Category Archives: Brazil

A Few Countries Where US-Style Conservatives Are in Power

Juan: The Filipino government.

Center-left economics but far-right socially (law and order, etc.)

This does not remind you of Trump?

There is absolutely nothing even 1% left or even centrist about Trump. He’s basically the most rightwing man on Earth, and the Republican Party is one of the most rightwing ruling parties on Earth.

There are some contenders now in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, Honduras and Haiti, but they have vast opposition among the people. I doubt if they have majority support in any of those countries.

Two of them came to power in legislative coups – in Paraguay and Brazil.

Honduras is a military dictatorship, as is Haiti. Both governments are hated by the majority of the population.

Yes, far right parties were elected in Argentina, Chile and Colombia.

But in Argentina the far right was replacing the Hard Left with Kirchner and the government has huge opposition.

There is a lot of support for the Right in Chile, but I doubt if it’s the majority. Chile has been governed by members of the Socialist Party for most of the last 20 years. Furthermore, the Left is radicalized, activated huge and often violent in opposition.

Colombia has long been probably the most rightwing country on Earth. Probably the majority of the population supports the Hard Fascist Right. Why this is, is not known, but it is a long tradition down there. Nevertheless, the Left is huge, extremely radicalized and activated, and in fact, they have taken up arms. Actually, they have been armed to the teeth for the last 52 years. The armed Left is powerful and deadly, and they have killed 10,000’s of soldiers and police. They are so powerful that a while back, they fired mortars at the Capital building at the very moment that the new President was being sworn in. Some of the mortars actually struck the building.

38 Comments

Filed under Argentina, Asia, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Fascism, Haiti, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Paraguay, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, South America, US Politics

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

Are Brownshirt Gangs a Necessary Component of Fascism?

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?

68 Comments

Filed under Americas, Brazil, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fascism, Guatemala, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Nicaragua, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South America, US Politics, Venezuela

Trump Is Catastrophic No Matter What His Stance on Globalism Is

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.”

9 Comments

Filed under Americas, Argentina, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fascism, Government, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Paraguay, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela

An Example of Anti-White Propaganda: “White Men Raped Their Way around Most of the World”

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.

330 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Christianity, Colombia, Colonialism, Cubans, Dominicans, East Indians, Ecuador, Eurasia, Europeans, Guatemala, Guyana, Haitians, Hispanics, History, India, Indonesia, Islam, Jamaicans, Jamaicans, Laos, Latin America, Malaysia, Maori, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Oceanians, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Political Science, Polynesians, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Siberia, Sociology, South America, South Asia, South Asians, Spaniards, Uruguay, US, USA, Venezuela, Vietnam, Whites

Some Unbelievable Propaganda Against “Racemixing”

RL: Defects in what way?

Race Realist: In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Yet another study done on white-Asian mixes notes that they have a two times higher rate to be diagnosed with psychological problems such as anxiety, depression and substance abuse.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uoc–baa081108.php

It was found, in agreement that black-white mixes engaged in more risky behavior than did mono-racial children. They also observe that mixed-race adolescents are stark outliers in comparison to whites and blacks, which still holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.

http://www.msu.edu/~renn/RHE-_mixed_race.pdf

Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.

That’s all 100% sociological. We do not have a lot of mixed race people in this country, so the kids have some psychological stuff. But if you look at places were mixed race people are everywhere or even the norm, you see no such behavioral problems, and I’ve never heard of any health problems.

Whites and Asians are mixed to Hell in Central Asia all the way to Mongolia and Siberia. Any problems? Nope. Whites and Australoids are mixed to Hell in India. Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are mixed in Japan (20% Australoid). Any problems? Of course not. Asians and Australoids are also mixed in Philippines, Indonesia, coastal Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia? Any problems? Of course not. Whites, Australoids and Asians are mixing heavily now in Singapore and have been for some time in Malaysia in general. Any problems? Of course not. The entire Southeast Asian stock was created by recent mass-mixing of Australoids and Asians? Any issues? Of course not.

