Category Archives: Racism

Poland Talks Alt Left! Polish Left Political Journal Discusses the Alt Left movement with a Focus on My and Rabbit’s Writing

Here is the piece in the original Polish, and here is the English version for those of my readers too dumb to read Polish.

RACIAL REALISM, WHICH LEFT CENTRIST IN CULTURAL MATTERS

MICHAL SMOLEN
Columnist “Respublica Nowa”.
Social Philosophy and Innovation.

March 13, 2017

Two marginal racist bloggers from the US received Laurka in the the pages of a leftwing magazine.

Beautifully we differ on the left. Each of the left-wing circles reaches a different audience and offers a slightly different overview of the situation. So let’s rise above not very transparent for outsiders divisions, often rooted in long-standing conflicts personnel, and track the full range of left-wing press – from the liberal center-left to the environment very radical. Niezgoda is natural, and sometimes creative ferment. Sometimes, however, there is disappointment over a hard move to the agenda.

Niezgoda is natural, and sometimes creative ferment. Sometimes, however, there is disappointment over a hard move to the agenda.

RAGE

It got off to an interesting start:

Homegrown Leftists Criticize the Vistula Backwater for Failing to See the Latest Leftwing Trends from the Homeland of the World’s Creative Class

begins an article about the “Alt Left” written by Dr. Hab. Jaroslaw Tomasiewicz which appeared in New Citizen, a Polish leftwing social justice magazine. I regard foreign influences as inevitable and often useful, so naturally I was interested in this new leftwing movement outside the mainstream which has so far escaped my attention.

After today often encountered failure characteristics “Hipster-Left”, focused on easy wojenkach culture, the author writes about the new collective actor on the political scene, “The Alt Right – a rebirth of the “Old Hard Right” – ethnopolitical, traditionalist, populist – in a new postmodern form. A sort of return to the roots. And the Alt Right managed to overcome the Mainstream Left on its own home turf: to win the support or the workers by emphasizing economics and de-emphasizing cultural issues. Think a somewhat obsolete Thomas Frank.

A flashing red light at this point heralds a warning. Did Donald Trump really gain the support of part of the White working class through the efforts of the teenage racist trolls under the leadership of Richard Spencer – the elegant (at least when not performing a Seig Heil), erudite, and informal leader of the Alt Right?

You are probably thinking of the Centrist Democrats so disliked by Tomasiewicz. It seems however that the notion that the anti-elitist mood of working class Trump voters (many of whom supported Obama in the past) was powered by the notions of the Alt Right leader Spencer is not only factually questionable but also overly bleak in that it elides the appeal of Trump to a section of the electorate steeped in US nationalism. Or perhaps this is just a problem of the Old Left?

Tomasiewicz :

Some believe that the challenge posed by the Alt Right requires a symmetrical response: the creation of an alternative to the Mainstream Left emphasizing the forgotten foundations of Leftism, such as the primacy of economics over culture, the relationship of the base to the superstructure, and a return to the Marxian thesis that ‘existence shapes consciousness.’

Next there is a quote from a manifesto from “Alternative Left” writer Robert Lindsay proclaiming,

We will be leftwing on economic matters […] but rather Centrist in the sphere of culture.

Tomasiewicz later cites another vague point in Lindsay’s manifesto of the Alternative Left. This vision paints a picture of the Social Democratic movement distanced from the alleged excesses of Cultural Left, materialistic in the old style, although “small and diverse” – which, although it should not be imitated in the dark (we as Poles have common sense), nevertheless deserves our at least with fingers crossed.

RACIAL REALISM

So what’s wrong with this picture? More than you’d expect. The author refers to two online sources for information about the Alt Left, and clicking on either of them reveals some rather disturbing content. The Altleft.com site notes at the top of the page that it is The Left Wing of the Alt Right. Nothing dziwnegi therefore that it is enough time to go through the lengthy scraps to find the few real gems. In the text quoted by Tomasiewicz, we find this passage:

Though I disagree with him on some ideological points…It just so happens that I support Richard Spencer and repeatedly defended him when some oversensitive (and often sanctimonious) factions or some prominent individuals of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to sacrifice him to improve the image of the movement.

In another text by the author of the site (who goes by the pseudonym “Rabbit”) in response to an appeal to downplay the racial aspect of the Alternative Left brand, he said:

The Alt Left always been about race realism and gender realism. This is the whole fucking nail on the head!

What is race realism? It’s the familiar old and frightening idea that believes in biological differences between “races” of people, eg. in terms of IQ, which it stipulates as very important for races to gain social or political significance. AltLeft.com openly promotes White Nationalism, and at the same time is quite honest, which clearly shows in the title of one of his posts talking about the “unreality” of nonracist “race realism”. The post notes the hypocrisy of the supposedly nonracist race realists and asks a rhetorical question:

“What’s wrong with hatred anyway?”

What of the second author of the Alternative Left manifesto commented on by Tomasiewicz? Robert Lindsay is a prolific blogger who refers to himself as a “liberal race realist” (the title of his previous ideological project), who rejects Political Correctness and “Cultural Marxism” and in their stead proposes “positive White identity” and masculinity for men (to fight Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism).

