanca, and it looked like LA. I have seen photos of the rest of the region, even war-torn Syria and Iraq, and they look like regular modern countries. There’s not a lot of difference between in the ordinary street scene between Amman, Beirut, Damascus or even Cairo and Tel Aviv. It all looks the same, like any modern built-up country.

There is none of the horrible poverty you see in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Latin America or Black Africa.

Arabs will not tolerate that sort of abject shantytown type poverty. They are basically socialist people who don’t care about money too much and believe that everyone should be well taken care of. Social safety nets are ordinary things in every Arab country. There’s no debate about this sort of thing. They are not individualists. They are collectivists. And they don’t think rich people are better than poor people. They are not particularly greedy, and they have a “We are all part of one village” mindset wherever they live.

Semi-feudalism came late to the Arab World via the Ottomans, and it never worked well. There were landed gentry and fellahin, or landless peasants. Nasser was the man who confiscated the land from the land barons and gave it to the landless peasants. If you went around the whole Arab World back then, even in say Yemen, there was a portrait of Nasser on every wall. Now in Western or Latin American culture, doing that is called Communism, and everyone hates it. But the Arabs love this sort of thing.

Baath nationalist parties came in in Syria and Iraq around 1960, a revolutionary socialist state arose in Libya in 1969, and another one was birthed in Algeria in 1964. Land was confiscated from feudal latifundiaists in all of these place and distributed to the peasants. The governments were all officially socialist, secularization was enforced even at gunpoint if it took that, huge safety nets were set up, and the state even got involved in quite a few of the larger industries and became a major employer. All of this was wildly popular all over the region.

US style radical individualism and Libertarian free market capitalism is totally anathema to all of those societies. For one thing, it goes against Islam, as Islam is a socialist religion. In feudal times, large Arab landowners enlisted the help of the local imams in interpreting parts of the Koran where it said, “Some are rich, and some are poor, and that’s all just fine” or something to that effect, but it never worked well. It ended up turning the local imams into hated figures like the priests of Catholic Church in the West and Latin America who always sided with the rich against the people.

So this whole idea that the Israeli Arabs have it good for having some extra money falls flat on Arab and even Arab Israeli ears. Standard of living is not number one on their list of the most important things in life.

If the Arabs are all so jealous of Israel, why are the non-oil Arabs are not jealous of the oil Arabs? Typical Jews to reduce everything down to money. Arabs don’t care that much about money. They don’t revolve their whole lives around money or sit around hating Jews for having more skyscrapers. That’s not important to your average Arab.

I have never in my life heard one Arab tell me they were jealous of Israel.

In Palestine, White European racist fascists invaded the region, started wars with everyone around them, and, being high IQ, produced a developed economy. So what? These jerks get brownie points because they are rich? I’m supposed to love them because they’re rich and hate those Arabs because they’re poor?

The commenter is an Indian, that’s why he thinks that way. We are socialists here; we don’t think like this. Actually I think the more money someone has, the worse of a person he tends to be, but that’s just me.

All of these arguments were used by the South Africans who practiced a very similar White settler-colonial project far after this stuff went out of style.

Arabs in Israel are not happy people. They’re angry, and they have no loyalty to the state at all. The Jewish fascists say the Arabs are traitors, and the Jews are actually correct on that score. Indeed they have no loyalty to the state and do not even see themselves as Israelis.

The similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa are striking. It’s notable that Israel was long one of South Africa’s strongest allies, and towards the end, it was one of their only allies. Arab Israelis are are institutionally treated as second class citizens in exactly the same way the Blacks were under apartheid. 

Were those Blacks happier on their South African Nigger Plantation because they had a higher standard of living? They were not, but this was the argument that was used to show that they were happy Negroes toiling away cheerfully in the sun for their beloved White slavemasters. Similarly, South Africa moved into the neighborhood and in a matter of time, like Israel, it was soon also embroiled in wars with most if not all of its neighbors. Similarly, South Africa, like Israel, had zero friends in the region.

Blacks in South Africa and Arabs in Israel don’t want money and stuff. White Gentiles and Jews only care about money, and they don’t care about humans, so they think everyone else feels that way too. But they don’t. People want to be free, even if being free means not having as much stuff. Stuff doesn’t make people happy. You can keep giving your slave the latest gadgetry in his slave quarters, but he’s still not a free man.

