Category Archives: Republicans

The Anglo Anti-Immigrant Right Are Awful People, But So Are Their Enemies

Ed writes:

To comment on Raja Hindustani’s (great fake name!) comment, one thing I am increasingly amazed by is the repeated insistence by self-identified “left wingers” that supporting more immigration is not only a left wing cause, it is THE left wing cause, if you don’t support more immigration you are not on the left and every other left wing position has to be sacrificed in favor of more immigration. There is a coup ongoing against the leader of the Labour Party in the UK because he is not sufficiently vocal in favor of immigration and in favor of the (anti-democratic and pro-capitalist) EU.

Its pretty obvious that immigrants are being brought into countries which have had strong labor movements, in order to drive down wages and weaken working class solidarity. Many of the immigrants are basically peasants from backwards countries -actually backwards parts of developing countries- that can be relied on for a few generations not to cause too much trouble for the upper classes. And historically the left used to recognize (eg Cesar Chavez) that this was a strategy to break the left.

The only explanation I can come up is that the left in the developed world and its institutions has been thoroughly infiltrated by moles, but that project seems to be so successful that you wind up hardly needing the immigrants.

This is about it. Everyone on the Left, I mean everyone, has to support “the immigrants.” You have to. If you don’t, you are not on the Left. So the problem then with us anti-immigrant Lefties is really we have nowhere to go. The anti-immigrant crowd is 100% rightwing, White, racist, sexist, backwards, you name it. Abd they’re all for rightwing economics, all of them. We go over there, and well, that’s not for us.

And everyone who takes any sort of a strong antiracist stance automatically turns into an “I love the immigrants” type. Because, you know, if you hate the racists, then you have to love the immigrants! But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can be like me instead. You can hate the racists and hate the immigrants! How bout that?

Also when people turn anti-racist, liberal/Left and pro-immigrant, they almost always turn anti-White and they usually start bashing White workers, especially working class White workers. Because it is working class White workers who are getting screwed by the immigrants. So if you are for the immigrants, then you have to hate the working class Whites. And this is exactly what you see. The liberal/Left “we love the immigrants” absolutely hate the White working class. Of course it doesn’t help that working class Whites can be somewhat backwards on race, gender and other identity issues.

So we see a lot of liberal/Lefties going on and on about how all working class Whites are just lazy worthless bums anyway who won’t “go out and get an education” and better themselves.

And of course this same mindset is seen on the Right. A writer for the National Review said the same thing recently. As Trump rose, he penned a piece contemptuous of working class Whites. When told that working class White towns like Muskogee, Oklahoma were crumbling in chaos, he wrote an article in which he said that working class White towns and cities needed to die, and the sooner the better.

Of course, the Republican Party is a plutocratic party, and they have never supported the interests of working class Whites even though these Whites have been voting Republican for decades now. In fact, I would say that Republicans are contemptuous of working class Whites.

And we saw something very similar in the UK. As it become obvious that working class White areas of the UK were falling apart, we only heard sleazy, oily comments about “class mobility.” Supposedly the Tories were creating a society in which people could be class mobile! Actually they were creating the exact opposite of that, but never mind. But the unspoken idea here was that being a working class White was the worst thing on Earth and that we should thank the Tories for making it possible for the white working class to move up the class ladder.

But that’s not the way it should be.

The idea is to make it so working class job pays well in the first place! To make it so working class towns are nice places to live! To make it so being working class is not seen as the last thing anyone wants to be!

And we see the same sickening thing on the Left. I have long heard Leftists shower contempt on working class Whites who resent illegal immigration. “Those Whites are just lazy, that’s all. The Mexicans work harder than those lazy Whites, and that’s why employers hire the Mexicans.” This was the old “White workers are lazy” line that the Reaganites started back in the 1980’s. To hear a Leftie talk like about the working class of his own country this is utterly repulsive.

We also hear liberal/Left types saying that any job taken by an illegal is a worthless, crappy job anyway, and any White person who would work at such a job is nothing but a loser. A Mexican standup comedian made a joke out of this by saying that the most pitiful thing that any White person could say was, “I lost my job to an illegal.”

Then we hear the “Well, the working class jobs are all gone anyway, and they are not coming back. The future is in high-tech, high-skilled jobs.” So in other words, let the immigrants flood in and take all the crap jobs anyway, who cares. Sure, but have you ever considered that not everyone is cut out to be a high-tech,  high-skilled worker?

We have created something truly bizarre here in the US, and possibly elsewhere in the West. We have a Left which actually hates their own native born working class! Isn’t that incredible?

47 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Britain, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Illegal, Immigration, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left, Whites

Burn in Hell, Globalization

That’s the message of Brexit.

Death to globalization, neoliberalism, corporate rule, horrific free trade agreements, races to the bottom, Triangulation, neoconservatism, invade the world/invite the world, trickle-down economics, austerity, financial conservatism, privatization, vouchers, wild inequality and the whole ball of dung.

Death to it all!

The people have spoken. They hate it. They don’t quite understand what they hate, of course, but the idiots are finally waking up and realizing that they’ve been getting screwed from 35 years of Reaganism/Thatcherism, a project which included the rightwing drift of leftwing parties in the West such as the Democratic Party and the Labour Party. Both parties are now corporatized but milder versions of the Republican and Tory Parties. That is correct: Clintonism and Blairism are part of the same neoliberal/globalization process as Reagan and Thatcher. In some ways, Obama is too, and Hillary is just Obama Part 2, except somewhat worse.

The idiots who run our countries don’t get it. Or maybe they are not that stupid. Anyway they either cannot read public opinion, or they do not want to, but elites in both countries are not going to change much of anything after the Brexit vote. The UK looks to become much more rightwing, which is odd as what caused the Brexit rage in the first place was British working class rage over 35 years of Thatcherite neoliberalism which has eviscerated their living standards.