Once again though – it is not difficult to see where Lindsay is really coming from. Although in the manifesto quoted by Tomasiewicz, Lindsay rejects “racist fascism”, it begins with an attack on the Black Lives Matter movement and ridicules people who talk about White privilege or have an “obsession about structural racism.”

According to Lindsay, to belong to Alt Left, one should accept “racial realism”, which is the three pillars of Alt Left ideology – the other two are leftwing views on economics, to which Lindsay moreover dedicates little space, and a special form of moral libertinism who boils down to formally supporting the basic rights of minorities combined with a gut hatred against the movements that are fighting for those very rights.

Lindsay seems to be less directly hateful – and more eccentric – than Rabbit, but his journalism nevertheless includes discussions about the abominations of gay sexual practices, alleged reasons why women cannot lead Western civilization, and complaints about aggressive and obnoxious “Jewy Jews” who are themselves responsible for anti-Semitism.

As for the Alt Left, this is all we need to know about it right here. Tomasiewicz refers only to Lindsay and the author of a blog about the “Left Wing of Alt Right” because that’s all there is to the “Alternative Left.” Otherwise, the concept still appears occasionally as a rhetorical device in journalism, primarily as an insult. So the entirety of this new and noteworthy movement is a small group of readers of two marginal blogs that are attempting to enrich the standard White Nationalism of the AltRight with an aversion to neoliberalism and a promotion of anti-feminist libertarianism (the latter being merely a rejecting the traditionally conservative views of women).

LEFT PRIEST JOHN

The detailed reasons why this leftwing website published a fictitious Laurka for a couple of some marginal racists in the chronicle New Citizen are not something that should concern readers. Suffice to say that it is difficult to believe in the sincerity of the author, who was after all the one who first discovered the quoted texts of these bloggers. Why did he go out of his way to ferret out these marginal bloggers? Nevertheless, I do not think however that one could accuse the editor-in-chief of tolerance for “race realism,” nor is the readership enthusiastic about this concept.

The case recalls to me deeper concerns regularly buzzing discussing some Polish Left intellectuals dislike for the “Left of manners.” Often it is not so much about the same demands as to their alleged incompatibility of the conservative expectations of the people, of the people, by which after all had left in this whole walk. These charges are often simply unfair – when Manifa passed under the banner of radical równościowymi also in the economic sphere, this did not prevent duplication of repeated years of lies about the concentration of the whole feminist movement solely on the alleged “obyczajówce.”

For this often based on fantasies – Maciej Gdula in Political Critique accurately dismantling the idea of conservatism of the people, shared by anti-elitist liberals as well as a current anti-elitist Left. A plea to leave the Left only about the workers and to reject helping different minorities seems particularly unfair when he turns attention to the development in recent years of leftwing movements and characters (like Total in Poland or Bernie Sanders in the US), fully and harmoniously integrating “cultural issues” and “economics”.

The spectacular defeat as a positive reception of the text of the “Alternative Left” brings to light another problem. This article published in the New Citizen is the modern equivalent of the medieval legend about the state ruled by Father John, a Christian enclave which was kept somewhere in the distant Orient.

This is reflected in anecdotes written by various intellectuals, otherwise as different as Remigiusz Okraska, Stephen Twardoch and David Wildstein, that the notion of the good old people who do not care about newfangled oddities is every year moving further from reality.

The text Tomasiewicz, in which the role of Father John played the companion Richard Spencer, stands out as an apology for some particularly nasty and in the Polish context completely unacceptable notions (perhaps even ONR does not admit openly to the biological racism). We have only to barely scrape the surface of almost any “morally Centrist” manifesto’s  concern for ordinary people to see the usual hatred and disgust for the selected disadvantaged groups – sometimes consciously, often probably not. In this situation, to put on a mask of folk naiveté seems to be at best frivolous and at worst insincere and wicked, which did not approve of even calling yet to openly present their views of Rabbit of AltLeft.com.

7 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Europe, Left, Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Racism, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, Vanity, White Nationalism

Dumbest Alt Left Phrase Ever: “The Regressive Left”

Calling the SJW Cultural Left Freakshow “regressive” is absolutely senseless. Originally it meant Leftists who supported reaction such as Political Islam. Political Islam or Islam in general is backwards, conservative if not reactionary, and a throwback to an older era that progressives have moved far beyond in the West. Full-throated Left support for reactionary Islam is indeed regressive.

But the Cultural Left Freakshow is anything but regressive. Really it is progressivism run amok.

Radical gay rights is regressive because it harkens back to the golden era of gay rights in the 1800’s when gays had far more rights than they even do now, right?

Radical feminism is regressive because back in the old days when my Mom was growing up, most women were ultra-radical man-hating dykes who pushed far beyond equal rights, correct?

Anti-racism is regressive because it recalls the the 1700’s when Blacks and Indians ruled society and the White man was a downtrodden minority, no?

Transsexual rights is regressive because back in the Ancien Regime in France, 1/200 men and women were transsexuals, there was a transsexual on every block, and French society cheered for genderbenders and called for gender to be abolished, n’est-ce pas?

The Regressive Left is a preposterous and idiotic slur that the Alt Left has made up for the SJW Cultural Left. It makes sense only in that the Cultural Left voices full support for radical Islam. Otherwise it utterly irrational.