Same with South Africa. Hey look, these White European racist fascists came in here and built up the region and made a big economy because they have higher IQ’s! So what. I am supposed to like them more because they are rich and hate those Africans because they are poor? I realize this is Indian thinking, but we socialists do not think that way.

Arabs have more political rights in all of the Arab World. In the Arab World, they are not systematically discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity.

I would argue that those Arabs in Israel do not want all of those social freedoms. Freedom to do what?

And what social freedoms do they have there that they do not have in the rest of the region? How are the social freedoms of Arab Israeli Christians better than those of Arab Christians in Lebanon or Syria? Someone needs to clue me.

429 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Egypt, Europeans, Fascism, Government, History, India, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Lebanon, Libya, Malays, Malaysia, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Morocco, Nationalism, North Africa, Pacific, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, SE Asians, Settler-Colonialism, Singapore, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, South Asia, South Asians, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Whites

More on Israel and Its Neighbors, or How Christians Invented Suicide Bombing

Jason Y: So do you think Israel is more hated by its neighbors and people it oppresses than by the neighbors of Apartheid South Africa and the people it oppressed? Possibly the settler colonies run by Europeans had a mix of NAM’s who either liked them or didn’t. Perhaps Israel is unable to win any friends at all among NAM’s.

It’s because of how they act! South Africa, same thing. Look at how they acted.

First of all, about half of Israeli Jews are affectively NAM’s themselves! 50% of the Jewish population of Israel are Mizrachi Jews. These are the Jews of the Arab World. They are pretty much just Arabs who happen to be Jewish. Their culture is Judeo-Islamic as the Ashkenazi culture is Judeo-Christian. They lived around Muslims so long that they become rather Islamicized culturally.

Most of them have become some of the most fanatical Israelis of them all, but that’s another story, and they’re not all like that. They are caught between two worlds. They really are just Arabs who practice a different religion like Arab Christians. They have  IQ’s to match. Their IQ’s are ~90. Apparently they never went through the brutal selection for intelligence that occurred under Talmudic Ashkenazi Jews from 1000-1800. High Jewish IQ is the result of a direct selection for intelligence. However, now most of them ferociously deny being Arabs to the point where if you call a Mizrachi Jew an Arab, you might get punched.

There are not many non-Jews over there who liked Israel. There are practically no Arabs who like them. No Iranians like them. Even Turks and Greeks hate them, and they are not even in the neighborhood.

The Israelis are bullies. Have you ever noticed what happens when bullies bully lots of victims for long periods of time leaving the victims with no way whatsoever to fight back? The amount of absolutely insane and frequently homicidal rage that builds up in victims that are not allowed to fight back is terrifying. This is what is going on with the Arabs and Israel.

There some Israeli Druze who fight in the Israeli Army. Why the Israeli Druze support Israel, I have no idea because the Syrian, Lebanese and Golan Druze hate them with insane fervor. And Druze are so weird that if you ask me, they’re not even Muslims. That religion is completely outside of Islam for all intents and purposes, and Druze are very secular people.

Many Israeli Bedouins have sided with Israel for some crazy reason even though the Israelis treat them horrifically.

The Maronites in Lebanon have long been Israeli allies for complex reasons. For one, they hate Arabs with a passion, especially Muslim Arabs, and they insist that they are not Arabs, even though they are. They say they are “Phoenicians.” It’s bull.

The Gamalist Maronites are the people who first brought fascism to Lebanon. I mean the real deal. The ancestors of the present day leaders were open Nazi sympathizers. One had Nazi flags in his locker at school. I suppose they hate Arabs and Muslims and Israelis do too, so there’s your alliance. For many years, they served as a proxy army for Israel in Israeli-occupied South Lebanon. Many of them went to Israel after the occupation ended because they were afraid they would be killed as traitors in their own country. Incidentally, this Occupation is what created Hezbollah. That’s right. Hezbollah is Israel’s baby.

Now since then, this group of Maronites still hates Hezbollah, but things have calmed down. In the 1996 Israel-Lebanon War, the Maronites were officially neutral. Mostly they set up checkpoints outside their neighborhoods. They said they were defending them against Hezbollah. After that war had gone on for a while, even the neutral and formerly pro-Israel Gamalist Maronites started getting mad, and they said if they wear did not stop soon, they would take up arms against Israel themselves. They said they would not fight with Hezbollah but instead would fight separately.