The people know they are getting screwed, but they don’t quite know who is doing it to them. So they are lashing out, and this time many of them are heading to the Far Right. Of course this is typical, as whenever you have a serious crisis in capitalism, people either move to the Hard Left or to the Hard Right, as these are the only people offering solutions. Everyone in the Center is offering the status quo, which was what caused the crisis in the first place.

Problem is that the Hard Right isn’t going to do them much good. Donald Trump is very much a Hard rightwing Republican. His policies are not that different from those that got us in this mess in the first place. It’s still neoliberalism but without the globalization. It’s not going to work. The Right in the UK offers nothing at all. The Leave wing of the Tories is much more rightwing and economically conservative than the Remain faction.

It was rightwing economics that got us in this mess in the first place. That’s what these working classes all over the world are reacting against – righting economics, globalization, neoliberalism. It hardly makes sense that the solution to a problem caused by rightwing economics is more economics, this time, harder, faster.

You would think our leaders would be idiots to propose such a “solution,” but they are not as dumb as you think. These lowlifes who have been running our countries have been making out like bandits from this neoliberalism-globalization charade.

They are not going to quit doing it just because public opinion has swung against it.

They don’t care about public opinion anyway.

They do whatever they want, and the Hell with whatever the people think. We are nothing to them. They do not represent us at all. They represent only themselves and their class, and that’s it. Partly this is our own damn fault because we do not punish politicians who give us the finger and go ahead and do things that we are dead set against. We scream and yell that we are opposed to some issue, then they go ahead and do it anyway and when the election comes around, we march right off and vote for the very people who gave us the finger and did the opposite of what we demanded. We don’t hold politicians’ feet to the fire. Politicians do the opposite of what we want, and we go and vote for them anyway.

After that’s been going on for a while, politicians figure out that it doesn’t even matter what they do, as even though they go against popular opinion, they won’t be held accountable for it anyway, and the people they went against will just elect them again anyway. Get it? They get to do whatever they want to. Why? Because we are such a bunch of retarded monkeys that we let them, that’s why.

If these people are getting rich off the present system, they are obviously going to keep on doing until we force them to stop. This is the way these people think.

They don’t stop and say, “Hey look! The people are against neoliberalism and globalization! Let’s stop doing it!”

Instead they say, “Oh look. The people are against this. Let’s keep doing it anyway and hope we can somehow stay in office. Meanwhile let’s ramp up the lying, the propaganda and the tail-waging and all rest to distract the people and fool them.”

Or they will lie to themselves as the Republicans do and say, “No the people are not against neoliberalism and globalization. They are really against Obama and Obamacare and BLM and OWS and tranny bathrooms and gay marriage.”

Or they will say, “Oh look. The people re turning against neoliberalism and globalization. We need to do a better job of reaching out to the people on this issue (lying about it) and selling it to them (lying about it).” So they enlist the 100% controlled media to sell their snake oil for them with a fancy new ad campaign.

The take-home point here is that most politicians are ideologues. They don’t represent the people or serve the people or any of that. They represent their ideology, which is typically tied directly in with their class interests. In other words, their ideology is often all wrapped up in their money. Rich people don’t go against their class interests. They just don’t. They will pursue their class interests all the way to their own deaths, if it takes that.

Serving the people or representing the people would mean throwing out your ideology and supporting what your constituents want, not what you want. Capitalist minded politicians won’t do that because they never get rid of their ideology, or even modify it one inch. In fact, they will fight to the death for it. This is because going against their ideology means going against their money. You can hardly expect a rich man to go against his monetary interests.

As with so many things in human existence, this all boils down to follow the money.

26 Comments

Filed under Britain, Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics

Hillary Clinton, Neoconservative Dream Candidate

Here.

Good God, she’s a nightmare. This election is going to be about who we despise least. I hate Trump, but I definitely despise Killary/Hitlery Clinton, neocon warmonger maniac.

Trump is truly catastrophic and must be stopped by all means. But Hillary is a nightmare. Hillary’s a turd, and Trump is 24 hour diarrhea. I really hate both of them, but I hate Hillary less. But that ain’t saying much, because there are few humans I hate more than Donald Trump.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Britain, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Iran, Iraq War, Islam, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sunnism, Syria, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, Vietnam War, War

“Western Moral Decline or Capitalist Decadence?,” by John Kovas

This is a good piece. You can find it at Kofas’ website, or I got it off of Academia.edu. Looking at his website, it appears that the rest of his stuff is pretty good too. I need to read this guy more.

I actually think he is onto something here, and you need to be hip to this argument because the Right is always trotting out this “moral decline” argument that I think needs to be countered.

Western Moral Decline or Capitalist Decadence?

by John Kofas

Historically, during periods of economic contraction, the intelligentsia, politicians, business, academic, community and church leaders invariably try to steer the debate away from what has gone wrong with the political economy to the subject of values.

This was certainly the case during the 19th century when the depressions of the 1840’s, 1870’s and 1890’s took place. Well-meaning individuals as well as opportunistic propagandists questioned society’s values, despite the fact that structural causes in the political economy accounted for the economic contraction and social ills.

A somewhat similar situation existed during the Great Depression of the 1930’s when novelists, philosophers, politicians and others decried the values of the 1920’s. There are similarities between those historical periods and the economic contraction and diminishing of the Western middle class that started during the Reagan-Thatcher era and continues to the present.

The universal topic of values served its purpose when the Industrial Revolution was causing socioeconomic problems, and it serves its purpose today when Western Civilization is captive to banks and corporate capital that are concentrating capital while weakening the social fabric and democratic institutions.

The very elites suggesting to the masses redirection toward reexamination of values are the same ones that:

1. do not practice the values that they preach;

2. are responsible for the widening socioeconomic gap and sociopolitical instability that ensues;

3. benefit by deflecting the focus of the masses from the essential problem in the systemic flaws of the political economy to values.