The Cultural Left in general isn’t regressive at all. It’s not even reactionary, conservative or even rightwing. It’s not even Centrist, and it gave up liberalism long ago. No, the Cultural Left is nuts because this is an example of leftwing politics going completely off the deep end. Regressive means backwards, reactionary, conservative, primitive, a throwback to an older, ignorant era before modern progress and progressive politics. The Cultural Left is the opposite of regressive.

We just call them that because it sounds insulting, and it is. But it’s also a lie. I don’t see why the Alt Left should stoop to lying and sliming the opposition with sleazy and false slurs like all the rest of the dirty politics out there. We are beyond that; we are too good for that. We can do better. Let’s do it.

Get rid of the slogan “Regressive Left” once and for all. Resign it to the dustbin of recent history.

10 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Cultural Marxists, Homosexuality, Left, Politics, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Sex

Latin American Politics Finally Comes To America

I guess Chile has their version of the mighty keyboard warrior like the US. No shortage of white shit for brains running around say they’re going get rid of all the Jews and blacks.. then you have a fair number of blacks running around saying they’re going to get rid of their white oppressors.. etc. Totally delusional twats. Maybe rightists are a serious problem in Chile but I don’t consider YouTube comments a proper gauge of sentiment and support.

I have been engaged off and on in deep study of this region since 1989. 28 years.

You don’t understand Chile. You don’t understand Latin America.

Really the entire rightwing down there is exactly like this. The rich, elite Whites’ basic attitude in almost every country down there is “All Communists must be killed.” And Communist means anyone even slightly left of center. A huge % of the population in Chile is still pro-Pinochet, and this is precisely how they think.

The Left stages marches and protests all the time, often is support of Allende. Rightists, of whom there are many supporters still meet them and there is wild street fighting. Rightists then stage marches often in support of Pinochet. The Left shows up and there is wild street fighting.

Did some searches.. looks like the bigger demonstrations were over education and state (or lack of it) support. Seem to follow the US model – most of the protests are peaceful but then you have “the hooded ones” raising a ruckus. I couldn’t find anything that indicated there were large counter protests by rightists – not saying that didn’t happen but I just couldn’t find them If you have a link or links I’ll take a look.

Ok, well I think I may have read this some time ago. I do remember reading it, but it could have been a while back. It could well have been years ago, or a decade or more ago. But at one time in recent history, this is how it was.

Perhaps the Left vs. Right riots have quieted down in recent years, but that’s the way it was not long ago.

Protests in Chile have historically been far more riotous and violent than demos in the US. There’s not really any comparison. Anyway, violent riots on the US Left are a relatively new phenomenon. Trump is a corrupt, vicious, evil ultraright dictator ruling in a typical Latin American model. All of the Latin American Right is exactly like Donald Trump. That’s why the Left is so violent down there. Trump has succeeded in finally bringing Latin American ultraright fascism to America. So it follows that we are following the Latin American model in that the Left has grown militant, and Left demos now often turn riotous and violent just as they do in Latin America.

This sort of thing is so predictable that you can write near mathematical laws of political science predicting it. A nation can only go so far to the extreme right and it can only become unequal to a certain level. Once it passes that level, it has crossed some sort of Rubicon and now in most any nation you automatically get a militant, riotous and violent Left. It’s as close to a law as the sort you can get in mathematics and physics.

In Chile, the Indians are treated horribly and engage in continuous demonstrations which usually turn into riots.

I was following Latin American politics a lot on the Net a few years back, and most demos in Chile seemed to turn into the typical Latin American demonstration -> riot progression. Most demos in Latin America turn riotous from my observation, at least in Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Brazil, and even Mexico. The conditions are so insanely unequal down there that any working class demo quickly turns into a riot.

Violence, riots, coups, extremes of Left and Right politics, lack of democracy and extreme instability are typical of the entire region and now we are importing precisely this model to the US.

I am leaving out Argentina, but the Argentine Right was recently calling for a military coup against Kirchner.

In Paraguay, a legislative coup threw out the leftwinger.

A legislative coup just threw out Rouseff, the left president of Brazil.

There have been many coup and quasi-coup attempts in Venezuela. You could well say there has been a continuous coup since 2002.

In Colombia, yes, left demos usually turn violent or riotous. On the other hand, if you are on the Left down there, you can be murdered by the government at any time.

There was a military coup in Honduras, and now anyone on the Left can be killed at any time. Death squads have killed over 1,000 people.

A US coup removed Aristide in Haiti. The new US installed government quickly murdered 3,000 people.

Why the commenter is trying to polish this Latin American turd is beyond me.

96 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Fascism, Haiti, Hispanic Racism, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, South America, US Politics, Venezuela

One Reason For Antisemitism: Jewish Aggression

deSPICable Me: What percentage of Jews are so bad you want to punch them in the face?

The few I’ve known had some of those characteristics but weren’t quite that bad. They compensated by being very very funny.

I have generally met those types online and not in person. Online they can be real shits. Maybe they tone it down in person.