A separate group of Maronites, the Aounists, are in an alliance with Hezbollah for some years now. So about half of even the Maronites in Lebanon are allied with Hezbollah!

During that war, the Israeli army went into a Christian village in South Lebanon in the middle of the night. They got about halfway into the village. The Lebanese Army was in the village and knew the Israelis were there but refused to come out and fight. That’s because the Lebanese Army is pretty useless.

The village appeared to be deserted. Every light in town went off when the Israelis came in and the whole place went dead silent. It was rather eerie. The Israelis got halfway inside the village, when out of nowhere the whole village opened fire on them with automatic weapons out of complete darkness. The Israelis rapidly retreated from this village. This village is 100% Greek Orthodox Christians.

There is a party with its own army called SSNP which is pretty much the party and army of the Greek Orthodox Christians in the region. It was SSNP who opened up on the Israelis. The SSNP are some of the most crazed and fanatical Israel-haters of them all, and they’re all Christians! During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, we saw mass suicide bombings for the first time. For some time, almost all of these suicide bombings were the work of SSNP fighters, often women. So you see that the suicide bombing phenomenon was largely started by Christians! If you want to know why the SSNP hate Israel so much, it’s because they are some of the craziest Arab nationalists of them all.

Israeli officers work alongside Turkish, US, British, Saudi, and Qatari officers inside Syria alongside Saudi, Qatari, US, British and Jordanian officers in Jordan to help the Syrian rebels. One of the main groups that those officers are helping in Jordan and Syria is Al Qaeda.

That’s one of the reasons Arabs on the street often hate the Saudi, Qatari, and Jordanian governments – they work with the Israeli military.

The Israelis and the Saudi Royal Family have long had some crazy alliance. I have no idea what it’s all about.

The Israelis and Jordan have some sort of an alliance.

Egyptian and Israeli officers work together in the Sinai at the Gaza border. That’s one reason a lot of people hate Sisi. His army works with the Israeli military.

53 Comments

Filed under Africa, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Bedouins, Christianity, Culture, Druze, Egypt, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Jordan, Judaism, Lebanon, Middle East, Nationalism, North Africa, Orthodox, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Terrorism, War

A Marxist Alt Left Critique on the Modern Left

From Facebook:

Well I’m basically Marxist myself, and I don’t really recall references to patriarchy or white supremacy in Marx’s writings. Patriarchy Theory was crapped out by one William Fourier, of whom Marx was a critic. Marx and Engels strayed into feminist territory a bit, with ideals the later would explore a bit more in The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.

But forms of socialism that emphasized race or nationalism they would have considered “reactionary.” They said next to nothing about racial and sexual identity, and it came down to later “Marxist-feminist” theorists to hash out what has since become the dogma of the Far Left on those matters, which is generally inapplicable and puritanical. Marxist Feminism was very marginal in both feminist and Marxist circles well into the 1960s.

I chuckled at the guy who said that patriarchy and White supremacy were more effective impediments to revolution than police repression. I can’t help but wonder how many “angry white dudes” who are really angry at their economic prospects, or lack thereof, have been put off of Leftism in the last forty years due to how anti-White and anti-male it’s become.

Leftism today is exactly what Marx was critical of in his own time: romanticization of some idealized past or foreign culture. In a lot of ways, this is what the Alt-Right has become also, only it’s their own feudal past rather than some African or North American society onto which they’re projecting their own disdain for technological society. As to the Woman Question, idealization of women typifies repressive and puritanical eras like both Queen Victoria’s and our own.

Male feminism reeks of a desire for young male radicals to regress to a childlike state where Mommy knew best, and Mommy was revered as nurturer. This is basically what I was in my late teens and early 20s, and it’s attractions are for males who have not fully matured and still tend to project maternal archetypes onto women as a whole. Once such men start actually getting some tail, they move on into adult forms of sexual (yes, sexual) relations and leave feminism behind.

Historical materialism and scientific socialism were critiques of “socialists” who idealized either their own pasts or some other culture’s. Pretty much what the Left has been since 19th century Romanticism was resurrected on such a massive scale by the 1960’s Flower Power movement.