Naturally, there is the salient question of the vast differences in value systems between societies and individuals; differences between religious and secular values within a pluralistic society, or the differences/nuances of values within a community whether it is predominantly religious or secular.

That scholars, politicians, businesspeople, priests, and the laity have been concerned about western civilization’s decline is a story as old as Oswald Spengler who wrote about the topic after the German Empire lost the First World War, and Europe as the world’s global power center began to give ground to the US and USSR.

But are the values of Bismarck and his generation of imperialist politicians and business titans the ones that Spengler’s generation lamented against the background of the Bolshevik Revolution and its global impact? Is it the Western values of imperialism, nationalism and militarism that led to global war in 1914 that were lost along with the decline of Western Europe?

Spengler focused on Western decadence, but the question is one of the underlying assumptions of what constituted decadence and what constituted ascendancy, the degree to which humane and communitarian principles rested behind assumptions. Was it dreadful that imperialist Europe of the old elites began to decline as a result of militarist confrontation, or was it tragic that millions of people died, injured, displaced, impoverished as a result? If one values power, then one laments the decline of Europe’s power. But what if the value system is human-centered, instead of power-based?

When the Great Depression erupted to cripple societies across most of the planet, why was there a sharp turn to a discussion of values, whether by US President Roosevelt who favored a quasi-communitarian orientation that mirrored the New Deal or ultra-nationalist one that Hitler advocated who was interested in ethnic cleansing as a means of restoring the purity of the mythological Aryan race as Alfred Rosenberg conceived it and the NAZI party practiced it.

In a very strange way, the NAZI regime’s populist ethnic collectivist approach intended to achieve the same goal as that of FDR and for that matter Josef Stalin who advocated superimposed collectivism.

The Third Reich manufactured a value system that a large percentage of Germans and Austrians, accepted and lived under with the hope that it would propel them to greatness as the NAZI party defined the concept. Why did millions of people accept an utterly barbaric and inhumane and racist value system under Hitler, and why did they not retain humane principles based on the wider philosophical framework of the Enlightenment that revolutionized European culture in the 18th century?

Is it merely a question of brainwashing – no matter how good German propaganda was – or one that a large segment of the population actually embraced values because they perceived benefits accruing to them – everything from keeping their jobs to feeling great that the ruling party told them they were ‘superior’ to other races.

From the end of World War II that marked the end of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and militarist-imperial Japan until the end of the Vietnam War, Western and non-Western (Communist regime) societies operated on broader values – in theory and certainly not in practice – of communitarian principles as part of an ideological mix.

Certainly in Western societies, led by the US, the value system of individualism, business progress, consumerism, commercialism of culture, and hedonism were prevalent, but the existence of the welfare state entailed tangible evidence that communitarian values mattered. The beginning of the breakdown of that value system comes when the US and the West in general begin to gradually eliminate the communitarian aspect in the societal mix because it interferes with finance capitalism and the neoliberal model of capital accumulation.

More than political trends, material conditions influence evolving value systems, something that is evident in the consumerist values (to which we must add hedonist and atomistic) of much of the world in the last fifty years. After all, values too are class-based. The relative decline of compassion for humanity, and a rise of alienation which many try to cure by going to therapy and with legal and illegal drugs, has been sharply on the increase in the last half century to the degree that we now have a Western culture of therapism thriving.

Ethical ambiguity naturally translates into ambiguity of values, thus reflecting cultural relativism. In a recent public opinion poll, the vast majority of the people in Finland agreed that if their close friend committed murder, they would notify the authorities. In the same poll, the vast majority of Greeks agreed they would not turn in their friend. Not surprisingly, Greek elites, including academics, praised the virtue of honoring friendship, while the people of Finland stressed the virtue of social conscience.

What accounts for the absence of convergence in the values of the two societies? History, tradition, religion, culture, etc., and what does this example teach us about the values of ambiguity? How could any human being with an once of moral fiber not report a case of murder? How could someone betray their friend, even in case of murder?

Beyond values of ambiguity, there is a much clearer case regarding basic values that are time-tested and transcend time and place.

1. Lying is clearly immoral. Not the kind of lying involving little lies that cause no harm but big lies that bring about great harm to a great many people. Yet, lying is at the core of both business and politics, but it is passed on as public relations. Lying to an entire nation about the reason for going to war is acceptable because it is a matter of national security. Lying to consumers about a product is acceptable because it is in the name of peddling a product or service.

2. Stealing is clearly immoral. I was hardly surprised to read stories about people across southern Europe actually stealing food because of the current hard times. However, stealing in the framework of institutionalized ‘appropriation’ of government subsidies to make banks stronger, is morally acceptable. Yet this is a process that forces people to steal food. Are we back in the era of Victor Hugo’s Jean Val Jean?

3. Killing is clearly immoral. However, mass killings of collateral damage victims in time of war is just fine. Why do human beings categorically reject the individual who kills her husband that abuses her but accept mass killings in wars? What does this tell us about our values and how they are molded?

How does a politician, a journalist, an academic, or much less a leading businessperson tell the masses to reexamine their values against the background of austerity economics that benefit those preaching reexamination of values?

For more than half a century, the same elites now preaching reexamination of values were advocating consumerism, commercialization of culture, hedonism, and atomistic proclivities, all in the name of an open society when in reality the only interest was the thriving of the market economy.

Having conditioned citizens as consumers steeped in that frame of mind and value system, how do elites now try to tell them that embracing everything from nature to God, everything from family values to community values, filter down, and even if it did, what exactly does that do for the high structural unemployment and underemployment, low wage structure, lack of opportunities for college graduates, and lack of job security?

When Ronald Reagan was beginning to dismantle the welfare state and strengthen the corporate welfare state, his administration, various think tanks, journalists, academics, clergy and business leaders began to speak of values, namely ‘family values’.