The Jews got together as a cabal and gave me a lifetime ban on Wikipedia. I think all I did was put in some pro-Palestinian edits. The reason for the ban was: “Hatemonger.” At one point I was on a list called “Wikipedia Nazis.” No idea why but apparently because of the pro-Palestinian stuff. All of us writing pro-Palestinian stuff got put on the Wikipedia Nazi list, and we all got banned sooner or later. A bunch of Jewy Jews have wormed their way to the top of Wikipedia and are now abusing these high positions to go after their enemies. The Wikipedia Jews as I call them are sleazy and dirty.

I’ve gotten death threats from online Jewy Jews, doxing attempts, and they were compiling some weird sort of dossier on me because they kept pulling up these obscure quotes of mine and using them against me.

I was in these Jewish and Israeli newsgroups for a while. They are about 1/2 the worst of the Jewy Jews and 1/2 some really nasty and ugly antisemites, including some out and out Nazis. Honestly one was about as bad as the other.

I saw over and over that people would come in with absolutely no prejudices against Jews at all. They would just say, “Hey, let’s be reasonable and fair and see both sides of this Israel-Palestinian thing.” The Jews would very quickly start pummeling the living Hell out of these poor guys, and they started calling them antisemites very quickly. The guys protested that they were not, but that never works once they label you, no matter how true it is. The impression you got is some guy surrounded by mean people who are running up to him, slapping or hitting him, and then running back to the circle yelling neener  neener, just egging him on to retaliate.

Well, after about six months of this treatment, a lot of these originally completely antisemitic people were practically quoting Hitler. I saw this same thing unfold over and over. It was an actual pattern. These Jewy Jews were going out of their way to deliberately create their own enemies.

After that, I started to figure out why people hate them. Before I had had nothing but positive experiences with (assimilated) Jews, and I never understood antisemitism. I thought antisemites were evil and picked on Jews for no reason.

Most Jews are ok but some are abrasive as Hell.

The ones who act nasty tend to be the Orthodox or the really Jewy Jews, like the ones who only hang out with Jews and don’t really befriend Gentiles too much. The more Jewy they are, the more aggressive and obnoxious they can be. The flip side is they are so mean that they draw out aggression in their victims. Pretty soon their victims are calling them kikes or saying Hitler was right or whatever, and then these Jewy Jews run around screaming that the victim is an evil antisemite. After a while I started thinking they were creating antisemites on purpose so they could be victims, and I actually think this is correct.

Bottom line is a lot of Jews don’t exactly go out of their way to try to win friends and influence people.

151 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Jews, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Wikipedia

Glimpsing the Truth about Venezuela Amidst the Blizzard of Lies

Tulio: Venezuelan socialism was authoritarian and proto-communist. Scandinavian social democracy is not at all. I don’t think Chavez looked to Norway for inspiration but rather to Castro.

Keep in mind that nearly everything you read about Venezuela in the US Controlled Media unfree press is a lie. I have yet to see even one story written about that country that was not a lie from start to finish.

The last sentence is completely untrue.

Chavez himself said that Cubans have their way, and we have ours. Different systems for different countries. He never tried to copy the Cuban model. He was trying to do something completely different.

An Eternity of Lies from the Venezuelan Opposition

The first sentence is also completely untrue.

It was never even 1% authoritarian.

Venezuela has one of the freest presses on Earth, and all in all, it is one of the freest countries on the planet. I have read the Opposition press, and it is simply shocking. The Opposition media is so openly dishonest that frankly they probably ought to be shut down on that basis alone. They shameless lie in the wildest ways you could imagine every single day of the year. Their lies have provoked riots, arson and murder. Imagine Fox News during Obama except 5X worse, and that will give you some examples.

There were regular calls to assassinate Chavez and other government officials and nothing was ever done. Yes, the Opposition press regularly, almost daily, called for the murder of the President, and the government did not lift one finger against them.

All of the Opposition press participated in an illegal military coup. They should have been shut down on that basis alone. How can you allow an openly traitorous press?

The Opposition down there is so evil that they even fake exit polls in order to validate false charges of electoral fraud. Venezuela is the only on Earth where I have seen the actual faking of exit polls. Faking exit polls is a grievous crime against democracy because they were one of the few ways that we can tell if an election was honest or not.

Venezuela’s elections are said to be the freest on Earth. I agree. In the last election when the US and Opposition lied and said there was massive fraud, a recount was done. Fully 60% of the ballots were recounted under careful observation and there was not one single ballot in error. The Supreme Court then said, “Ok, 60% without one single error is good enough, no need to count the rest.” The Opposition then screamed fraud, and Obama Administration stomped their feet and screamed fraud also. Do you really think there was 1% chance of fraud in that election?

“Liberals” Hillary Clinton and John (Satan) Kerry led the charge in demanding new elections and demanding that the Chavistas share power with the Opposition. That’s like the Democrats lose an election, and they demand that the Republicans share power with them by filling half the Executive Branch with Democrats.

True, he replaced a lot of the army, but those people who were replaced had participated in a military coup. The army needs to support the regime.

Yes, he replaced most of the judiciary, but this has to be done everywhere in Latin America. An insanely corrupt elite judiciary is a major part of the problem down there, and every time they have a revolution,  one of the first things they do is a “judicial reform.” This means throwing out all of the corrupt judges of the elite and putting in some real judges. You know, people who believe in laws and stupid stuff like that.