Whites and Indians are mixed to Hell all over Latin America. Any problems or issues? Well, of course not. Whites and Blacks are mixed all over the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa? Any problems? Well, of course not. White, Indians and Blacks are mixed in Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Brazil. And even in Argentina. Any problems? Well, of course not.

Where are all these horrible health and behavioral problems you guys keep yelling about? They don’t exist.

Black and white couples also conceive children at around half the success of white male/female couples. And the aforementioned bone marrow/blood transfusion problems.

Has this stopped people from making babies in the US, the Caribbean, Latin America, North Africa and nations of South Africa and Namibia?

Is it really that hard to get a blood transfusion? Give me some evidence that there is a huge problem with getting a blood transfusion in Latin America or anywhere on Earth for that matter due to race.

In a study of 100,000 mixed-race adolescent school children, those who identified themselves as such had higher health and behavior instances than those of one race. The effect was still observed even when SES and other factors were controlled for. A problem with an obvious genetic component.

There is no genetic component there, obvious or otherwise. There’s a sociological and cultural component that’s 100% of the problem and a genetic component that’s 0% of the problem.

Have any physicians ever noted how the racemixing that produced these kids caused any particular health problem? What particular health problem was caused by say mixing of Blacks and Whites? What particular health problem was caused by mixing of Asians and Whites?

116 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Argentina, Asia, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Colombia, Ecuador, Europeans, Health, India, Japan, Latin America, Malaysia, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Namibia, NE Asia, North Africa, North America, Panama, Philippines, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, Siberia, Singapore, Sociology, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Southwest Africa, USA, Venezuela, Whites

Problems of Communist or Socialist Democracy

Steve: I think the worst thing about 20th century communism was not the economic system but the totalitarianism, the police state and the spying and prison camps.

Maybe it was the revolutionary origins, the utopianism, the materialism, the fact the government had too much power because it owned and controlled everything BUT if it were possible to have communism with democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury etc it really wouldn’t be so bad, you could live with the economic system.

Remember the communist countries had the cold war and sanctions and stuff to contend with too.

They have a certain amount of free speech in China, Vietnam and Cuba, but maybe not as much as you would like. They have anti-government demonstrations in Vietnam, and there are 100 protests every day in China.

There is critical press in Cuba that no one does anything about (check out Havana Times) and dissidents are mostly allowed to publish openly (check out the famous Cuban woman dissident blogger). There is freedom of religion in Cuba, and believers can now join the Party. They have trial by jury in Cuba. I am not sure how fair it is though. But there are some defense attorneys who are taking anti-government cases right now, people accused of criminal charges, police brutality cases, etc. You can read about them in Havana Times. Nobody does much to them.

In Cuba it was supposedly inside the revolution, total freedom of speech, outside of it nothing. But it never really worked out that way, and they went after a lot of loyal opposition types. In Cuba today, you can’t try to overthrow the government and you can’t advocate getting rid of the socialist system. Outside of that, you can supposedly say what you want, but even that may be limited. Check out Havana Times though. There are some very government-critical people there being published all the time, and I think they are mostly left alone.

Every time they try that, the capitalists go berserk, cause chaos and make endless coup and assassination attempts. Also they engage in mass economic sabotage. But this was only tried in places where the economy was still capitalist. The US starts flooding the country with millions of dollars to the dissidents and spends more millions setting up countless “democratic” pressure group that mostly spend every second of their time trying to overthrow the government. You going to let people own newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations. Guess who’s going to buy up all the media? In Venezuela even today, 75% of the media is privately owned. OK you will allow free elections. How about campaign contributions? Guess who’s going to buy the elections?

You can’t have Communist democracy. That’s why Lenin talked about parliamentary cretinism.