One odd thing about many of the people advocating ‘family values’ is that they themselves were not practicing them. Another odd thing was that these values advocates were interested in pushing society in the direction of conformity to the changing status quo, so value discussion was one tool they used.

Of course, there was a contradiction between ‘family values’ rhetoric and policies – government and business – that were contributing to undermining the family by forcing both parents to work, in some cases at second jobs to make ends meet.

At the same time, reorientation to values discussion did not mean that workers must stop shopping, given that the population remained under the spell of increasingly intrusive advertising that helped shape consumerist and atomistic values. Are we witnessing a Western moral decline or merely a decline of the capitalist system and its apologists trying desperately to distract the masses by shifting the focus to values?

1 Comment

Filed under Asia, Austria, Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Ethics, Europe, Fascism, Finland, Germany, Government, Greece, History, Imperialism, Italy, Japan, Labor, Left, Marxism, Military Doctrine, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Neoliberalism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Social Problems, Sociology, Ultranationalism, US Politics, USA, USSR, Vietnam War, War, World War 2

Psychopathy/Sociopathy

Enoch writes:

Robert, you seem to be very knowledgeable on sociopathy/psychopathy.

While most people would turn crazy if they are isolated from people during a long period of time, do you think a psychopath would not (since he see peoples as objects)?

What famous people (excluding serial killers) do you think are true psychopaths?

Do you met people you think were psychopaths in real life ?

Would you consider yourself above or below average in psychopathy?

One by one.

While most people would turn crazy if they are isolated from people during a long period of time, do you think a psychopath would not (since he see peoples as objects)?

Hard to say, but I suppose they would be ok with it.

What famous people (excluding serial killers) do you think are true psychopaths?

See separate post. Clinicians now agree that Hitler was definitely a diagnosed sociopath. George Bush? I almost think most major politicians are, or at least they act like sociopaths. You have to behave like a sociopath in order to hold high office in many countries. If you don’t act that way, you can’t do the job. Lately I think Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are acting very sociopathic. Kerry especially worries me with his Vietnam record. Kerry definitely acts like a psychopath, but everyone who is a Secretary of State for the US has to act like one. It goes with the territory.

Do you met people you think were psychopaths in real life?

I am not sure. I met a fellow recently who was the most sociopathic person I have ever known, let’s put it that way. He was so sociopathic that I was actually stunned because I had never seen one that bad before. Sociopathy is a continuum ranging from 0-40 on a Psychopathy Scale, and this fellow was pretty sociopathic. Whether he was an actual sociopath (whatever that means) I do not know, but he may well have been. He’s a gang member. I used to let him into my house. I turned my back on him, and he stole an Indian knife from Guatemala from my home. It was worth $175. He is Cuban, part Black, sort of a mulatto.

I met a local Black man who was a pimp a few years back. One of the smarmiest people I have ever met. I definitely got a sociopathic vibe off of him.

My brother’s best friend had a girlfriend who seemed like a sociopathic female, but I do not understand sociopathic women at all. They definitely don’t make sense.

There was another longtime friend who was pretty high in sociopathy. He is out of my life finally, and I am so grateful.

I know a lot of people who act bad and are basically ratfucks, scumbags and lowlifes, but whether they are actually sociopathic or not, I have no idea. The idea that every ratfuck bastard out there is a sociopath strikes me as wrong. There is so much more to it than that.

I do not understand these people, and I do not know how to identify them either. It’s so hard to tell who they are. I wish I could know who they were so I could identify them and study them. The disorder frankly makes no sense to me. I have been studying them for years now and they still don’t make sense. I simply cannot understand how anyone could think that way. I honestly don’t get it. I think the only way you can understand them is maybe to be one.

Would you consider yourself above or below average in psychopathy?

I would think I am below average, or I would hope I was anyway. I have often worried that I was one, but of course no true sociopath would ever worry about such a thing. I surely had not developed signs of it by age ~18, and if you don’t have it by then, you will probably never get it. Psychopathy is one of those early-onset conditions that nearly always appears first in childhood. If you make it to age 18 and do not have it, you will probably never develop it.

1 Comment

Filed under Democrats, Mental Illness, Personality Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Republicans, Sociopathy, US Politics

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the New American Civil Wars

Superb interview with Bay Area Guy, a former commenter on this blog who went off with another frequent commenter here to form their own site, Occident Invicta. Many of the more conservative commenters here actually followed BAG and Dota over to their new site, which is quite ok by me.

This interview is superb, and I agree with most things that Bay Area Guy says here. I wish BAG would not be so serious, but maybe that’s just the way he is. Radical Centrism sounds like something I could really get behind, and maybe a lot of you commenters could too.

Interview here.

Robert Stark and co-host Alex von Goldstein talk to Bay Area-based blogger Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

How Bay Area Guy is one of the Alt-Right’s few Bernie Sanders supporters.
How Bernie Sanders was the only candidate to not attend AIPAC, and Bay Area Guy’s view that the Alt-Right gave Trump a free pass for pandering to AIPAC and the Neocons.
How the most crucial aspect of Trump’s campaign is his role in expanding the Overton window and undermining the establishment.
How Trump supporters are primarily anti-establishment rather than conservative ideologues.
How Donald Trump is running to the left of Hillary Clinton and whether he will appeal to disaffected Sanders supporters.
Red State article about Trump Democrats “ruining” the GOP, who are described as racist Democrats who want handouts for White people.
The decline of Conservative Inc.
How the political coalitions on the left are also breaking down.
How Bernie Sanders undermines the Neoliberal/Social Justice Warrior Alliance.
Thomas Frank’s (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) new book Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People
Social Justice, Social Darwinism, and the Curious Case of SF’s Housing Squeeze
Steve Sailer’s article San Fran Whitening Plan.
The civil war among the Bay Area’s Left on the housing issue, including wealthy NIMBY‘s, anti-capitalist anti-gentrification activists, and pro-density groups such as BARF.
Michael Hudson’s book Killing the Host about the FIRE economy based on the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors.
London’s new Muslim mayor Sadiq Khan, and how Bay Area Guy views him as another Identitarian neoliberal like Obama.
The California Senate Race and how the Democratic front runner Kamala Harris also fits that mold.
Why Bay Area Guy views the Democratic runner-up Loretta Sanchez as preferable to Harris.
Senate Candidate Ron Unz’ Radical Centrist Platform, which combines the best aspects of the Left, Right, and Libertarianism, and how Radical Centrism is an emerging trend in politics.

