Category Archives: Indonesia

Socialism, Populism, and Neoliberalism in the Arab World

Sisera: The CIA’s coups have been out of control for decades, agreed.

But you support minority rule governments in the Middle East (Saddam Hussein, certainly and possibly Assad who is at least an ethnic minority. Hezbollah operated for years in a largely Christian country, etc.) because the alternative would mean Americans die in terror attacks from those countries becoming terror bases.

I don’t know that you could argue any Latin American oligarchy was more brutal than Saddam Hussein.

So you just value certain American interests that are different than his.

Saddam was brutal but he was a populist. He just didn’t tolerate any minority rebellions or opposition really. But in return for that he was a great socialist and populist leader who did great things for his people. Saddam’s rule was not oligarchic rule by a ruling class. Actually when the Ba’ath took power, they took out the local oligarchs, confiscated their land, imposed heavy taxation, nationalized many industries, etc.

Saddam was a man of the people. He was for the little guy, the average Joe Iraqi Workingman. You could also argue that Stalin and Mao were brutal in similar ways. Leftwing regimes can be pretty brutal. I am not one to dismiss that. But leftist and Communist regimes are not cases of ruling class rule or the rule by a small group of rich and capitalists over everyone else.

The whole time Hezbollah was around, Lebanon was a minority Christian country. It hasn’t been majority Christian since the 1960’s or maybe 1970’s. Anyway the Christians are not in opposition to Hezbollah. One of the Maronite leaders, Aoun, is in an alliance with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has Christian and Sunni militias in Christian and Sunni areas. The Greek Orthodox have always supported Hezbollah. It’s a populist movement. Hezbollah only came into existence because of the Israeli invasion.

You may be correct about Syria. Democracy may well vote in radical Islamists, and that would not be a pretty picture. The Syrian rebels give you a taste of what life would be like without Assad.  We already know what life in Iraq was like post-Saddam. A sheer Hell of a charnelhouse. Surely Saddam was better than what came after.

Assad is a populist. He works for everyone. It’s not a matter of the rich running the place and fucking everyone over. They just had elections for Parliament and 85% of the seats were run by Sunnis. The Sunnis run the business community. The army is full of Sunni generals. The minority rule thing is sort of dumb. Assad cuts everyone in because he has to. Anyway, if you go the democratic route in the Middle East, you end up with Islamists.

I actually do not mind popular or populist dictatorships that serve the people. That’s fine. Assad appears to have majority support too. It’s not like the majority want Assad gone and he just usurped them.

Saddam was difficult, but there were 1 million Shia Ba’ath Party members. Shia were persecuted not for being Shia but for being Islamists. Anyway, Saddam was the best choice. Look what happened when he was gone.

For whatever reason, the rich and the capitalists in the Arab World are not evil like in Latin America, the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. Everyone wants socialism in the Arab world. But Arab socialism allows businessmen to earn money, so everyone gets cut in. You don’t have hard-line socialism or Communism because you don’t have diabolical ruling classes like you have in Latin America. If the rich and the capitalists are willing to go along with a socialist or populist project, why can’t they have full rights?

Hezbollah does not control Lebanon. Anyway, Lebanon is minority rule and has been forever. Christians are guaranteed 50% of seats in Parliament but are only 30% of the population. Hezbollah is not a ruling class group. They are basically socialists like most Islamists.

You see, radical neoliberalism, Latin American style economic conservatism, Republican Party politics, etc. is a no seller in the Arab World. Literally nobody but nobody but nobody wants it. The only people proposing it are Lebanese Maronites because they are close to Europe and they are trying to distinguish themselves from Arabs by being individualists and different.

You can’t sell any sort of oligarchic rule, ruling class rule, economic conservatism of any of that in most Muslim countries. Because Mohammad, if you read him closely, was a pretty socialist fellow. Now the ruling classes in the Arab world used to be feudalists who worked the fellahin like serfs.

But the Arab nationalist revolutions that rocked the Arab world got rid of all of that. All rulers wiped out the feudal holdings and liberated the peasants. The large landowners tried to justify their rule by saying that Mohammad said there are rich and there are poor and that is fine. They got corrupt Muslims clergy to go along with this, similar to how the ruling classes get the Catholic Church to go along with the project of the rich.