Immaculate.

57 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Revolution, Sex, Socialism

Official Renunciation of Two Alt Left Groups and Two Alt Left Factions

According to Ryan England’s seminal work on the Alt Subtypes these are the main subtypes:

“The Left Wing of the Alt Right” – Rabbit uses this phrase quite explicitly. They are most open to race realism and most opposed to mass immigration and Islamism but are also inclined towards some kind of economic socialism or social democracy and are otherwise put off the Alt-Right somehow or other. Strasserites might be a more explicitly national socialist variant of this, and National Bolshevism would be even more out there still.  Left wing nationalism would be a softer variant of this.

“Gamergate Leftists” – Named from an article I read a while back claiming that most Gamergaters were left-leaning, these are another type. These types need not be big on Gamergate per-se (the more I studied Gamergate personally, the more lost and confused I got) but being anti-feminist (at least against the kind of PC feminist theory you’d find in a women’s studies class or on any left-leaning blog) and anti-SJW is huge with them as is civil and cultural libertarianism.

I found a number of these posting on anti-SJW pages. They come to the Alt-Left usually because of a belief in Leftist economics, though they are usually not that far Left.  Guys who believe in some regulation and a social safety net. Some too get put off by the tendency of anti-SJWs to drift into genuinely misogynistic and racist territory.  Remember kids that SJW and social liberalism are not the same things.  Think YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad or the Amazing Atheist, though they don’t use the term Alt-Left to describe themselves. Not yet, anyway. These kinds are defecting less from Richard Spencer and more from Milo Yiannopoluous. I used Gamergate’s colors in the design of my page’s logo and banner in an attempt to attract these types.

“Red Enlightenment” – These are most passionate about rationalism, skepticism, empiricism and in some cases, transhumanism and futurism. Generally scientifically minded and technocratic sorts of socialists or social democrats.

“True Liberals” – Antiracist and feminist supporters who think the whole thing has gotten out of hand and are concerned for the SJW’s lifestyle puritanism and opposition to free speech. They are more pro-feminist and pro-social liberal than the Gamergaters though. “The Democratic Party of the 1990s,” someone once remarked to me when I described the alt-left to them, to which I replied, “There were no liberals or Leftists in the 1990’s except myself.”

“Brocialists” – Socialists or social democrats with a penchant for men’s rights and anti-misandry. I seem to have drawn a number of these to my page, and a few of my moderators fall into this category. Hillary Clinton supporters have accused Bernie Sanders of using these as his base of support.  Used as a pejorative by the “Lorettas” of the present day left, I’m a firm proponent that we reclaim the term.

“Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

“The New Old Left” – Would dispense with race, culture and identity all together if they could and make Leftism mostly about economic Leftism. The Realist Left page and the blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century are like this. Farther left you’d find /leftypol/ on 8chan and some Marxist/Anarchist groups that reject IdPol.  A whole separate entry could be made of the economic subtypes one might find on the alt left.  I’ve also found a lot of labor nationalists and assorted 3rd positionists: mutualists, distributists, market socialists, state capitalists, syndicalism and so on.

A few types that I have not seen many of and would have expected more are:

Christian Leftists (Catholic Social Teaching, the social gospel and even liberation theology seem especially well suited to alt-leftism),

and

Dissident Feminists  Surely, some feminists must be frustrated with what’s happened to their movement.  It’s been a long, long time since anything this dogmatic, intolerant, and puritanical has arisen in the western world.  Those well meaning devotees to feminism and social justice time and again are the ones who come under the sternest censure for the most minor of transgressions.  How many women out there, after getting called out one time too many for some sleight micro-aggression or another think “screw this” and drift away from the movement, while still holding to its essential ideals?  Many, I would think.  I would hope.  They can’t be that hive-minded, could they?  In any event, if there are, the alt-left must be the port-of-call for women of liberal sentiment overall who reject this 21st century rehash of 16th century puritan culture.

We have already discussed most of these types here, and we can do so again if you wish. But I would like to highlight one group in particular and say that I am renouncing them and want no part of them in our movement. I am tossing them out, in other words. Well out of my Alt Left faction anyway. And as the person who created the Alt Left, I think I might want to have some say on who’s in and who’s out.