11 Comments

Filed under Britain, California, Capitalism, Conservatism, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, Urban Studies, US Politics, USA, West

Omar Mateen: Self-Hating Homosexual

Latest news.

That is absolutely incredible news, but knowing psychology as well as I do, I ended up saying, “Well of course,” as I so often do nowadays as I become more wise and crystallized and less quick and fluid in my midlife.

Self-hating gay, extremely homophobic, hung out in the gay bar he shot up all the time, used numerous gay dating apps with his friends to hook up with gay men for gay sex all the time. It all adds up so perfectly.

Whether he was really gay, just bisexual or whatever the Hell his sexual orientation was is not known, but I doubt if most predominantly straight men would hang out in gay bars all the time and use gay hookup apps to meet men for sex on a regular basis. It just doesn’t work that way. Yes, straight men have sex with men, and predominantly straight bisexual men exist, but they don’t act like that. The sex they have with men looks a lot different from this. This guy is looking more and more like a closet case.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense that he got radicalized online as the FBI says. He said he was a member of Hezbollah and also praised the Chechen bombers in Boston (Yemeni Al Qaeda inspired) and and a Florida acquaintance who went to Syria, joined Al-Nusra (US-backed Syrian Al Qaeda) and blew himself up in a suicide bombing attack. He also pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS in the middle of the act. None of that makes sense. Al Qaeda and ISIS hate each other, and they are both the worst, deadliest enemies of Hezbollah. No one supports all those groups at once. It’s madness.

The guy is looking more and more like a nutcase. His wife says he was a bipolar, abusive wife-beater. Co-workers at various places described him as a time bomb.

Yes, the FBI watched him for a bit, but do you have any idea how many people get on their watch lists at one time or another? Lots. The watch lists change all the time, and the FBI is incredibly overwhelmed with the watch lists that are current, not to mention the old ones. Even being on a watch list does not mean a lot, as it certainly doesn’t mean that the FBI is watching you all the time. We still have a democracy here for now anyway, and you cannot go around locking up everyone on a watch list. The crime of “dangerousness” does not yet exist here, at least not unless Donald Trump becomes Dictator.

The perpetrator was a nut, a nutcase not a lot different from another heavily armed nutball who traveled to LA to bomb and shoot up the LA Gay Pride Parade. That man was a non-Muslim White man, and he was going to do the same thing this guy did.

In this highly charged modern environment with simple access to highly powerful military weapons for any buyer in the country, there are heavily armed time bombs all over the country stockpiling weapons and waiting for the right moment to go off and kill as many people as they can. A few of these types are claiming to be inspired by terrorist groups, but most are not. All of these characters are more or less lone wolf attacks by lone or dual terrorists acting alone or in pairs. You can’t stop lone wolf terrorists. There’s nothing to be done. Look at Israel’s experience.

This will not be the last of these attacks. There will be more. It’s only a matter of time.

Exactly how Mr. Trump is going to stop this sort of thing is news to me. I’m all ears to hear his great plan, except that so far he doesn’t have one. Mr. Trump needs to tell us just how he is going to stop this sort of thing, and he’s yet to do so.

24 Comments

Filed under Crime, Florida, Government, Homosexuality, Islam, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Sex, South, Terrorism, US Politics, USA

Vladimir Putin: Master Geopolitical Chess Player

Tulio writes: Putin stands for nothing other than being a strong man and a patriarch figure who supposedly fights against anything Russians are afraid of. That is playbook that Trump is playing off. Trump doesn’t have any concrete ideology. His selling point is winning people over at the gut level by shows of hyper-nationalism, machismo and strength against whatever his constituents are fearful of. Mexico, China, losing their jobs to trade, ISIS, gun control or whatever is on the typical paranoid American’s boogeyman list

There is a world of difference between Putin and Trump. Trump is a clown and a dangerously unhinged man. Putin a master geopolitical chess player the likes of which we have not faced in a long time. He’s fighting back against all of the moves and attacks that the enemies of the Russian people waging on Russia. He’s a real nationalist.

He defends his country, and he is one of the only people on Earth saying no to a unipolar world dominated by the US. He doesn’t believe the US and NATO should be dictators of the world.

We have been surrounding Russia with bases since day the USSR fell.

We staged a coup in the Ukraine to put a very Russia-hostile regime on Russia’s doorstep so it could join NATO, and NATO could put bases and nuclear weapons right on Russia’s doorstep. We tried to steal Russia’s only warm water port on Sebastopol. Putin is not a stupid man. He knows what is up. He figured out what we were doing, and he threw a huge monkey wrench in our plans. He also saved his base in Sebastopol and secured the liberation of the Crimean people from US-allied Nazis.

The whole scam was stopped. Ukraine will not join NATO. Putin will not allow it. Ukraine will not even join the EU either.

The whole Ukraine thing was a great big scam to try to bait Putin into attacking the Ukraine so we could maybe declare war on him or put a lot of sanctions on him. He refused to get baited into it. Then we tried to bait him into committing a lot of troops to a Syrian quagmire. We did this by coordinating with our Turkish friends to shoot down a Russian jet for no reason. Putin didn’t fall for that one either.