This alliance was most notable in Iraq, but it existed in other places like Palestine. Egypt was largely feudal before Nasser. Nasser was not only an Arab nationalist but also a working class hero. Leftists all over the Arab World used to have pictures of Nasser on the walls. He too liberated the Muslim peasants. Feudal rule ended in Palestine in the 1930’s in the midst of an Arab nationalist revolution there.

Getting rid of oligarchic and feudal rule was easy in the Arab World because the masses never supported the oligarchs or feudalists. Rather, they hated them. So Arab socialism was an easy fit all over the region. Even the business communities gladly went along.

7 Comments

Filed under Africa, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Capitalism, Christianity, Conservatism, Economics, Egypt, Geopolitics, Government, Indonesia, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Latin America, Lebanon, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, North Africa, Palestine, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, SE Asia, Shiism, Socialism, Sunnism, Syria, US Politics

The Rich Only Support Democracy when the Elected State Serves their Class Interests, Otherwise They Try to Overthrow It

Zamfir: Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.

Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it.

I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).

As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself.

I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc.

So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)

You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view?

Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along.

A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.

So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)

The Communist view is that seeking power peacefully would be a great idea except the ruling classes will never allow it to happen. They say that power never gives up without a fight, and I believe that they are correct. Nevertheless, most Communists support Venezuela, Nicaragua and only leftwing democratic countries. But the Communists would say, “Look what happens why you try to take power peacefully. You get Nicaragua, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, and even Argentina.”

The ruling class will just overthrow the democratic Left state any way they can, always using anti-democratic means to do so. That’s why Lenin called people who supported the peaceful road to socialism “parliamentary cretins.” He thought it was a great idea but it would never work because the rich would never allow the Left to take power peacefully.

The Communist view is also that you never have democracy under capitalism anyway, as the capitalists and the rich always ending ruling the state one way or another through all sorts of means. And yes, the rich and the capitalists always take over all the media in any capitalist country as you said, they use it to shape the view of the people to support the class politics of the rich. Such support being called false consciousness.

Gramsci said that the ruling class took over the entire culture in capitalist countries and brainwashed the masses into supporting the project of the rich. They did this via cultural hegemony. Marx said that the culture of the rich is always the popular culture in any capitalist country. So the ruling class turns all of us into “little rich people” or “little capitalists” to support their project. They brainwash us into thinking we are the same class as the rich and that we are all capitalists ourselves, so we should support Capital. These are lies, but most Americans are easily fooled.

Ralph Nader called this “going corporate” or “thinking corporate.” He says that in the US, most people adopt the mindset of the corporations and think of themselves are part of the corporate structure whether they are or not. If everyone is part of the corporate structure, then what’s good for corporations is good for all of us, which is the project of the Republican Party, neoliberalism everywhere, the Latin American rich, etc. It’s a big fat lie, but people want to be rich and a lot of workers want to think of themselves are busy little capitalist money-making, go-getter, can-do, Bossterist entrepreneurs because it seems to cool to own your own business.

And the Communists would call this false consciousness and their argument would be that under capitalism, most people adopt false consciousness.

I think in the US, the rich see the tide coming and the rule of the rich is going to end so they want to lock in as much of the state as possible by stacking the courts, gutting the safety net, massive tax cuts that will be impossible to get rid of, and that Constitutional Convention they are two states away from getting where they want to rewrite the whole US Constitution to lock in rule by the rich for as long as possible. The rich see the writing on the wall. That’s why they came up with the computerized elections scam, so they could steal elections as long as people kept voting against the rich.

The gerrymandering of districts now makes it almost impossible to get rid of Republican majorities on state representatives in the House and in Senators and Assemblymen in the states. It’s all locked in.

So as the rich saw the tide turning and demographics moving against them, they instituted a full court press to do all sorts of extremely anti-democratic stuff to stay in power. If the people would just vote for them anyway, they would not have to do that, but apparently most Americans have now turned away from the politics of the rich, so the rich will have to lie, cheat, and steal to stay in power from now on.

Also they elected Donald Trump, by far the most corrupt, authoritarian and even outright fascist leader this country has ever had. And this follows too. Whenever there is a popular movement against the rich and the capitalists, the rich and the capitalists always, always, always resort of fascism to stay in power. This has been proven endlessly over time, even in Europe. Trotsky had some great things to say about this. Check out “Thermidor.” Trotsky truly understood what fascism was all about. It is a desperate last ditch move by the ruling class to seize power in the face of an uprising from the Left.