You can’t have somewhat socialist democracy in a lot of places. Look what happened in:

  • Brazil (military coup, parliamentary coup)
  • Guatemala (military coup + 200,000 murdered over 40 years)
  • Iran (military coup + 150,000 murdered)
  • The Congo (military coup + assassination)
  • Haiti (military coup + chaos + contras + 3,000 plus murdered)
  • Dominican Republican (US invasion to topple regime)
  • Guyana (regime toppled by British)
  • Honduras (military coup + 1,000 murdered)
  • Syria (military coup)
  • Greece (military coup)
  • Italy (election fraud)
  • Indonesia (military coup + 1 million Communists murdered)
  • Colombia (assassination + death squads)
  • Panama (assassination)
  • Mexico (election fraud)
  • Afghanistan (contras)
  • Nicaragua (contras + sanctions)
  • El Salvador (military coup followed by 75,000 murdered)
  • Chile (economic sabotage, chaos, military coup, 15,000 murdered, defense attorneys tortured to death)
  • Venezuela (military coup, economic coup, constant riots and chaos), endless assassination plots, assassinations and murders, death squads, economic sabotage)
  • Argentina (military coup, 30,000 murdered)
  • Uruguay (military coup, 300 murdered)
  • Peru (military coup, 1.5 million arrested)
  • East Timor (military coup, invasion to topple regime, 300,000 murdered),
  • Paraguay (legislative coup + death squads)
  • Zimbabwe (sanctions)
  • Ukraine (coup)

Mao warned about this. He said there were always capitalist elements in the party trying to restore capitalism. That was the reason for the cultural revolution. Mao thought you would have to have cultural revolutions all the time to keep weeding out the reactionary elements in the party because they would keep springing up again like weeds.

Look what happened when Mao died. The reactionaries in the party around Deng took over and restored capitalism (sort of). Mao was right.

7 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Americas, Asia, Brazil, Capitalism, Caribbean, Central Africa, Central America, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Economics, El Salvador, Europe, Government, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Journalism, Latin America, Law, Maoism, Marxism, Mexico, Middle East, Nicaragua, Panama, Politics, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, South Asia, Syria, Vietnam

Have Countries Improved by Moving Away from Social Democracy and Towards Neoliberalism?

HBD investor: Many countries floundered in various socialist schemes and their economies massively improved when they became less socialist.

None of this is true.

Many countries had problems with centrally planned economies with many or all state firms. This is called either state socialism or Communism and the record is not so wonderful. It isn’t so bad either. Been to Eastern Europe? See all that infrastructure? That was all built by the Communists. Go to Russia and see the same thing. Same in China. Communists built Russia and China up from nothing. They were nothing before, and Communism turned them into superpowers. They also had very high economic growth in industry and agriculture for decades. They massively expanded the nearly nonexistent education system. The Communists made monumental gains in housing in both countries. Health care improved to an incredible degree in both countries.

Now with Communism you can get great economic growth for a while, maybe a few decades, maybe more, but at some point it all starts bogging down in bureaucracy, lack of a pricing mechanism and a market, a lot of people just not working very hard and massive thievery of state property. In addition, the rate of economic growth slows. Although Communist countries usually wipe out poverty, in its place they only allow a relatively low standard of living. People probably want to live better than that. In addition, the collectivization of agriculture has been such a failure in Communist countries that I believe we should stop trying it. Production usually goes down by quite a bit and there are sometimes famines at the start if they try to do it too fast.

Yugoslavian Communism worked very well by the way, and they had a very good standard of living, the highest in Eastern Europe.

In addition, state socialist schemes with central planning had a lot of problems in Syria, India, Tanzania and other places. It just doesn’t work very well.

On the other hand, some form of social democracy is the norm all over the world. It’s not true that social democratic countries did a lot better as they shed most of their social democracy and adopted neoliberalism. The world has been doing that for a long time now and the record is in. It’s been a massive failure.

All of Europe except the UK is voting in Left parties, and at least the people want more social democracy and less neoliberalism. There’s no move towards neoliberalism and away from social democracy in Europe outside of Latvia and the UK.

There is no neoliberal free market capitalism in the Arab World. Arabs actually don’t believe in neoliberalism because Arabs and Muslims are sort of “naturally socialist” people. The Gulf states are huge social democracies. There is a lot of social spending and considerable state involvement in the economy in much of the Arab World.

Iran has been pretty much a socialist country ever since the Revolution. There is vast social spending, and the state is involved in the economy. Afghanistan is collapsed, but Communism was actually pretty popular there. Pakistan has been run by social democratic parties in recent years. India is officially a socialist country. It’s written right into the Constitution. An armed Maoist group is very powerful in India. Communist Parties have been running the states of West Bengal and Kerala for decades. Nepal is run by a coalition government consisting of a socialist party and a Communist party. The large opposition is made up of Maoists. I believe Sri Lanka is run by a social democratic party.