Venezuela is vastly more democratic than the US has probably ever been. We have probably never had one day of democracy in this stupid country, and it’s getting much worse. This is because our class enemies who run this country do not believe in democracy. In fact, they have an extreme hatred of democracy.

Sins of the Organized Crime Gang Called “The Opposition”

All of the Opposition figures participated in the military coup and they all should have been put in prison if not shot on that basis alone. Instead they were all set free. All of the Opposition figures who are now in prison were guilty of extreme corruption and financial crimes or abuse of the judiciary. And almost 100% of them were guilty of participating in plots to assassinate the President. One of them ever raised an entire army of hundreds of men on her rural estate. Their purpose was to assassinate the President and seize power. Those few who were not guilty of money crimes or trying to kill the President are guilty of provoking violent riots in which ~40 people died. They were behind those riots all the way down to organizing them at the ground level and distributing guns and bombs to the rioters.

 

The Opposition gets away with murder down there and nothing is done. They rioted in their neighborhoods for years on end, and the police mostly stood there and watched them burn stuff down. Almost no country on Earth except pre-coup Ukraine has gone as easy on rioters as Venezuela has. Even with the latest riots, the police were very hands-off. Once again, they were probably more moderate in putting down those riots than any other police force on Earth. The regime knows that if they do anything heavy-handed at all, the US will scream “police brutality” and “civil rights abuses.”

Bolivarian Economics: China Is Vastly More Socialist than Venezuela

With the exception of oil, the whole economy is in the private sector. China is orders of magnitude more socialist than Venezuela.

All they did was create some social democracy. They built a lot of free to cheap housing, upgraded a lot of infrastructure, wired up the whole country for electricity, subsidized food prices for the poor, sold cheap household furnishings as My Happy Home stores. They created free public education and spent massively on educational facilities. They created free health care and spent hugely on medical care for the people. They promoted a lot of organizing and governing at the local level. They did a land reform by confiscating a lot of untilled land and turning it over to landless peasants to farm. They gave land titles to some local municipalities to grow their own food and run their own factories and enterprises. That’s more or less what China has done.

Chavez did great things for civil rights in Venezuela. Rights for Blacks, mestizos, mulattos and zambos were dramatically increased. Indian rights were expanded greatly, and they were given title to much of their land.

Women’s rights were also expanded dramatically, and the country even introduced civil rights for gays, which is hard to do in Latin America.

73% of the population still supports socialism and Bolivarianism.

The Chavistas massively improved lives in all ways for the poor, the lower middle class, the working classes, and in some ways for the middle classes though the latter do not realize this.

True there was a lot of talk about building socialism, but frankly the consensus on the Left is that they never got around to it. Bolivarianism was never Communist. It was always 100% democracy.

There was a lot of criticism on the Hard Left saying that all Venezuela had done was create a social democracy instead of going to socialism. Comparisons with Norway and Sweden were common.

In Latin America, Liberalism = Communism = Death

You must understand that if you even try to implement the mildest social democracy down in the Latin America, you are a Communist terrorist who must be shot dead. Anything even hinting at liberalism or Left is called Communism, and the attitude of the Right down there is “Kill all Communists.”

If you are in a labor union, you are a Communist because all labor unions are Communist. All human rights organizations are Communist. Everyone preaching Liberation Theology is a Communist. Most professors and students and public universities are considered to be Communists as are most public school teachers, especially because they have very militant unions. All peasant organizations are Communist. Really, every single grassroots popular organization down there is Communist.

PS The US supports this ideology 100%.

The Opposition’s History and Future Project

The Opposition never lifted one finger for the people. They ran that country for decades or really over a century and they did do one damn thing for the people the whole time. Before Chavez took power, 89% of the population lived in poverty in an oil rich nation. 91% of the population could afford only one meal per day. Malnutrition was rife. Health care was for fee for service and simply unavailable to people without the money to pay for it. Same with optometry, dentistry, the whole thing. Educational facilities were poor and falling apart because the elites in government all sent their kids to private schools, and paid no taxes, hence there was no money for public education.

here was no public housing. Sewage ran down the gutters of the streets on the hillside slums where most people lived. There was no clean water. Higher education was expensive and out of the reach of most of the people. In the rural areas most people were landless peasants and a tiny group of rentier rich owned almost all of the fertile land, much of which lay fallow. Death squads roamed the countryside and every year, they murdered ~50 peasants.

The system was profoundly racist, and if you were not White or mostly White, you stood little chance of making money or succeeding in politics. It was a Whites-only elite with no openings for non-Whites. In fact, much of the Opposition was openly racist. The Opposition openly called him “Mono” which means “monkey.” This is a reference to the fact that he is of mixed Indian, White and Black blood. Most of their fury over Chavez was because some guy who looked like the gardener or the maid was running the country and telling the White rich what to do.

I am surprised because the commenter is a Black man who apparently supports the viciously racist Venezuelan Opposition.

And you Americans are mystified at why countries go Left? Why in the Hell do you think?

The Opposition has no project. The project of the Opposition has always been to roll back all of Bolivarianism and take things back to the good old days described above. They have no other project because they cannot have another project. The Opposition are elites who support a project that is “everything for the elites, nothing for anybody else.”