The rich and the capitalists are determined to stay in power, by hook or by crook, by any means necessary, and they will lie, cheat, steal and kill as many people as they have to just to keep the Left out of power. They simply will not allow the Left to rule. They must rule and if they are out of  power, they will use any antidemocratic means to get power back.

Which is the story of the CIA, the Pentagon and 100% of US foreign policy since 1945 and even before then. Read Samuel Butler.

I mean, we on the Left generally allow the Right to take power if they do so democratically. Sure they destroy everything like they always do, but most of us are committed to the democratic means of seeking power. Even most Communist parties will not take up arms against any rightwing government, saying they prefer to seek power by peaceful means. Typically, the CP will issue a statement that the nation is not in a revolutionary situation right now. There are objective conditions under which a nation is said to be in a revolutionary situation. I’m sure you can recall a few. It is then and only then that most CP’s will go underground and issue a call to take up arms.

Frankly, almost all Left insurgencies postwar were defensive. The Left allowed the Right to take power and then the Right started running around killing people. Usually the Left sat there for a while and let themselves get killed before taking up power. I know the Viet Cong just sat there from 1954-1960 while the rightwing Vietnamese government ran amok in the countryside, murdering 80,000 Communists in six years. They kept asking the North Vietnamese for permission to take up arms, but the North kept denying it.

The Colombian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan guerrillas only took up guns after the state had been running about murdering them unarmed for years. The Salvadoran guerrillas said they got tired of sitting in their homes waiting for the rightwing state to come kill them, and they decided that if the state was going to come kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves. They also took up arms because the Right kept stealing elections by fraud.

The Right had cut off all methods of seeking power peacefully, so the Left picked up guns. The message is if you elect a leftwing government, sooner or later the Right will overthrow it and then there will be a reign of terror where many Leftists will be murdered. Knowing that, if you were a Leftist in some country, would you not be afraid to put the Left in power knowing you stood a good chance of being murdered once the inevitable rightwing coup took place?

The Colombian and Honduran governments only stay in power by killing people. Lots of people. The Greek Communists only took up arms after the government had been killing them for some time.

Also once a Left government is overthrown by the rich and the capitalists, the new Rightist government institutes a reign of terror where they slaughter the defeated Left for many years. This went on for decades after 1954 in Guatemala, and it goes on still today. After Aristide was overthrown, the rightwing government murdered 3,000 of his supporters.

After Allende was overthrown, Pinochet murdered 15,000 people over a decade and a half. A threat from the Left prompted the Indonesian government to fake a Left coup and murder 1 million Communists in a couple of months. Even before the Korean War broke out, from 1948-1950, the South Korean government killed hundreds of thousands of Communists in the South.

As they withdrew when the North attacked, the South Koreans killed South Korean Communists everywhere they went. After the fascist coup in Argentina, the government decimated the Left, murdering 30,000 mostly unarmed supporters of the Left. The same thing happened in Bolivia with the Banzer Plan when Hugo Banzer took power after the tin miners briefly sought power. The new rightwing government in Brazil is already starting to murder members of the former Left ruling party. They’re not going to stop.

After the fascist coup in Ukraine, the Communist Party was outlawed and many of its members were murdered. War was declared on labor unions. Workers in one union were chained to a heater inside the building and the building was set on fire.

The party supported by half the population (the Russian speakers and their supporters) the Party of Regions, was outlawed, a number of its deputies were murdered and there were attempts to murder the leader of the party, lastly by setting his house on fire which set his neighbor’s house on fire instead. He fled to Russia. Now half the population and all of the Russian speakers had not party to represent them, which is why they took up arms. They were locked out of power.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Americas, Argentina, Asia, Brazil, Capitalism, Capitalists, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, El Salvador, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, History, Honduras, Indonesia, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, NE Asia, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Russia, Scum, SE Asia, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, South Korea, Ukraine, US, US Politics, USA, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Should the Rich and the Reactionaries Be Given Rights?

Sisera: So what does that mean then? You believe rich people are inherently oppressors who don’t deserve rights but then White men are okay?

Most of them are oppressors, of course. Don’t you even understand class politics or the nature of capitalism at all. Those rich people who are pursuing their economic self interests in the class war, well of course they are our oppressors. The oppressors of me and mine anyway. I suppose they see us as oppressors.

