Category Archives: Latin America
Latias: Look at the comment section in this thread.
It really shows how anti-imperialist the Mainstream Left is. Look at the hostility the author gets.
From the author:
[There was a reference to Putin dining with Jill Stein]
Based on death toll, better to dine with Putin than 3 presidents in my lifetime — [W?] Bush, Reagan or Nixon. I prefer cooperation to confrontation. We don’t need a new Cold War. The world’s greatest human rights violator abroad (that’s the USA in case you don’t now) is in no position to throw stones from its glass house. The candidate you mention is not without flaws – she has some unscientific views and that’s practically inexcusable from a physician. But Putin’s crimes abroad pale in comparison to those of every single US president of my lifetime, present administration included.
Yes, that is true about Putin.
First of all, that’s not really the Mainstream Left in the US. That’s the Democratic Party, and calling the Democratic Party Left is some sort of a sick joke. Daily Kos is the site of the left wing of the Democratic Party (the base), but those people are what we might call liberal Democrats, and in my opinion, there are hardly any Americans more awful than these liberal Democrats, mostly because there is almost nothing liberal about them. Liberal Democrats in the US are basically rightwingers in most of the rest of the planet.
The problem is that both parties are utterly committed to horrific US imperialism. The US is the imperialist pig enemy of all of mankind, but both parties are just fine with that and the majority of the American people think it’s great too. So the imperialism is probably going to be one of the last things to go. Trump ran as isolationist, but he is now governing as a wildly crazed typical American imperialist pig. Recall how horrifically imperialist even Bernie Sanders was. This murderous imperialist pig crap is nearly woven into the very genes of Americans. It will be very hard to root out.
We have to support the Democratic Party though. We have no choice. They sort of suck, but the Republicans are 50X worse. And the Democrats do do quite a few good things. The problem is more that there is progressive agenda simply yields incremental change. I can live with Democrats. I can’t live with Republicans. The Republican Party is one of the most extreme rightwing parties on the whole planet.
Look, let’s get real here. The United States itself is one of the most extreme rightwing countries on the planet. That’s the people of the US. The people – Americans – are basically fanatically ultra-rightwing freaks. They are out of step with nearly the entire planet. There are hardly any nations on Earth as rightwing as the US.
The only country more rightwing than the US I can think of is Colombia. Show me any other country anywhere on Earth where majorities regularly elect parties that are as radical right as the US Republican Party. Show me one country, one.
Well I will say that the new British government is trying to copy the Republican Party. But I do not think even the horrific Tories are as bad as the Republican Party. But the Tories are probably one of the only countries on Earth that actually ape the US Republicans. US Republican Party conservatism is pretty much rejected across the board in most every country on Earth.
Just a question. How rightwing are the governments of the Baltics and the Czech Republic nowadays? I do not think they are as rightwing as the US Republican Party. Estonia and Latvia are horrible countries, and all of the Baltic countries are Nazi countries with Nazi populations. Ukraine is run by out and out Nazis and maybe half the population are out and out Nazis, but even they do not practice US Republican Party conservatism.
And the present government does not even have the support of the majority. The only reason they are in power is because they outlawed the main opposition party, murdered some of its lawmakers and quite a few of its activists, and tried to set the house of its presidential candidate on fire. They failed in the last one, setting his neighbor’s house on fire. Oh by the way, the Ukrainians had the full support of the US in all of us. The US supported them as they outlawed the opposition party, murdered opposition lawmakers and many activists and tried to burn the opposition presidential candidate to death. After all, this murderous Nazi party was put in by the US government in a US-sponsored coup.
Jose: Here this kind of androgyne or quasi androgyne “bad boys” maybe exist in some little circles, like between goths or something like these. Because there is no place for them being seen as “bad boys” if are quite feminine. Real “bad boys” will kick their asses. A punk, skater, hip hopper, etc., can be accepted as bad boys (according to their behavior obviously). But not effeminate men. They will be mocked, and common “quiet” men will not take them as “bad”.
If a quite effeminate men have wild behavior, at some point, they moment will have to change their feminine side or hide it because he will have problems every day if he deals with “bad boys”. He will be mocked and attacked.
For being a thug you have to act like if you were in jail or something like this. Dress is not so important, as long as you don’t dress effeminate (this can carry many problems).
In other Latin American countries probably this goes much deeper. Something dressed like Marylin Manson or David Bowie pretending being bad (even if is bad) can’t walk quiet in the street with that attitude. It have to “accept” the mocking and be taken as a “faggot”. I think in Paraguay or even little cities of my region of Argentina if someone is like this, people will not be quiet even in a normal neighborhood. Normal people will mock someone like this, not only “bad boys”. Not to mention in working-class places or some towns that are quasi-rural and people that live there are entirely from working-class and lower-class.