The Russian people feel that he is standing up for the nation’s interests against the enemies of the Russian people – NATO. They are correct. He’s fighting back.

You see, no one ever stands up the US Dictator of the World. No one dares. So we just rampage around doing whatever, and most people either ally with us or cave. Those that do not are made an example of – Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Egypt. They get screwed over hard, and usually the US regime changes them.

Putin is standing up and saying no more regime changing, no more wars for democracy, no more US Empire of Chaos. Have you noticed that every country the US “liberates” turns into a chaotic Hellscape of a failed state? Putin sees that going on, and he says I am going to put a stop to this crap,

He also figured out that the US and its allies put ISIS, and Al Qaeda and the rest down there in Syria on Russia’s doorstep. Next the US jihadis moved into Turkey. Putin figured out that next we were going to turn our Baby Al Qaedas loose on Russia, probably starting in the Caucasus. That’s why he is fighting back in Syria. I believe that Putin is correct on that. You can see that we turn these jihadis loose on our enemies. I do believe that he was next in line to get the US “jihadi treatment.”

Also Putin thinks the whole ideology of the US and its allies supporting all these ISIS and Al Qaeda groups in Syria and Libya is crap. He’s going to put a stop to it. He hates those jihadis people, and he knows that the US uses those groups and others like Nazis and fascists as US assets and turns them loose on countries we don’t like.

102 Comments

Filed under Africa, Brazil, Egypt, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Imperialism, Iraq, Latin America, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Russia, South America, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, USSR, Venezuela, War, Yemen

Manufacturing Consent: What Good Is Freedom If No One Uses It?

SHI writes:

You do realize that Russia isn’t free in any sense of the word. That makes any comparison with the current situation in the West totally pointless.

Maybe the Russians have always preferred it that way but for last three centuries, that entire expanse of land called Russia has settled for nothing but one strongman dictator after another. From the autocratic Tsars to tyrannical leaders like Stalin, Khrushchev and Putin now, if you’re a child growing up in Russia, you have not known freedom the way a Western child does. There are exceptions though, Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin broke away from Russian iron man traditions and tried to be benign leaders but their short-lived experiments failed.

There is no disputing the fact that Vlad the Putin is the biggest autocratic tyrant at the moment, not very different from Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Assad or Pinochet. This man oppresses his own people. Given a choice, most Russians would want to escape their country but they can’t as the State still puts a restriction on emigration. If you were born in Russia, you simply can’t defect to another country unless you’re married to a person over there. That is why the Russian mail order bride business has always been booming.

Why do you think the Polish, Lithuanian, Romanian and Hungarian people like to distance themselves so much from Russia? Not only are their countries most active NATO members but the people themselves are anti-Russia. Why do you think Ukrainians want to escape the shadow of Russia to merge with Western Europe and the Schengen region? While Britain can’t wait to escape from EU as the overall sentiment over there favors Brexit, the former countries of the Soviet Bloc can’t wait to join the Western Hemisphere.

Thing is, people in the West take their freedoms for granted. They simply have no concept of what it feels like to raise your child in a tyrannical, dictatorial regime. There are things like internet censorship, forced incarcerations and murders that you take as “normal”.

Maybe the recent US elections seem like a complete joke when you find that your Final 2 happen to be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But that’s a problem that can be fixed within four years. If you were born in Russia, you don’t have that choice in the first place. You have to put up with your autocratic government day in and day out. And so will your children.

It might sound cliched but the US is indeed a free society. Just check the annual rankings of Freedom House. There are other freedom indices including the UK-based Democracy index, Canada-based Fraser Institute’s “Index of Freedom in the World” and Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters without Borders. Countries like China, Russia and Islamic countries are consistently scoring “not free” in every independent assessment each year the rankings are prepared. Just check this year’s Freedom House map, no one really emigrates to any country that isn’t marked “blue”.

Let us take this apart one by one.

You do realize that Russia isn’t free in any sense of the word. That makes any comparison with the current situation in the West totally pointless.

Russia is far freer than we are. There is a huge dissident media, mostly funded by the West. There are large dissident websites that are very popular, and there are a number of dissident newspapers, radio stations and even TV from outside. You can buy dissident newspapers anywhere you want in Moscow. Dissidents are quoted every single day in the Russian media.

How many large dissident websites do we have? How many dissident newspapers are there in the US? How many dissident newsmagazines? How many dissident radio stations? One, Pacifica, and no one listens to it. How frequently are dissidents quoted in the US media. Never.

Maybe the Russians have always preferred it that way but for last three centuries, that entire expanse of land called Russia has settled for nothing but one strongman dictator after another.

Yes, they like it that way.

From the autocratic Tsars to tyrannical leaders like Stalin, Khrushchev and Putin now, if you’re a child growing up in Russia, you have not known freedom the way a Western child does.

It is far freer under Putin than it ever was under Communism.

There are exceptions though, Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin broke away from Russian iron man traditions and tried to be benign leaders but their short-lived experiments failed.

Yeltsin looted the country. The Communist Parliament was blocking all of his free market reforms, so he dissolved Parliament by decree and when they refused to accept his decree, he called out and the military and he attacked his own Parliament with tanks and guns. 600 people died, including a lot of legislators. That would be like Obama calling out the US military to open fire with tanks and guns on Congress and killing a bunch of Congressmen. Hell, even Putin hasn’t done that.

The US media cheered wildly. Not one single outlet failed to cheer. They had an election and the West sent over moneybags guys with literal suitcases full of illegal money for the campaign. These guys were photographed walking down the street carrying literal boxes of money. They flooded the campaign with illegal money and he won. 100% of the US media cheered for this. Yeltsin sold out the country to the US. He sold the whole place for 10 cents on the dollar to a bunch of Jews in the UK, the US and Israel and bankers in the US, UK and Frankfurt. They looted the whole country bare until there was nothing left to steal. Why do you think Putin came in. The Yeltsin supporters now have 1% support in the population.