Marxist theory doesn’t say that anyway. It just says that when the rich pursue their self interests in the class war, everyone who’s not rich gets fucked. You want to call that oppression? You are welcome to. If you side with the rich, you are an idiot. Why would you side with your class enemies. Most of them are oppressors, of course. Don’t you even understand class politics or the nature of capitalism at all.

Those rich people who are pursuing their economic self interests in the class war, well of course they are our oppressors. The oppressors of me and mine anyway. I suppose they see us as oppressors. Marxist theory doesn’t say that anyway. It just says that when the rich pursue their self interests in the class war, everyone who’s not rich gets fucked. You want to call that oppression? You are welcome to. If you side with the rich, you are an idiot. Why would you side with your class enemies?

The rich are our class enemies. Does that mean they oppress us? I dunno. When they’re in power, they screw us over. All of the rich hate democracy, lie like rugs, and support violence, murder, terror, genocide, coups, and dictatorships anywhere the people take power.

Personally, I think all conservatives and reactionaries are pure filth. I wish they would all drop dead tomorrow. That way they would be where they belong: in graves. They’re nothing but pure garbage. Show me a reactionary or conservative anywhere on Earth that’s actually a human and not a lying, sadistic, murderous piece of scum. There aren’t any!

In a democratic society, of course the rich get their rights, but they abuse the fuck out of them, and anytime they people take power, the rich start using violence, coups, death squads, rioting, judicial and legislative coups, etc. to get their way. We let the rich take power all the time. They won’t let us take power at all. I’m glad the Chinese Communists took away the rights of the reactionaries.

Look what would happen if they had rights? See Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Honduras, Haiti, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Philippines? That’s what happens when you give the rich and the reactionaries any rights at all. Right now they would be burning China to the ground like they are doing to Venezuela and Nicaragua because they are furious that a people’s government got put in.

If that’s the way they are always, always, always going to act, why give them rights? So they can destroy your country and take down any democratically elected government they don’t believe in?

They try to destroy by antidemocratic means any people’s or popular government any time it gets in.

And when they take power themselves, they usually put in a dictatorship.

This is what happens if they don’t get their way and the people elect a democratically elected people’s government:

Attempted coups by street violence: Nicaragua, Ukraine, Syria, and Thailand.

Attempted coups by economic warfare: Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Nicaragua.

Coups by legislative means: Paraguay and Brazil.

Attempted legislative coup: Venezuela.

Coups by judicial means: Brazil.

Coups by direct overthrow of the state: Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, and Egypt.

Attempted coups by direct overthrow of the state: Ecuador and Bolivia.

Coup by insurgency: Haiti.

Attempted coup by insurgency: Syria.

Coups by direct invasion: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Panama, Libya, and Grenada.

This is what happens every time they get into power, especially if they take over a people’s government: 

Right-wing death squad authoritarian regime installed: Honduras*, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil*, Guatemala*, Chile, Philippines*, Uruguay, Bolivia, Indonesia*, and Ukraine*.

No I don’t have a problem taking away rights from reactionary fucks! Why should we give them rights? Give me one reason! One! One reason!

8 Comments

Filed under Africa, Argentina, Asia, Brazil, Capitalism, Caribbean, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Europe, Fascism, Government, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Libya, Marxism, Middle East, NE Asia, Nicaragua, North Africa, North Korea, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Political Science, Regional, SE Asia, South America, Syria, Thailand, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen

Why Do Some Countries Lack a Class Conscious Working Class?

John Engelman: Contrary to what Karl Marx said, for most people most of the time loyalties of nation, race and ethnicity are stronger than loyalties of class. The working class in the United States has always been more diverse than the working class in European countries. It is becoming more diverse with the influx of non whites.

To get class consciousness you really need a homogeneous working class. It helps if the working class is ethnically distinct from the upper class. In Scotland the upper class is English, or Anglicized Scottish. That is to say Scottish, but educated in England, and often speaking with English accents.

The clear majority of Scots vote for the British Labour Party. English workers are more likely to vote for the British Conservative Party.

The argument is circular in a sense because as you look around the world, generally what you see in most cases is an ethnically homogenous working class.

Would you describe the working classes of Latin America as homogeneous or diverse? They seem to be a mixture of White, Indian and Black and the mestizo, mulatto and Zambo mixtures, correct? Yet the diverse working classes down there have high working class consciousness despite their diverse nature.

Aren’t North African and Gulf countries fairly mixed between Blacks and Arabs?

Certainly in Arabia, lands with diverse working classes of Kurds, Arabs and Iranian working classes are all very left.