Myanmar’s been socialist forever. Vietnam and Laos are Communist. Cambodia has been run by Communists in recent years. The Philippines is a bad example, but they have free state health care for all, and education is free through the university level. Indonesia recently elected a socialist, a woman. The very popular newly elected president says he is a socialist. An armed Maoist group is very active in the country.

Australia and New Zealand are longstanding social democracies on the Canadian model.

Canada is a longstanding social democracy.

The largest party in Mexico is a member of the Socialist International, and the oil industry is state owned. Education is free through the university level, and health care is also free. El Salvador and Nicaragua are now run by former Marxist guerrillas, the FMLN and the Sandinistas. Costa Rica has been a social democracy since after World War 2. Honduras recently elected a leftwing president who was quickly overthrown in a state-sponsored coup. The military is still in power in Honduras, but everybody hates them.

A socialist party called Lavalas, the party of Jean Bertrande Aristide, continues to be the most popular party in Haiti, even though it has been declared illegal. To show you how popular Lavalas is, in the last election they ran in, they got 92% of the vote. During his short reign, Aristide built more schools than had been built in the entire 190 years before him.

A number of Caribbean island states are members of the Bolivarian economic bloc set up by Venezuela. Most Caribbean political parties are leftwing parties with the words socialist, revolutionary, workers, labor, or popular in them. Cuba is Communist and has a lower infant mortality rate than we do. A few years ago, they also had a longer life expectancy than we did.

Venezuela is still run by the Chavistas, a socialist party. Ecuador is run by a Leftist. Peru recently elected a leftwing Indian, although he has not been able to do much as his hands are tied. Brazil has been electing the socialist PT or Workers Party for many years now. A former Marxist guerrilla was the most recent president, and she was only removed by an illegal US-sponsored legislative coup. Paraguay elected a Leftist Catholic priest, a preacher of Liberation Theology, but he was soon overthrown in a legislative coup. The illegitimate party is now in power.

Uruguay has been a social democracy forever, and it is now governed by a former Marxist guerrilla. Juan Peron put in a social democracy in the 1950’s. Argentina was recently governed by a leftwing husband and wife team who alternated in the Presidency. Chile has been electing presidents from the Socialist Party for about 20 years now. The most recent Socialist, Michelle Bachelet, is a radical, but it remains to be seen what she can do. Chile has a huge class divide, the upper and lower classes  want to murder each other, and there are regular violent protests, leftwing versus rightwing street brawls, and riots, lately by students.

In Latin America, radical neoliberalism was imposed for 20 years, and it failed so badly that the whole continent has been electing leftwingers ever since.

I do not know much about Africa, but most African parties have been officially social democratic for a long time now. The Communist Party was recently part of a South African government. If anything has failed in Africa, it is neoliberalism.

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Cambodia, Canada, Caribbean, Catholicism, Central America, Chile, China, Christianity, Costa Rica, Cuba, East Africa, Economics, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, European, Government, Haiti, History, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Laos, Latin America, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Mexico, Middle East, Neoliberalism, Nepal, Nicaragua, North America, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Politics, Regional, Religion, Russia, SE Asia, Socialism, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tanzania, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yugoslavia

US and Turkey Not Cooperating at All on Syria

Here and here.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I have never been able to figure out who was behind that bizarre coup, but I am almost certain that the US was in on it. And the Gulenists may well have played a large role. The coup was probably a US/Gulenist coup to take down Erdogan for cooperating with Russia. The coup happened very soon after Turkey announced a cooperation agreement with Russia.

But it looks like Russia may well have warned Erdogan beforehand, so Erdogan had some sort of foreknowledge of the coup. It was quite suspicious how he rounded up all of those people, put most of his political opponents in jail and jailed half the officers in the country and shut down the nation’s opposition media. He clearly used the coup as a pretext to cement his dictatorship.