The faction I am renouncing is here:

“Red Templars” – Especially and specifically anti-Islamic. We get a lot of these from Sam Harris and Bill Maher’s followings. Unlike the Left Wing of the Alt Right types, these sorts are more standard liberals otherwise.

I just came from an Alt Left Facebook group that threw me, the founder of the movement, out of the group. And this is apparently the shitposting site for the Sam Harris group on Facebook. So these are the Sam Harris people and this is what Sam Harris people are like. Well, guess what? You’re out. As far as I can tell, you want no part our movement and we want no part of yours. Most of you are not Alt Left anyway – and many of you are actively hostile to us. Well guess what? If you are hostile to us, ou are out. Bye bye. They’re not a part of the Alt Left at all. They can go off and form their own movement and call it Sam Harris’ Jerkoff Boys Movement or whatever.

I am also renouncing two Alt Left Facebook groups who have nothing to do with our movement.

Alt-Left: Those would be the “less crazy but still crazy SJW’s and sexual deviants centered around the Alt-Left site. Renounced. You’re not us. Bye.

Alt-Leftists: The other would be the Alt-Leftists group on Facebook, which is run by Sam Harris execrable crowd. It’s not that we on on the Alt Left do not have concerns with Islam and radical Islam. It’s not that we have no concerns with Muslim integration into the US or even Europe. We just feel that it is not a core issue and it brings in far too many people who are opposed to the core principles of the movement. You’re out. Bye. It was not pleasant having you over.

Also a new faction has emerged in the True Liberals Faction. Suffice to say that these are the crazy SJW’s who are fighting the crazier SJW’s. The movement is mostly made up of sexual deviants to boot, which makes even less palatable to us. Of course true biological gay men and lesbians are welcome in any faction of our movement, but it is beyond me why would need an Alt Left gay faction? I mean I am open to the idea, but what would it look like?

Anyway, here is the new faction:

True Liberals: Anti-racist, pro-feminist (pro equity feminism, in any event) but put off by SJW extremism.  I’ve noticed a subcategory of these who are, say, cisgendered gay males or transgender people who’ve quarreled with trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERF’s.)  I’ll call these kinds Equal Rights Advocates.  Perhaps you recognize yourself among them, dear reader?

These people are not us either. They were hostile to the founder of the movement and in the short time I was in their group, they were violating quite a few of our principles, including some of core principles. They’re not one of us, or they are not part of my group anyway. They need to leave. There is no room for these showboating SJW freaks and weirdos in our Alt Left. We are trying to get away from the 24-7 Gay Pride Parade in the Streets that the Cultural Left seems intent to shove down our throats.

2 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Catholicism, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Homosexuality, Immigration, Islam, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Science, Sex, Socialism, US Politics, Weirdos

Class War in Capitalist Economies: A Brief Primer

Erik: Well we are talking about right and left wing labels. I wouldn’t call him an economic conservative. Isn’t being against free trade a left wing worker thing? Either which way I’m not so much making an argument for or against Trump, but I’ll say just as I said before; he’s a nationalist, yes?

(Wall, immigration, America first blah blah blah) and he supports increasing national sovereignty by not being part of insidious trade agreements like TPP or NAFTA. It’s not necessarily “conservative” but a mixture now, hence the need for new labels? I mention this because these were the two big policies he ran on in opposition to Obama to get elected. Meanwhile I would label Obama a globalist internationalist because of his support of open borders and immigration along with supporting TPP and other multilateral trade and defense initiatives. Guess workers don’t like that right now, as they all flocked to Trump.

Yeah but workers didn’t flock to Trump. That is one of the big lies. The bottom two quintiles of the population or people making under $40K/year heavily supported Hillary. People making under $40K/year? There’s your working class right there. And probably your White working class too. The White working class did not massively flock to Trump. That’s one of the big lies

The top three quintiles or people making over $40K heavily favored Trump. So Trump won with people who had money and the more money they had, the more they voted for Trump. I was reading on the Atlantic where they were talking to people for and against Trump and everyone writing in saying they voted Trump were people who had money and seemed to be sitting pretty. There was one White who was probably Top 40% and an Hispanic Cuban who was probably top 20%. The lines that both of them kept reiterating was, “I see myself as someone making good money and Trump is good for moneyed people like us. And we don’t like Hillary supporters because those are all blue collars, poor and low income people.”