In big cities it’s different because people are accustomed to see “rare” persons like that.
Effeminate and feminine are not the same thing. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Here in the US, mostly only homosexual men act truly effeminate. This is the sort of “faggoty” behavior seen in ~75% of gay men. But effeminate straight men are quite rare. I would be surprised in 1% of straight men are effeminate.
These guys were not really feminine at all, but they do have a soft side. The guys I knew were pretty bad. They were juvenile delinquents, drug dealers, surfers and they stole things like ten speeds and marijuana plants. They were almost like gang or street kids. But they were masculine enough that no one would ever want to fight them. It’s just that you could see a feminine side going in a lot of them. In the US we have quite a few men who have a very strong masculine side and then they have a pretty strong feminine side going too. As long as they have that good strong masculine side going, no will fight them or even mess with them. I knew some guys like this who were criminals! One guy was a huge drug dealer in San Fransisco. He kept his cocaine in one house, lived in another house, and I forget what the 3rd house was for.
You are confusing effeminate and feminine. Effeminate means acting like a woman. Feminine is just a soft sort of guy. But a lot of White men have hard and soft going at the same time because you can do that in our culture. As long as people can see that masculine side, no one cares about the soft stuff. It sort of becomes invisible. Plus if you have a strong enough masculine side going, most men just leave you alone, don’t challenge you, don’t mock you or make fun of you, and don’t start fights with you.
I live in what is almost a ghetto. It’s a barrio. But no one ever starts one single thing with me here. No one bugs me, starts fights with me, or even insults me. But I have a strong masculine side, and I get into it in this hood, and a lot of people have told me I look scary. One advantage to looking scary is that most people pretty much leave you alone and don’t fuck with you.
This why I doubt Trash’s comments that a White man will get his ass kicked or robbed for sure in this type of neighborhood.
But in US White society, you do not have to be macho or hypermasculine like in Latin American society. Here in the US a soft man can be a bad boy or even a criminal. For instance, I get called bad boy quite a bit. People see me in a store or something, and they start laughing and say, “Hey there, bad boy!” Or I will be talking to a woman and I give her one of my million dollar smiles and she starts laughing and says, “Ohhhh, you’re a bad boy!” And I am a pretty damn soft guy. But somehow I give off a bad boy vibe somehow.
Here in US White society, a bad boy is any sort of rebel who looks like he doesn’t play by the rules and has a sort of devilish air about him. Macho or hypermasculine behavior is not necessary anymore.
I used to wear men’s kimonos! I wore these things called short kimonos. It is actually Japanese men’s wear. You wear it over a shirt and pants. A lot of guys did hate it when I wore that. I would see guys who looked like they wanted to beat me up when they saw me wear that. But nothing ever happened. Plus women loved it when I wore that kimono. They went nuts over that thing, while the guys acted like I was wearing a dress and they wanted to beat me up.
But at that time, I was also a punk rocker with a permanent scowl who wore lots of leather and spikes. A lot of people acted like they were afraid of me, and usually nobody started anything.
In many respects, Trump and Trumpism looks like the Latin American Oligarchic Right. He also looks a lot like the rightwing, basically fascist Right in Latin America. Every time I look at his regime, I think of the Venezuelan Opposition Right. In fact, the Republican Party increasingly looks like the Latin American Oligarchic Right, and it has been slowly resembling them for some time now.
The rightwing fascists in Latin America do not all have Brownshirt street gangs, do they? Where are the Brownshirts of the Latin American rightwings? They have death squads, yes, in a number of countries, and they have street rioters, but Brownshirts who actually go around attacking the Opposition? Not really.
But there is something like this in the Chilean Right, which regularly engages in all-out street riot-wars with the street fighters of the Left. In this sense, Chile represents Germany in the interwar period.
Something similar goes on in Venezuela, where the Right engages in relatively continuous rioting, and sometimes there is fighting with leftwing mobs. Most of the fighting is with the police though.
The death squads of El Salvador were often made up of the fanatical anti-Communist street thugs of the lower middle class neighborhoods. Have you ever seen an ARENA rally in El Salvador? That looked something like a Brownshirt mob, but they did not take to the streets.
Yes there is a thuggish rightwing in Brazil, but is it really of the Brownshirt variety? The recent coup was a legislative one.
There are something like Brownshirt mobs in the east of Bolivia (who also fashion themselves as White supremacists), but they have not been very active lately, and they are countered by leftwing Indian mobs in the capital and east of the country.