24 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Asia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Bolivarianism, China, Democrats, Economics, Education, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Health, Journalism, Labor, Latin America, Latin American Right, Law, Left, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Nutrition, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, Whites, Zambos

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-Right, The Other Alt-Right, And The Rise Of The Alt-Left

Here.

There Are Two Alt-Rights, Not One, and the Alt-Left Is Poised to Defeat Both in the Next Decade

I don’t know who the  Hell he is talking about, but it sure ain’t us.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Racism, Conservatism, Fascism, Left, National Socialism, Neo-Nazism, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Pop Culture, Racism, Republicans, US Politics, White Racism

Some Descriptions of the Alt Left on the Net

The Alt Left is just the Alt Right, except they like Mao way more than they like Hitler.

Sort of correct.

The Alt Left are basically Alt Right Communists.

Sort of right.

The Alt Left is the left wing of the Alt Right.

Sort of, yes.

Ultra-brocialists.

Exactly.

I would imagine an “Alt-Left” would go beyond and be above that, putting class struggle over identity politics without using “class above all else” to shut down any debate over racism/sexism/etc. A Left that didn’t think accusing people of racism is enough to dissuade them from voting Trump/UKIP/Le Pen/et al but actively sought ways to persuade those with racist tendencies to not be racist.

A Left that was able to inform the working class that the Alt-Right and Far-Right are bad news for the working class as a class – as well as the well-documented ways they are bad news for various oppressed demographics. Finally, above all else, a Left that rejected the loopy elements of Identity Politics (as commonly found in academia particularly in the US but an issue in the UK as well, especially with the NUS) and injected some much needed rationality into the debate.

Perfect.

Aren’t the Alt Left just social democrats who are critical of immigration? Something like that.

Immaculate.

Seems like there are already people self-describing as the ‘Alt-Left’ in the sense of being the ‘leftwing of the Alt-Right’ — from what I’ve seen, social democratic on economic matters, very hostile when it comes to Identity Politics, feminism, etc., occasionally antisemitic.

Probably one of the best definitions so far.

There’s definitely a return to imagined Christian values/hetero nuclear family at core …you could have an Alt-Left that did that too I guess if you really wanted.

There are Alt Left people pushing exactly this. And anyone into traditional morals or traditional values with Left economics would absolutely be welcome here.

I think the Alt Left is the left wing of the Alt Right. That is how it seems to me anyway. Where the Alt Right embraces fascism, they embrace concepts like Maoism.

That’s about it.

Having said that, I think there’s space for some form of Leftism that is skeptical of both market and state but doesn’t sign up to any of the current far Left ideologies. And has good memes.

Sort of, yes.

Again, it’s just a liberal guy who is a White Nationalist. It’s basically the leftwing of the Alt-Right as the blog itself says or some kind of lite version of Nazbol with emphasis on the Naz and not a whole lot of Bolshevism.

Discussing Rabbit’s page. Nazbol Lite is a pretty good way to describe Rabbit, too.

Class Left is better. Or Classical Libertarians. Or Class Realists.

Classical Libertarians no; Class Left and Class Realists are both perfect. We are “class reductionists.”

Workerists.

Precisely.

We’re back to “we want a UKIP of the left” again.

A UKIP of the Left would not be a bad thing. It would seem to be an Alt Left project.

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Britain, Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Europe, Fascism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Maoism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Socialism, US Politics, White Nationalism

Alt Left on the Net: Someone Gets Us Right

Here.

A: Ugh. Yes. And don’t even get me started on the motherfuckers who are glad Trump won because they think if it REALLY gets worse, people will rise up and there will be a revolution. But not this “incremental progress” pussy bullshit.

A REAL revolution. You know, the kind that makes their dicks hard.

They are almost always straight white dudes.

How very brave of them to sacrifice thei- er, I mean, minorities’ well-being in the name of The Revolution.

Good luck getting any Muslims, POC, LGBT+ people and women to march with you backstabbing assholes. They’ll all be too busy trying to stay the fuck alive, healthy and functional in this incoming hellscape you’ve voted them into. Or not voted, as it were.

In any case, fuck all the way off, get your head out of your ass, start fucking LISTENING for a change, then get *off* your ass and then maybe you’ll be forgiven.

B: Yeah, that ideology is called “accelerationism” and it’s a hackneyed idea from Marxism. It is literally a Bolshevik ideology: “the worse, the better.” It yielded Stalin. Can’t believe this idea has adherents in the 21st Century.

You are dead right that it’s an irrational form of machismo rather than a legit program of change. It’s a Che Guevara t-shirt, not a plan.

In 100-plus years, Marxism has literally accomplished next-to-nothing in America except a presidential assassination and a few cushy academic jobs for its more bougie adherents. By contrast, the Civil Rights movement (and its offspring, women’s liberation and gay liberation) has accomplished quite a bit. But the masculinist, so-called “alt left” wants to put those folks’ concerns in 2nd place and run a fantasy cosplay class-based “revolution” centering white men who love Fight Club. Or, in the case of the older guys, their fantasy is a 1930s/1940s WPA mural come to life … with Jim Crow and Japanese-American internment camps just out of the frame.

The more fact-based and sanity-based model of political change in modern democracy is the Overton Window. I pray we still have a modern democracy in which to apply it.