87% of the population loves Putin. The opposition is miniscule.

Yeltsin was NOT a Democrat. He was way worse than Putin. Things are much freer under Putin than they were under Yeltsin.

There is no disputing the fact that Vlad the Putin is the biggest autocratic tyrant at the moment, not very different from Gaddafi, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Assad or Pinochet.

Those are actual dictatorships. And they also killed a lot of people. Putin has hardly killed anyone. Putin does not have a dictatorship. There are free elections, however most media is state media, and the state media is biased for Putin, but how is this different from the West? Putin wins all the elections because the dissidents are all seen as traitors.

This man oppresses his own people.

How can you oppress people with 87% support?

Given a choice, most Russians would want to escape their country but they can’t as the State still puts a restriction on emigration.

My understanding is that you can walk out of that place anytime you wish. Anyone can leave, it’s just that most do not want to. If 87% support the President, why would they all want to leave?

Why do you think the Polish, Lithuanian, Romanian and Hungarian people like to distance themselves so much from Russia?

Because they were formerly under the thumb of the USSR which more or less forced Communism on them. They got rid of Communism, and they have been mad at Russia ever since, although the Hungarian leader is pretty pro-Russian. They’re all just drinking the Koolaid.

Of those countries listed, only Poland and Lithuania are Russia-haters, and the Lithuanians are Nazis. They have statues of Nazis up all over the country. All of their big heroes are Nazis.

The Poles are simply insane. They hate Russia far more than they hate Nazis. The Nazis war on Poland killed 10 million Poles. The Soviets killed 275,000 Poles. So the Poles hate Russians. The Poles are insane.

Not only are their countries most active NATO members but the people themselves are anti-Russia.

Everyone in the West is anti-Russia because of the brainwash. There is not one single dissident pro-Russia media outlet anywhere in the West. With anti-Russian propaganda on every media outlet, how do you expect people to think?

However, most Hungarians are particularly anti-Russia because they elected a pro-Russian leader. Most Romanians don’t care about Russia.

Why do you think Ukrainians want to escape the shadow of Russia to merge with Western Europe and the Schengen region?

Because they hate Russia.

But they didn’t even want to join the EU. The EU supporters never had more than 35%. Ukraine was split between pro-EU and pro-Russia factions until the Nazi coup. After the coup, all of the pro-Russian parties were outlawed and a number of their legislators were murdered. The leader of the biggest pro-Russia party, the Party of Regions, fled to Russia after the regime tried to kill him by setting his house on fire, but they set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. Before the coup, the country was badly split between pro-Russian and pro-EU factions.

The Ukies think they will join the EU and get rich. But they are poor because all of their leaders have been stealing from them since Independence, not because they are close to Russia. They won’t get rich by joining the EU.

While Britain can’t wait to escape from EU as the overall sentiment over there favors Brexit, the former countries of the Soviet Bloc can’t wait to join the Western Hemisphere.

They’ve all already joined, not that it’s done them much good. The Greeks want out too.

Thing is, people in the West take their freedoms for granted.

What freedoms? If you have no dissident press, you have no free press. If you have no dissident press, you have no freedom of speech. If you have no dissident politicians, you do not have a free politics. Russians are far freer than any Western country.

They simply have no concept of what it feels like to raise your child in a tyrannical, dictatorial regime.

Yes but that’s not Putin.

There are things like internet censorship, forced incarcerations and murders that you take as “normal”.

There is no Internet censorship in Russia. The Russian-language web is flooded with dissident sites, all paid for by the West.

Hardly any dissidents go to jail in Russia. They might arrest a few from time to time, but dissidents are quoted in the Russian media every single day. Most of them are free to yap along all they wish.

Yes, there have been a few killings of dissidents, but Putin was not involved in the most recent notorious one outside the Kremlin. There have been a few killings of journalists, but there were many more killings of dissidents under Yeltsin than under Putin. Yeltsin had many of his opponents killed.

Maybe the recent US elections seem like a complete joke when you find that your Final 2 happen to be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But that’s a problem that can be fixed within four years.

No dissident politician ever runs in the US, or at least one never gets very far. Trump is very interesting in that he is an actual US dissident politician who has made it into the final round. I cannot remember the last time that happened, but it was probably Kennedy, and he was murdered by the Deep State who run the US. See what happens to dissident politicians in the US? See what happens when the American people elect a dissident? The Deep State kills them. That’s why few politicians go against the Deep State and the System because they are afraid of getting the “Kennedy treatment.”

If you were born in Russia, you don’t have that choice in the first place.

Actually elections in Russia are quite fair other than the media issues. The worst dissidents you could possibly imagine run against Putin. I mean almost out and out traitors. We never have any dissidents like that running for President. Putin wins overwhelmingly because the population thinks the Opposition are traitors.

You have to put up with your autocratic government day in and day out. And so will your children.

Sure, but this is how they like it. I know Russians, and they tell me they are fine with the system.

It might sound cliched but the US is indeed a free society.

It isn’t. There is no dissident press, so there’s no freedom of the press. Because there’s no free press, there’s no freedom of speech. There are no or almost no dissident politicians, so we don’t have free politics, although Trump is changing that.

Just check the annual rankings of Freedom House.

You realize that Freedom House is run by the reactionary Reaganite Republican nuts, and their joke indexes are worthless, right?

There are other freedom indices including the UK-based Democracy index, Canada-based Fraser Institute’s “Index of Freedom in the World” and Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters without Borders.

Like I said, what good is some abstract freedom of press if you have no dissident media? What good is freedom of the press if there is no dissident media to voice it in? What good is free politics if there are few if any dissident politicians? You might as well be living in a dictatorship. Freedoms are no good if you can’t use them or if nobody ever uses them. When everyone goes along with the program automatically, you’re no different than North Korea.