There were rightwing Peronist mobs a while back, but that seems to be through. The only mobs in Argentina anymore are with the Left. The Right only has the support of the out of touch Rich.
The only rioting mobs in Peru are on the Left, and riot they do, on a near-constant basis. There is no rightwing presence on the streets in Peru, as once again, the Right here is simply an out of touch White wealthy elite.
There are death squads in Ecuador, but they are not active anymore. The Right only has a presence in the security forces. The huge street mobs are in the capital and are of the Left.
The mobs in Nicaragua are mostly pro-Sandinista, as the Right down there has no street presence, since nobody much likes them.
The street is owned by the Left in Honduras too. The Right only has presence in a small number of rich and the security forces.
There are no street mobs of any kind in Guatemala. The murderous Right is present in the security forces.
In Colombia, the Right does have support, but there are no rightwing street mobs. The violent Right down there are the death squads run by the security forces who work in concert with civilian paramilitaries. There are not even many leftwing protests since a few weeks after huge leftwing protests, 10-15 of the protesters will end up murdered. So the Left in Colombia is armed to the teeth yet underground by necessity.
I do not think you need Brownshirt mobs to have a deadly fascist state as many examples in Latin America show us. When the rightwing government is running around murdering the Left, I am not sure if it matters whether that government is classically fascist or not. They are murderous rightwing thugs whether they earn the official fascist moniker or not. Officially fascist or not, they are still coming out to kill you, so at the end of the day, what difference does it make?
Jason Y: OK, one choice is taking up Ron Paul anti-globalism, which would reduce him to Jimmy Carter uselessness, or just lie and actually be a globalist, and a massively militaristic one at that.
Why is it down to globalism versus anti-globalism? Leaving that aside altogether, looking at his Cabinet appointment shows him to be an ultra-rightwing fanatical reactionary. Look at those Cabinet appointments. That’s all you need to know right there. Those are some of the scariest people I have ever seen in my government.
Actually, the truth is that he is an out and out fascist. That’s no exaggeration. It is absolutely correct. People have been calling the Republicans fascists since the election theft of 2000, and I think they were onto something. That is, they were moving more and more in that direction.
The Republicans are now about as evil as a typical brutal and corrupt Latin American ultraright fascist oligarchy. This is exactly what they remind me of. I look at them and I think of the oligarchical Right in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. The only thing missing is overt coup attempts and death squads. To be more precise, they remind me of the Right in Venezuela, but comparisons to Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, Honduras, Haiti and Ecuador are not far off base.
The leaders of the Latin American Right pretty much deserved to get killed based on how they act. I do not blame the Left down there for killing those people. They very much deserve it. Look at how they act!
They have an extreme hatred for democracy, and basically their attitude is that they will not tolerate the Left being in power for one day. And when the Left gets in, they will try everything in the book, legal, illegal and in between, to get rid of them. There is nothing too low for them. If they have to tell 10 million lies, they will do it. If they have to steal elections, then they will do it. If they have assassinate leftwingers, they will do it. If they have to destroy the whole economy, they will do it. If they have to riot in the streets, they will do it. If they have to run death squads, then they will do it. If they have to mount coups, military or legislative, than they will do it. The ends justifies the means, and it’s “whatever it takes to get rid of the Left, damn morality.”
Chinedu: And yet hundreds of millions of people, populating entire continents and regions, are the products of white rape.
That was a long time ago though, was it not? Anyway, the newest theory on Black-White mixes in the US is that most came after the Civil War and most were consensual even before the Civil War. Yes there were rapes but they were not common. Heading up until the Civil War, in the 1830’s-1860’s, there were many White men working for money in the fields next to the slaves. There were many unions derived from this close contact. Further, many Black females desired to have sex with the slaveowners in order to become house Negroes, etc. Southern White culture was very conservative and Southern wives did not take well to their husbands taking up Black mistresses. Most White Black unions post Civil War were obviously consensual.
There is no reason to think that things were any different in Mexico, Honduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Panama, anywhere in the Caribbean, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina or even Brazil.
We have no reports of mass rapes of Black women by White men in any of those places.
I am not aware of any mass rape of Black women by White men in Colonial Africa, even in South Africa. The problem in the East was exacerbated by Islamic slavery, and I suppose many of those were rapes, or maybe they were consensual. No one seems to be able to figure this out when it comes to slaves. Probably your best case for mass rape of Black women by White men would be in the Middle East, especially Arabia and then Mesopotamia and the Levant. And I am quite sure this was the case in North Africa as well.