This comment here:

But the masculinist, so-called “alt left” wants to put those folks’ concerns in 2nd place and run a fantasy cosplay class-based “revolution” centering white men who love Fight Club. Or, in the case of the older guys, their fantasy is a 1930s/1940s WPA mural come to life … with Jim Crow and Japanese-American internment camps just out of the frame.

Describes us very well. Almost perfectly in fact. The Alt Left are not much MRA’s as masculinists. But then we are feminists too in a sense. Masculinists as in equal rights for men, and feminism as in equal rights for women. Surely there was a patriarchy in the past, but the Alt Left doubts that is extant much anymore and in some ways, we now have a matriarchy as the women and their wuss/White knight/Captain Save-A-Ho/male feminist allies rule society in some respects and they use their rule to attack men. In that sense, in some ways, men are an oppressed class nowadays being abused by an oppressive Matriarchy.

So we are brocialists or even ultra-brocialists. That does not mean so much that we are sexist pigs but more that we are ordinary guys, regular, normal guys who act like normal masculine heterosexual men. The Alt Left is “socialism for the regular guy.”

The part about the Alt Left being a 1930’s WPA mural come to life and that this model is being pushed by some of the older Alt Left men, is completely right on. This is absolutely what we are pushing. I do not know about any other older Alt Left men, but I am an older Alt Left man and this is indeed my vision.

It’s seldom that anyone on the Net gets us right.

32 Comments

Filed under Civil Rights, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Socialism, US Politics, Whites

Alt Left: Civil War? Bring It On!

Well, low level civil war in the present form of pre-civil war or civil strife anyway is just fine. It’s not ok to promote anything beyond that right now though.

Here.

A new article in Salon says that Trump has set off a civil war in America. As a supporter of the very similar Revolutionary movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, which also erupted into a near civil war, the Alt Left supports this low- level civil war (civil strife) completely. Right now what is going on is like a pre-civil war or what is often referred to as civil strife. The civil war will pretty much only start if and when people start killing each other, and that’s not happening…yet. Hopefully it will not come to that because not only will the enemy start dying but we will too. That means you, me, our friends and loved ones. It’s generally better if civil strife does not move to a shooting civil war level barring extreme circumstances.

The only thing that is happening now is street fights between the Left and Right, similar to the Left vs. Right street thugs fighting in the streets in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s. It also similar to civil strife that goes on in Latin America. Particularly in Chile, left vs. right street fighting is very common. The Right is fascist and supports Pinochet. The Left is almost Communist or socialist and supports Salvador Allende and his followers. A woman from Allende’s own party is now governing the country. The Left regularly stages what can only be called pro-Allende demos, which are regularly raided by fascists who support Pinochet. Similarly, fascists regularly stage what are more or less pro-Pinochet demos which are regularly invaded by leftists. Street fighting between the two is very common.

People do not realize it but rioting is very common in Latin America. Venezuela had regular riots, often led by university students, even before Chavez came to office. After Chavez came in, the Opposition staged regular riots and demos in their neighborhoods. After a while, the Chavista police just sat back and let the Opposition trash their neighborhoods. The Chavista police must have had one of the most hands-off approaches to rioters in the world.

In Chile once again, high school students are now staging regular demos which typically turn into riots. This is because in this wealthy country, the schools are literally falling apart. These riots have been happening about once every three weeks now. The Chilean Indians are a much discriminated against population and popular racism against Indians is at a very high level.

I had a friend in Chile whose father worked for Allende and considered himself a progressive guy. He was majoring in sociology and he planned to go to the Indian regions to do fieldwork. However, this anti-Indian racism was off the charts from an American point of view. He also had wildly classist views which would be shocking in the US. Obviously any country afflicted with crazy high levels of classism and racism along with some of the worst wealth inequality on Earth is a pretty shitty place. In a shitty country, you might as well demonstrate and riot all the time because that is exactly what shitty countries deserve. If they ever clean up their act and turn into decent countries, I think the rioters in general should knock it off.

Rioting should only be for protesting truly noxious systems, not, for instance, against Swedish social democracy. It’s a very civilized and decent system and there’s nothing to riot about. But rightwing shitholes can have all the riots in the world for all I care. They asked for it by being rightwing shitholes. If they don’t want riots all the time, all they have to do is create a decent country.

Needless to say, the Chilean Indians riot on a very frequent basis. And Indian riot is almost banal down there. That’s how common it is.

I was very close to the politics of Peru for a while there and I got regular updates of the situation on the ground. Even leaving aside the fact that there was an armed and very deadly insurgency going on, besides that, on the Left in general (which did not necessarily support the insurgency at all) there were regular strikes and demonstrations.

A lot of the strikes were by people like teachers and physicians. Teachers’ unions are very militant in Latin America, they go on strike all the time, have regular demonstrations and they even riot quite a bit. Schoolteachers rioting seems odd in a US context but down there, it’s just normal. There are also almost constant demonstrations against mining and really for all manner of leftwing causes. It’s quite common for these to turn into riots. Even setting aside the insurgency, Peru struck me as a place where leftwing riots were quite common.