I believe Sri Lanka even with the vicious Tamil versus Sinhalese war, the diverse working class is leftwing. In Burma the working class is very left although there have been wild ethnic wars sputtering on for decades.

In Russia and other nations of the former USSR, there are many ethnic minorities, but the workers are still working class.

A recent exception is Ukraine where workers have gone radical Right. The former Yugoslavia is still very leftwing even after all of the ethnic conflict and even slaughter of past years. Spain’s working class is very radical despite an armed conflict in the Basque region and separatists in Catalonia. The different religions hate each other in North Ireland, but the Scottish Protestant workers are as class conscious as the Irish Catholic ones. Switzerland is divided between three ethnic groups – French, Germans, and Italians – yet it is a very leftwing country.

The extreme tribalism in Africa has not prevented the working classes from being class conscious.

Is the working class of England voting Tory yet? Or do you just mean that they are more likely to vote Tory than the Scots are?

Most workers in Europe, Arabia, North Africa, Africa, the former USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Japan, South Korea, Nepal are the same ethnicity as the ruling classes of those places, yet workers have a high degree of class consciousness in all of those places.

The places where working class consciousness has been harder to develop were those that had a Chinese ruling class as in Philippines and Indonesia.

I think we need to come up with some better theories about the poor class consciousness of the US working class. If you are looking for examples elsewhere, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Australia, the Baltics and Colombia are places with quite poor working class consciousness.

In Australia it is recent as US style conservatism is imported.

A similar trend is underway in Canada and has been since Thatcher in the UK. But the UK is in nearly a revolutionary situation. A lot of the working classes are militant and radicalized, while a lot of the country has at the same time gone Tory. When Thatcher died, there were anti-rich riots in housing estates across the land. Thatcher was burned in effigy in the streets. Can you imagine that happening in the US?

The recent riots in the UK also had a class undercurrent. I was dating a British woman at the time, and she told me that local storeowners who treated the community well were spared by rioters. Rioters focused on stores selling upscale goods to the rich. Many corporate outlets were also smashed.

She told me that a number of those outlets had a reputation for not paying taxes to the UK by hiding money offshore. She said the rioters knew who those companies were, and they were brutally singled out. Many outlets were burned to the ground. Can you imagine heavily Black rioters in the US having class consciousness like that?

The Baltics are a case of entire nations full of complete idiots who hate Communism so much that they went into an extreme overreaction against Communism and turned against anything socialist, left, liberal or mildly progressive. Fascist heroes including many Nazis with a lot of Jewish blood on their hands were celebrated. Communist parties were outlawed, and Russian minorities were viciously maltreated.

Radical rightwingers were elected in all of these lands, and Chicago Boys Friedmanite experiments were undertaken. The results were predictable. In the recent economic crash, the most neoliberal European countries were the most devastated of all. Estonia was eviscerated, and Latvia was almost wiped off the map. 1/3 of the Latvian population left the country, including almost all of the educated people.

The Philippines and Indonesian cases are up for discussion, but these are Latin American situations of a ruling class of a different ethnicity than the working classes holding forth brutally and anti-democratically over the people. In addition, the workers have little consciousness.

Taiwan has a similar legacy where extreme hatred of Communism resulted in being ruled by reactionary fascist anti-Communists for decades. There is a nascent Left now, but it has little power yet. The wealth of the country seems to have gotten in the way of working class consciousness. Probably the extreme anti-Communism helped too, as any working class movement could be quickly portrayed as Communist.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Amerindians, Arabs, Asia, Australia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Britain, Canada, Catholicism, China, Christianity, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Indonesia, Iranians, Ireland, Japan, Kurds, Labor, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mestizos, Middle East, Mixed Race, National Socialism, Nazism, NE Asia, Near Easterners, Nepal, North Africa, North America, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Russia, Scotland, SE Asia, Socialism, South America, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, Whites, Yugoslavia, Zambos

Whites Are Only Decent and Progressive When They Are a Majority

Answered on Quora.

Jason: Anyway, what I meant to say is that SA whites being richer were jerks out of fear of safety – and also the richer behave that way everywhere else – regardless of whatever race they’re in.

But South African whites, to be honest, got on the bad side of the liberal community – especially, cause their social system was race based. In other words, they could have done the same thing by just hiding into rich neighborhoods, like California people do now. In other words, California is just as racist as South Africa – in a sense – cause the poor are kept out of richer areas “unofficially” via crime laws.