That free trade stuff is outside of left and right. You see both Trump on the far right and Sanders on the Hard Left were pushing nationalist economics and opposition to globalism and free trade. That goes to show you that the nationalist economics versus global economics and the pro and against free traders is pretty much outside of Left and Right ideology because you have folks all over the spectrum on both sides of each issue. You could boil it down to nationalists versus internationalists, but that is outside of Right and Left too.

Trump is not rightwing? Are you kidding? He’s an extreme reactionary, one of the worst in the whole party. Look at who he is appointing his Cabinet. One thing they have in common is the Republican motto: “Everything for the rich, not one nickel for anybody else.”

He’s a class warrior. He is trying to mass transfer money and goods from the working classes and middle classes to the rich and the corporations.

Man you guys are ignorant. I am going to have to do a post on what an extreme rightwing nutcase Trump is.

Being against free trade is the only good thing about him. That’s neither left nor right. Both the left and the right are gung-ho on free trade. It gives massive benefits to the top 10% of the country and everyone loses money and loses out hard, but when it comes to free trade, both parties, the left and the right of US politic, are down with everything for the rich and fuck everybody else.

That because the US left is only for the rich and upper middle class. The US “Left” is just a bunch of groovy, socially liberal upper middle class suit and tie types on both coasts. On economics they may as well be Republicans. Those “liberal” upper middle class Democrats work for their class interests too. Their project is mass transfer of wealth from the bottom 80% to the top 20%. I guess with the Republicans it is mass transfer from the bottom 95-98% to the top 2-5%.

I mean you have to be making $125-300K before Republican policies benefit you. With the democrats, I guess they are a little bit different. I suppose once you start making $75K before Democratic policies try to help you. But I would say that they are both working against lower half the population and for sure the lower $60% of the population. Under both Democrats and Republicans, everyone making under $50-60K is getting royally screwed. They are both promoting class warfare policies of transfer of wealth and goods from the everyone making under $60K to people making more than $60K or maybe the line is $75K, who knows?

That TPP was going to help only the top 10% of the US population. That’s people making over $90K/year. So the TPP was mass transfer of wealth from everyone making below $90K to everyone making above $90K.

News flash. People tend to vote and govern in their class interests. Once people get a lot of money, it’s generally class warfare of transferring wealth from less moneyed people to more moneyed people. This sort of class war over divving up resources is is often going on in many capitalist economies. The only thing that stops it is some sort of socialism or social democracy.

But with socialism or social democracy, the rich will always rule the country and the rich always pursue policies “Everything for us and nothing for anybody else. And with no socialism barrier the rich and the upper middle classes are free to pursues class war which is nothing more than wars over how to divvy up existing resources. People don’t just make money off growth in a capitalist economy. A lot of the money and goods acquired in a capitalist economy involves various classes either taking money from classes below them and transferring it up or transferring money from classes above them and transferring it down. I can’t believe that people don’t know these basics about how capitalism works.

6 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Socialism, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Whites

Who Are Our Class Enemies in America?

James Schipper: You shouldn’t regard all rich people as your enemies. It is only the plutocratic rich who are the enemies of ordinary people. Rich people who are willing to pay high taxes, treat their employees fairly, do not finance plutocratic causes, and invest most of their money in their own country are alright. Rich people who have a sense of noblesse and some commitment to their own country should be applauded. It is globalist plutocrats who are the enemies.

Trump has filled his Administration with nationalist, anti-globalist rich people. These are better than the Globalists like Clinton and Obama? Hell, give me the Globalists any day!

The Rich Ruling Class Oligarchs are our class enemies. The Progressive Rich, and there are some, are not. But the New York Times/Time Magazine/Newsweek Jewish Corporate Democrat Media Rich are almost as bad as the oligarchs. And so are the Wasserman-Shultz/Clinton/DNC types. Both of them are pretty much part of the Oligarchy themselves. These Corporate Democrats are just poison. Now that Hillary is gone, can we retire this Clinton Family that ran our party into the ground by pretending the be the Republican Party Lite?

In fact, I believe people like the Sulzbergers/Clintons/Wasserman-Shultzes are as much a part of the oligarchy as the Kochs. These rich Corporate Democrats are poison.