Countries like China, Russia and Islamic countries are consistently scoring “not free” in every independent assessment each year the rankings are prepared.

I would agree that China is not free, however, there are many political protests. There are 100 political protests every single day in China. The authorities just let almost all of them go on, and they don’t do anything about it. There is no free press though, I agree.

Islamic countries are not free because they can’t handle freedom, and they do better under dictatorships. Look what happens when they try to do democracy in the Arab World. It doesn’t work. Malaysia is a pretty free country, and Pakistan does have dissident political parties that regularly get 15% of the vote. There is a large dissident political party in Turkey, though they are under siege. Lebanon is a free country, as is Tunisia. Algeria is free.

Yemen is such a free country that a dissident movement just overthrew the government by force! You can’t get much freer than that. In Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, dissidents are armed to the teeth and are threatening to overthrow the government. You can’t get much freer than that in a sense anyway! The Iraqi Parliament is split; Sadr’s party and the Sunni parties are very much dissident parties.

Just check this year’s Freedom House map, no one really emigrates to any country that isn’t marked “blue”.

This is not true. There is a lot of immigration to China from all over the world. There is also a lot of immigration to Russia from Ukraine and the former Soviet states to the south and east. Under Ghaddafi there was huge immigration from Sub-Saharan Africa. Egypt was the same – mass immigration from Black Africa to Egypt. There is huge immigration to the Gulf nations from all over the world to work. Before the crash, many Colombians had immigrated to Venezuela for a better life. There is huge immigration of Central Americans to Mexico.

Just check this year’s Freedom House map, no one really emigrates to any country that isn’t marked “blue”.

That map must be some sort of a joke. Venezuela is the freest country in Latin America. The opposition has many media unbelievably outlets, and they all resemble Fox News X10. They tell constant lies, and they have regularly called for assassinating the President. They continue to do so now, and now all of the Opposition press is agitating for a coup. Could you imagine if the US had huge media outlets that told the most vicious lies on a regular basis and regularly called for the assassination of Obama, and now were screaming for the US military to stage a military coup and overthrow Obama to put in a military dictatorship? Venezuela is a 10X freer than the US.

The Opposition has taken over Congress and stages constant demonstrations/riots in the streets. And recently the Opposition is armed and has started assassinating government officials.

Venezuela has the fairest elections on Earth.

11 Comments

Filed under Algeria, Americas, Asia, Britain, Central America, China, Democrats, Egypt, Eurasia, Europe, Government, Greece, Hungary, Immigration, Iraq, Journalism, Latin America, Lebanon, Left, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Marxism, Mexico, Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Poland, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Romania, Russia, SE Asia, South America, South Asia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, USSR, Venezuela, Yemen

The Message of Vladimir Putin

One man is fighting back.

I have been thinking about Putin a long time, and and this simple sentence is the best way that I can sum up what this man is all about. Of course, Americans, and all of the rest of Western fools, will scoff at my statement, but that’s because they’ve all been drinking the Anti-Putin (TM) Koolaid.

Isn’t it amazing that in the land of the free, the West, the Free World, where we have freedom of press (TM) and freedom of speech (TM), that every single time the Western states and media go on a foreign policy propaganda campaign against the Designated Enemy du Jour, that the overwhelming majority of Westerners in every single Western country fall right in line, the party line, like good Germans, with the state-media propaganda?

What’s so free about these people? What’s so free about their speech? What’s so free about their press? What’s so Free about their Joke Free World?

Nothing.

Nothing is free about it. Look around you. Every single time the West goes on a foreign policy propaganda campaign against one its made-up fake joke enemies, look what happens:

The vast majority of the people fall in line. I think 80% of Americans support the propaganda crap about Russia and Venezuela. Canadians are slightly more intelligent, but not much. Only 73% of Canadians support the propaganda campaign against Russia. I want you to show me one other Western country where the people have stood up and given the finger to the propaganda campaign. One. I want you to show me one. Just one.

100% of the media falls in line. Show me one MSM outlet anywhere in the West that has gone against any major Western foreign policy campaign in recent years. One!

100% of the politicians fall in line. This is true. The number of major US politicians who ever goes against any Western foreign policy campaign is usually zero. I think we have one single Representative complaining about Syria. One! Out of 435, we have one.

And this is the truly amazing thing about Donald Trump. Trump is not only the only serious Presidential candidate, but he is the only serious politician at all, in recent memory who has actually stood up and given the finger to US propaganda foreign policy campaigns. Now I do not like Mr. Trump at all. But in this sense, his moment is a watershed moment, the first crack to appear in the bipartisan foreign policy consensus repaired after it broke in Vietnam.

Forget Bernie Sanders. Sanders is great on domestic policy, but on foreign policy he is a joke. He goes along with 100% of the US foreign policy propaganda campaign. Show me one way he’s different. One! In other words, Sanders is a typical American politician.

So the West is a place where when the Deep States of the West go on a propaganda campaign, 100% of the media, nearly 100% of the politicians, and 75-80% of the suckers, I mean people, fall right in line.

What makes you think you are free? What makes you think you have free speech? What makes you think you have a free press?

Really, looking at the way Western politicians, media and populations fall in line and obey whatever the foreign policy propaganda campaign of the day says, I would say that Westerners are about as brainwashed as North Koreans. Because Western politicians, media and even people react about the same way that North Korean politicians, media and people do to government propaganda campaigns.

The West is so pitiful. You fools think you’re free, but you’re as brainwashed as a North Korean! You’re pitiful! You’re a joke! You’re a laughingstock!

12 Comments

Filed under Canada, Democrats, Eurasia, Geopolitics, Government, Journalism, Middle East, North America, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, Sociology, South America, Syria, US Politics, USA, Venezuela