I don’t know much about civil strife in the rest of the continent. I saw a recent video of young people mostly in their late teens to mid twenties who appeared to be actually demonstrating in favor of the FARC guerrillas and against death squad activity directed at civilian supporters of the guerrilla. I was surprised that the FARC had that much support. The demonstration was quite violent to say the least.

I believe demonstrations are very common in Brazil and if I am not mistaken, they regularly become riots also.

This low level civil war or civil strife is a good thing in the US right now. Bottom line is we deserve it. We are turning into a true rightwing shithole along Latin American lines, and shitty countries deserve all the riots that rioters can unleash against them. Don’t like the rioting? Fine, put in a halfway decent government. Unless and until that happens, I say let the riots go on.

All of the following are important:

  • Calling or writing to your Congresspeople.
  • Attending town hall meetings of Congresspeople.
  • New laws at the state level
  • Anti-Trump lawsuits by states
  • Anti=Trump lawsuits by individuals and aggrived parties, often being taken by the ACLU right now.
  • Appearances by Congresspeople at areas of controversy, such as Congresspeople who tried to get travelers released from airports
  • Journalists writing highly critical and rabble rousing articles
  • Openly defiant and angry press organs, even such staid venues as the New York Times. There’s nothing with the NYT calling Trump a liar on the front page.
  • Letters to the editor
  • Signing petitions
  • Refusing service to Trump supporters in the workplace
  • Ending as many friendships with Trump supporters as you can handle
  • Various organizations leading peaceful demonstrations of all sorts such as the women’s march. Those demos can get pretty loud and rowdy, but without overt violence, they are still peaceful
  • Blocking highways
  • Walkout strikes
  • Wildcat strikes
  • Boycotts
  • Shopping strikes

And also nonpeaceful protest would seem to be in order. If we are truly turning into a nightmarish Latin American style rightwing shithole, then this country deserves as many riots as rioters can stage. Shitholes deserve nothing less until they clean up their act and turn into decent countries.

Among forms of nonviolent protest:

  • Looting of noxious corporate venues, especially window smashing.
  • Bonfires
  • Fireworks
  • Smoke bombs
  • Rocks, bricks and police barricades at windows of some venues, the purpose being merely to break windows at the venue.
  • Vandalism, especially of corporate property. Window smashing is just fine.
  • Arson, particularly of corporate property but especially of the property of our class enemies, such as the limousine burnt on January 20.

Violence against people.

  • Generally not recommended at this point.

This is a very tricky area and I am wrestling a lot with this one. In wars, the civilian supporters of the insurgency or state are supposed to be left alone. They seldom are in wars anymore, but they are supposed to be. This is why the fire bombings in Germany and Japan were so wrong. Even if Germans were supporting Nazis, it was not ok to set their cities aflame with the sole purpose of incinerating as many civilians as possible. Something very similar but much worse happened in Japan.

Of course the purpose of the atom bombs was to slaughter as many civilians as possible in order to end a war. The argument is typically raised that it was worth it to murder 300,000 Japanese civilians in a couple of days to end the war and that alternatives would have been more costly. Even with a goal of ending a war and supposedly saving lives by ending a war prematurely, it’s awful hard to justify mass slaughter of civilians, even if they are supporting a noxious regime. Killing thousands of civilians even for this purpose seems wrong, not to mention 10,000’s. Killing 100,000’s of civilians even for some supposedly noble goal gets very hard to justify under virtually any circumstances.

So if civilian supporters even of armed insurgencies and noxious regimes are not to be killed or even harmed for that matter, how is it ok to beat up Trump supporters. Now granted, things are much worse in hot wars. If all Assad’s army and supporters were doing was punching out rebel supporters, I doubt if anyone would care. I doubt if many would be bothered by German patriots clocking Nazi supporters during the war, assuming they could even get away with it. Likewise in Japan. The main argument in all of these cases is that state are actually mass murdering civilian supporters of insurgencies and civilian supporters of enemy states during state to state war. The argument never gets down to the level of if it’s ok to punch out guerrilla supporters or people backing a state in wartime in a state to state war.

Nevertheless, attacks on Trump supporters leave me a bit queasy. It may come down to that at some point, but for now, political violence against Opposition civilians doesn’t rub me the right way. Of course the antifa will do it anyway, we don’t have to stamp our approval on it. And it’s a thin line that separates a right hook from a group beating stomping someone to death. Single punches can turn into fatal beat downs faster than you can think.

For right now, nonpeaceful tactics should be limited to property damage, particularly of noxious corporations. Destroying the property of class enemies such as limousines is certainly acceptable. Even arson is ok against their property and that of noxious corporations, especially if you clear out the civilians just stick to burning stuff, not other people. A lot of limousines deserve to be torched and a lot of banks are asking for it too.

But I am going to butt out of attacks on people of the opposition. And surely, attacks with guns, bombs and whatnot are completely out of line at least at this stage. Now it may come down to a 1970’s revolutionary scenario where as late as 1972, 1,900 bombs went off in the US. That’s six bombs a day. Very few of them killed or even hurt other people as they were often set off late at night or preceded with warnings. Nevertheless, once you step it up to setting off bombs, it’s a whole new ballgame. We aren’t there yet, so such activities are not acceptable at the least.

6 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Brazil, Chile, Conservatism, Economics, Education, Ethics, Fascism, Government, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Peru, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, War, World War 2