There isn’t any more raping of Black women by White men anywhere on Earth and certainly there is no mass raping.
As far as raping Indian women, this is very hard to figure. I know that here in California, many Whites simply married Indian women and become squawmen who were much derided by their fellow men. These unions were quite consensual. There were some rapes in this area and maybe some enslavement but it was mostly consensual. Before we had Spaniards and missions run by priests in which there was almost zero rape. The Spaniards did not even do much to Indians other than capture them and send them to missions.
As far as the rest of the US, I have no idea, but I have not heard a lot of reports of mass rape of Indian women by White men in the records. The breeding seems to be once again White men taking Indian brides and becoming squawmen. In Canada there was little to no rape or mass rape.
It is often said that the mass unions of Mexico were the product of rape but no one knows if this was true. There were very few Spaniard males and many Indian women. The Spaniards hardly had to rape with 100-1 or 1000-1 ratios.
I do not know much about the colonization of Central America to comment. However, Costa Rica tried to keep itself delberately White for a long time. Also the Indians were wiped out very early. Obviously there was mass mixing through this whole region, but I know nothing about the details.
I have not heard many reports of rape or mass rape in the Caribbean. Yes there was mass rape in the beginning in the context of a genocide, but Caribbean people now have little Indian blood. Barbadians are 1% Indian. Cubans are probably even less. Jamaicans, Haitians, Dominicans, Dominican Republicans, etc. have almost no Indian blood. Puerto Ricans have a lot of Indian blood, but I do not know how it got there.
Yes Whites conquered Indian nations in South America. Obviously a process of mestizisation occurred there, but I have no details on it. The wars were short and over with quickly. The mestizisation process appears to have been slow and I have no details on how it even worked. In Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, the Guyanas, I have no details at all. In Brazil what little I heard was that it was mostly consensual. An early Brazilian colonist, a Portuguese man, was reported to have twenty quite happy Indian wives. This was said to be pretty normal. In the 1800’s there was a Banquismo campaign, a very racist compaign intended to mass import Whites from Europe to swamp out and breed out Indians but mostly Blacks. Apparently it worked quite well.
In Argentina, the Black-White mating was so unrapey that many Blacks present in Argentina in the late 1800’s seem to have vanihsed into thin air. Argentines are now 3% Black, so you can imagine what really happened to the Blacks. Much the same happened in Uruguay.
In Mexico it was much the same thing. Mexico was pretty Black in 1820. In 100 years, there was little left. Now there’s almost nothing left and Mexicans are 4% Black. They are quite Blacker in other areas such as Veracruz. It doesn’t sound like a lot of rape went on in these “vanishings.”
In Chile the Indians were slowly bred in after the wars in the late 1800’s and now Chileans are maybe 20% Indian. In Argentina, the Indians were also defeated but many remained in the Pampas and the gaucho was typically a mostly White mestizo, the product of unions between Whites and Indians on the Plains.
Peru and Guatemala are still heavily Indian. Bolivia is probably mostly Indian.
There is not much evidence of mass White rape of non-Whites in Asia either. We have no reports of such from the Russian East or Siberia. We have no such reports from Malaysia, Indonesia or India either, and there were few Whites or Dutchmen anyway. Nor do we have reports of such from Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Nor do we have mass rape reports from the Philippines, where Spanish colonists were apparently few in number. There are also no reports from the US colonization of the Philippines.
Although it would not surprise me, I would like to see some data that the mass mixing of Aborgines and Whites in Australia was the result of rape. Aborigines are now 50% White on average and their 85 IQ’s reflect that. The 64 IQ reports are from unmixed Aborigines.
I have not heard any reports of mass rapes of Maori women by Whites in New Zealand.
Hawaii was indeed colonized by Whites, but I have not heard any reports of mass rape.
I do not know much about the history of Polynesia.
Central Asia is mass mixed between Mongol type Asians and Whites but there is no evidence that Whites mass raped Asians. In fact, much of the mixing may have been the other way around, as Mongols mass raped the Iranid Whites already present in those places. So in one place on Earth where we do have evidence of mass rape producing White-non-White mixes, it was the Whites who were getting raped and not the other way around!
Possibly the best case for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites may have been with Aryan Whites and Australoid South Indians in India. There was a lot of interbreeding, but there was also a Hell of a lot of rape especially were South Indian women were enslaved and made to serve as temple prostitutes for Aryan men. Even today Australoid Dalit women are commonly raped by more Aryan and higher caste men.
All in all, I do not think there is much remaining evidence for mass rape of non-Whites by Whites. There were a lot of unions in the last 500 years for sure but most were consensual.