I agree with you that the middle classes and rich act like shits pretty much everywhere on Earth, but here in California, we do have some decent middle class and rich people, at least in some areas, particularly on the coast. I am thinking of the Bay Area in particular. Those are probably some of the best-behaved middle and upper class Whites outside of Europe.

Also rich and middle class Whites act pretty good in all of Europe (except the UK), Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

The problem is that in most places on Earth where Whites become a minority, they turn into the worst fascist fucks on Earth. A process that is presently unfolding here in the US.

Face facts. White people only act decent when they are in the majority. When they are a minority, get ready for fascism, genocide, death squads, etc.

Show me anywhere on Earth where a White minority acts decently at all, except California and Hawaii.

Honestly though, the Chinese do not act much differently. Chinese in China and Taiwan act pretty good, but the Chinese minorities in the Philippines and Indonesia are complete monsters, especially the ones in the Philippines.

2 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Australia, California, Canada, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Europe, Fascism, Indonesia, Liberalism, North America, Philippines, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, Sociology, Taiwan, USA, West, White Racism, Whites

Down with Colin Flaherty

I did not even bother to watch much of this video because his videos and articles make me so sick. The problem is that this guy’s whole shtick is that he is not racist at all in any way whatsoever! No really. That’s exactly what he says. And that’s how he comes across, endlessly, in article after article and video after video. And that is exactly why this man is so dangerous.

Mr. Flaherty is a journalist, and a good one at that. But in his middle age, he has decided to branch out into the area of Black crime, except that his focus has a twist – it’s all about Black crime against Whites. The subtext of every Flaherty article or video is that Black people are deliberately singling out Whites to attack as hunters single out prey. Nothing could be more nonsensical. Blacks do not preferentially prey on Whites. It’s nonsense. 89% of Black homicides are of other Black people. Most Black crime is Black on Black crime. Much is made of Black men raping White women, but Black men rape Black women at 5X the rate that they rape White women. There are all sorts of nutty arguments that try to deal with these uncomfortable truths while keeping the lousy theory alive.

The principal one was symbolized by the noted theory of Le Griffe du Lion, a very racist White professor of…get this…sociology! He did some fancy mathematics showing that Black people mostly see other Black people all day long and don’t see many White people. So of course they prey mostly on their own kind. That’s who they are around all the time! If Blacks were around Whites just as much as they were around Blacks, their propensity to hunt Whites preferentially as a predator hunts its prey (Le Griffe’s exact words) would come out.

But the other side can play that game too. There are 6X more Whites than Blacks. If Blacks displayed no preference at all in victims, they would kill 6X more Whites than Blacks, right? This argument spouts the rejoinder of “But they are only around their own kind all day…” which is probably a tautology and is certainly not falsifiable, so it fails as theory on its face.

Flaherty wrote a book called, White Girl Bleed a Lot. It’s all about Black crime against Whites. Yes Blacks commit some very bad crimes against Whites. But they commit just as bad or worse crimes against their own kind. So only writing about Black crime against Whites is lying in a sense, and worse, you are selling a form of poison to the masses. Racist poison. A really nasty racist poison.

Because nothing drives Whites up the wall more than the idea that Blacks preferentially prey on them as victims. Some of these theorists even go as far as to say that Blacks are waging a low level guerrilla war against Whites. Oh what nonsense.

But if you study ethnic conflicts all over the world, one of the things that sets off massacres and ethnic cleansings is the notion that Group B, the outgroup, is trying to kill us, Group A.

Hitler set off the genocide by saying the Jews were trying to exterminate Germans.

The Rwandan genocide was set off in the same way.

The Sunni-Shia wars start off in exactly the same way. ISIS propaganda goes to great lengths to show how the Shia are preferentially singling out and slaughtering the Sunni. “They’re trying to kill us all,” is the message.

This was the line that the Young Turks used to kill 1.7 million Armenians. “The Armenians were starting a war against the Turks and they were trying to kill all the Turks.”

The genocide against Muslims in Bosnia was set off Serbian lies that, “The Muslims were trying to kill the Serbs.”

Even the anti-Communist slaughters of the last century which the US fully participated in, each and every one of them, were predicated on the idea that the Communist killers were going to seize power and kill lots of people.