The blatherings from the sick US media that democracy had been saved in Turkey and democracy needed to be preserved in Turkey were complete crap. Sure the coupists would not have been democrats, but Erdogan was already a dictator, it’s just that he was even more of one after the coup.

The US government is a maggot entity when it comes to this sort of thing. We foment coups all over the world all the time and overthrow democratically elected governments all the time. We just did so in Haiti, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay and Ukraine. Usually the sick MSM has some crazy, sick lie about how the coup was necessary because the president was corrupt or incompetent or not democratic!

Ukraine had to be overthrown because it was corrupt. Same with Brazil. Honduras and Paraguay had to be overthrown because the governments were trying to subvert democracy. It’s a lie in both cases, and anyway, they were replaced by putschists who were hardly democrats themselves. Egypt had to be overthrown because the government was a dictatorship. But the coup put in a new government that’s a dictatorship too! Aristide had to be overthrown because he was incompetent and causing chaos. Never mind that things got 10X worse when the putschists were put in and the chaos went crazy, leaving 3,000 Aristide supporters murdered.

It’s all just nothing but lies, hypocrisy and double standards, the three pillars of US foreign policy. It’s pretty simple. When our enemies have a democratically elected government, it needs to be overthrown by a military or legislative coup for some insane reason and a dictatorship needs to be put in. What about democracy? What democracy? The Hell with democracy.

When there’s a coup against one of our democratically elected pals, we scream and yell about the need to restore democracy and get rid of the evil military dictators. And all of our allies are democracies, even the dictatorships. Somehow friendly dictatorships are actually democracies or they are really nice dictatorships, or whatever, or this or that, or nothing. Handwave.

The media of course always plays along with the entire crusade, in fact, US foreign policy is utterly dependent on a compliant media which helps to implement the project. Without the lying propaganda media, US foreign policy goals might be a lot harder to implement. And the entire media goes along. Not one single outlet steps out of line. Name one media outlet opposing the US government on Iran, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela or Russia. One. One. All I ask you is to name one. You can’t. That’s worse than Putin’s Russia. Putin’s Russia has lots of opposition media. That’s worse than the “dictatorship” of Venezuela where the opposition controls 75% of the media. It’s probably worse than the USSR. At least they had their samizdat.

The shootdown of the Russian jet which resulted in the deaths of two Russian airmen is clouded in uncertainty. It is doubtful that Gulenists did it, and Erdogan was raging against Russia at the time. Turkey was utterly defiant and the US and Turkey made up a lie about Russia violating Turkish airspace. Truth is that the shootdown was planned well in advance.

Turkey had received warning 24 hours before from the US military of the flight path of the Russian jets as Russia was coordinating all of this with the Pentagon. The jets were over a tiny bit of Turkish territory for maybe 13 seconds and this sort of thing happens all the time. It’s not like there are border walls up in the sky that keep you from flying over borders. It’s often quite hard to tell exactly where the border even is. But there is no way that those Turkish jets could have scrambled that fast when the Russians barely crossed the line for 13 seconds. The Turks had to have been lying in wait and they must have known the exact flight path. The only way they could have gotten that was through the US military, who had been given that information by the Russians.

I am not sure what to make of this story below. A lot of it is pro-US, anti-Russia propaganda which makes sense as it is published by Al Monitor which is run by US allies in the Gulf.

“Cengiz Candar wrote that “despite official statements to the contrary, Ankara and Washington are not cooperating in Syria. There’s a lot of friction. Ankara acquiesces much more to its former adversary Russia than to its traditional ally, the United States.”

Mustafa Akyol added that Russia is exploiting the friction between Ankara and Washington over the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, whom the Erdogan government considers a terrorist and has accused of being behind the attempted military coup in July.

During a visit to Ankara on Oct. 2, Aleksandr Dugin, a “special representative” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, claimed that Russia had warned Turkey of the coup, which he said took place because of Turkey’s turn toward Russia.

“Since the failed coup attempt, Dugin’s call to Turkey has been played up in the Russian media as well. Pro-Kremlin websites fabricated two fake news stories in September showing that the United States was behind the plot,” Akyol wrote, adding that these stories “found strong echoes in Turkey, which is now more obsessed than ever with conspiracy theories.”