PS Just how many rich people are progressive in the US? It’s not that common, is it? I agree though that the Hollywood Crowd or the Entertainment Industry Rich are not our enemies. In fact, they are probably our allies. But once they get in power, how many US Rich do not govern in their class interests and opposed to ours? About 0%

I don’t trust the Rich, any of them, to run the country. They’ve been running the country into the ground governing in their class interests since Reagan and I am sick and tired of it.

I agree with you though. Our enemy is the Ruling Class, the Oligarchs. And that does not include the Progressive Rich.

6 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Journalism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, US Politics, USA

The “Taiwan Miracle” Nonsense

The people who ran Taiwan were the same folks who had completely run China into the ground by 1949, resulting in a life expectancy of 1949. Their legacy was repeated famines, foot-binding, murder of female children, epidemic wife-beating and more or less feudal relations in the countryside. Most Chinese peasants were little more than slaves or serfs. They were serfs on a landlord’s feudal estate.

The landlord or his buddies could go visit the serfs at any time and do whatever he wanted to with them? He had the power of life and death over them. He could kill or beat up any serf he wanted to at any time. He could steal any of their property. And especially he could rape the wives and daughters of the peasants, which he did in epidemic form.

When the Communists took over, in the first few years, they did a land reform, dissolved the feudal estates and distributed the landlords’ land to peasants with no compensation. The Communists simply stole the landlords’ land. And in same time  period, the Communists decided to  put the landlords on trial. The trials were held in the villages and towns and the peasants were to serve as judge and jury. These were wild raucous public trials and in most cases, the peasants convicted the landlords of many of the crimes above and sentenced them to death. Up to 3 million landlords were executed by the peasants themselves.

This is what happens in peasant uprisings under feudalism. Study the subject of peasant uprisings down through time, and this is how they always end up. For centuries before feudalism was dismantled, there were peasant uprisings the world over. They even occurred in Peru under Inca rule! Usually they were horrifically bloody and if the peasants won, typically they simply killed all the feudal lords and everyone who helped them. The Chmielnicki Uprising in the 1500’s in Poland resulted in all the landlords and half the Jews because they were tax collectors for the landlords. But it also caused the deaths of 1/3 of the population of the country!

Under the Nationalists, feudalism and warlordism was the way in China. There was almost no state at all. Feudal landlords also served as warlords. Their warlord armies held sway in the countryside.

Go read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck sometime. That is what life was like in China under the Nationalists and that was the same way it had been for centuries. The Nationalists did not give a damn about anyone who was not rich. It was a feudal party of landlords and warlords.

The Taiwan miracle happened because when the Nationalists fled China, they took almost every nickel in the country with them. That’s why Mao had such a hard time at first. He was starting with more or less nothing. Also they completely dismantled the feudal landlord-warlord system under severe pressure from the US. Then they did a land reform under heavy pressure from the US also. Then the US flooded money into Taiwan for decades in an effort to make Taiwan an anti-Communist showcase, sort of a propaganda exhibit to compare it with China.

Sure the Nationalists turned around Taiwan. Taiwan has a population of what? 50 million? Try doing that with 1.3 million. And the only reason Taiwan junked warlordism, landlordism and feudalism and did a land reform was because Mao won the war. If Mao would have lost the war, China would have just continued with their landlordism, warlordism and feudalism because that was how the Nationalists had governed for decades before and how their predecessors had governed for centuries before that.

If Mao wouldn’t have won, why would the Nationalists have dismantled the system? And don’t forget that 4% of the population left the country and took almost every dime in the place with them when they left. If they would have stayed the money would have stayed in China, so the nationalists would have had 96% less money. Show me how they do their miracle now? And if there had been no revolution, why would the Nationalists have made those massive economic changes they did when they went to Taiwan. Getting rid of landlordism, feudalism and warlordism was a response to the threat of Communism. If they would have continued on with the system the Nationalists were running in China on Taiwan, they would have had another Communist uprising on the island for sure.

Oh and one more thing. When the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, one of the first things they did was to kill 300,000 Communists in Taiwan.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asian, China, Chinese, Economics, European, Geopolitics, History, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nationalism, Poland, Political Science, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, Sociology, Taiwan, USA