A key element in this new Turko-Russian rapprochement is the common contempt for the followers of cleric Fethullah Gulen, the leader of the Islamic cult widely held responsible for the coup attempt,” Akyol explained.

“Erdogan and his supporters think that Western powers, out of either naiveté or malice, do not comprehend the threat the Gulenists pose for Turkey. In contrast, the Russians have long designated the Gulenists as a perilous group, closing all their schools and even banning the religious movement that identifies with it. That is why Ankara and Russia, even back in 2014, have long been in full agreement on the Gulenists. Now Russians are only adding that Ankara should see ‘the powers behind the Gulenists,’ as Dugin urged in the Moscow meeting.

“The common enmity for Gulenists also gave the two countries a chance to explain away the major rift they had in November 2015, when a Russian warplane was downed by the Turkish air force on the Syrian border,” Akyol continued.

“This incident initiated a cold war between Ankara and Moscow, which ended only last June, when Erdogan reached out to the Russians with an apology. Soon, the pro-government media in Turkey also came up with the theory that the pilot of the Turkish jet that downed the Russian plane was a Gulenist, which may well have been the case, and acted with the sinister intention to break Turkish-Russian ties, which may well be a fantasy. But it seems to be a convenient fantasy on which both Dugin and his Turkish guests in Moscow agreed.”

4 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Brazil, Caribbean, Central America, Egypt, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Haiti, Honduras, Imperialism, Iran, Journalism, Latin America, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Paraguay, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Russia, South America, Syria, Turkey, USA, Venezuela, War, Yemen

Caucasian/Non-Caucasian Mixing Zones Around the World

The heavy Caucasian-non-Caucasian mixing zone is from North Africa across Arabia, and then in a belt from the Urals in the north down through the Stans to Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India in the south and all the way to Siberia and even East Turkestan in China to the east.

One can say that there is a White/non-White mixing zone of recent origin in the Americas mostly from Mexico south in Mesoamerica down to Latin America all the way down to Chile, Uruguay and Argentina in the south, with more admixture to the north and much less at the south. Mesoamerica is quite thoroughly admixed or mestized as is Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and Paraguay. In Colombia, the Whites are also quite admixed with Black.

There is a White/Black mixing zone in the Caribbean and the Guyanas down to Brazil. In the Caribbean, White genes have been pretty much washed out by Black ancestry, and the Caribbean is quite a Black place. The same has occurred in Belize and to a lesser extent in Panama, both of which are seriously mulattized. Even Dominican “Whites” would probably not qualify as White to most people as they seem to have too much Black in them to be considered White. There are definitely White Puerto Ricans though and there are many White Cubans. The Guyanas are so mulattized that there are not many Whites left, similar to the Dominican Republic.

In North America, there has not been a lot of White/non-White mixing. The heavily mixed people are mostly recent immigrants from Mesoamerica, mostly from Mexico. Otherwise, Whites in the US, Canada and even Alaska have not mixed much with Indians, Inuits or Blacks.

Hawaii can be considered a White/non-White mixing zone of extremely recent origin as by this time most of the population is seriously admixed. The admixture is generally White/Asian mixes of all different sorts.

The Whites in New Zealand, Australia and even Europe are not much admixed other than recent immigrants in Europe, though there is some Asian/White admixture in the Sami. Nevertheless, I regard the Sami as Whites. Black-White mixing in Southern Europe is very negligible, despite the rantings and false science of Nordicists. Iranians are White. Turks are a bit admixed, but still they are overwhelmingly White.

There has been quite a bit of White/Black mixing in South Africa and Namibia, more than you might ever expect. The Namibian Whites in particular are quite admixed. Quite a few are so admixed that one wonders if they could be properly called White anymore as they tend to be in the “border zone” of Whiteness.

48 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Europe, Europeans, French Guyana, Guyana, India, Iranians, Latin America, Mexico, Middle East, Mixed Race, Namibia, NE Asia, Near Easterners, North Africa, North America, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberia, South Africa, South America, South Asia, Southwest Africa, Turks, Uruguay, USA, Whites