Hitler justified his genocide against the Jews by saying that they were Communists and that the Communists were mass murderers who were “killing millions of Christians” in the Ukraine. Yes, the fake Holodomor, the terror famine that never even happened, was used as a pretext for the Holocaust. Remember that the next time any of you wants to rant about “Stalin’s terror famine.” Every time you say that, you are repeating Nazi propaganda. Does it make you feel good to parrot Hitler?

Many of the massacres of Indians were predicated on the notion that the Indians “were coming to kill us all.” In the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, there is language about how savage the Indians fought, knowing none of the rules of decency in wartime. “They’re savages, so we need to kill them all.” See how that works?

In Indonesia in 1965, there was supposedly a Communist coup to take over the government. All the world’s media reported it exactly that way. Except that it never happened. There was a fake Communist coup to take over the government. “The Communists tried to take over and they are going to kill millions of people” lie was then used as an excuse to kill 1 million Communists all over Indonesia in only a few months. Most were hacked to death with machetes. Islamic fundamentalists were used by the US and Indonesia in this slaughter.

The CIA was on the scene immediately and they supplied the new government with lists of known Communists. These lists were then used to single out people for killing. The US media then lied about the whole affair, with the execrable New York Times leading the charge. Later there was an attempt to bury this mass slaughter as “unfortunate but necessary and a good idea in the long run.” It was only years or even decades that we learned the truth about the fake coup and the mass slaughter. The Left was devastated in Indonesia and has remained in a meager state to this day. Obviously people in Indonesia have gotten the message about what happens to Leftists.

Hence it follows that once White people get it in their heads that “the Blacks are trying to kill us” we can set ourselves up for some serious persecutions of Blacks based on that narrative. I doubt if we will start massacring Blacks, but “the Blacks are trying to rape and kill Whites” was always the excuse for lynchings and Jim Crow.

It’s an ugly narrative, and it’s a lie.

I could write articles about this sort of thing too. I see articles all the time about Black people acting terrible, killing each other, killing White people, you name it. 98% of the time, I choose not to write about it. Why write about it? Yes, we know Black people commit tons of crime, including violent crime. Yes, we know Black men have a high homicide rate.

Yes, we know that Black men kill many White people – but they kill far more Black people and by and large, they prey mostly on their own kind.

Looking at the larger picture, Black criminals simply prey on other humans. They rob, rape and kill Hispanics, Asians, Whites and Blacks. They attack everyone. They are not real particular. And the evidence shows that if anything, they by far preferentially select their own kind for violence and they preferentially select against White victims. So if anything, Blacks prefer to prey on their own kind and it looks like Blacks actively avoid preying on Whites. If that’s the reality, then it’s quite a poisonous stew to cook up to sell the lie that Blacks preferentially attack Whites. “They’re coming to kill us! The Blacks are trying to kill us White people!” It’s not only a lie, but it’s a very dangerous lie, a mental poison with grave effects.

Just to see what sort of vibes Flaherty is churning up, look at the commenters. Looks like Niggermania, Chimpout, American Renaissance and Stormfront. There are all sorts of very vicious and ugly remarks against Black people as a race on there. So even if Flaherty really is a non-racist as he insists, look at all the wild racism that his irresponsible (or worse) videos and articles sprout. He’s fertilizing the land with poison, watching the weeds he watered grow and take over the land and choke out all the good and  decent crops, all the while protesting that he had nothing to do with it, he was just some innocent farmer trying to grow crops. Yeah. Crops of weeds.

Whenever I see that language, I think, “This person is promoting hatred against Phil, Tulio and Alpha.” I think that’s unacceptable. None of these Black people do much of anything wrong, they all live like good, law abiding citizens, and in short, they are good people. Selling hate propaganda against good people just because they are Black is just wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are wrong.

And that is why you, Mr. Flaherty, are promoting a very dangerous lie.

156 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Armenians, Asia, Blacks, Christianity, Crime, Europe, History, Indonesia, Islam, Jews, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Modern, Near Easterners, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, Serbians, Shiism, Social Problems, Sociology, Sunnism, Turks, USA, USSR, White Racism, Whites

IQ and Racial Background of Latin American Indians

Granted, they are primitive Austronesian Asian people with an IQ of 70 and it takes all sorts of social programs to keep them fed and clothed and away from the alcohol but you Gallegos Basque do not even pretend to give a single rat’s ass.

First of all, Amerindians are not Austronesians. Austronesians are Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians and Taiwanese Aborigines. Other people  speaking Austronesian languages such as Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians are only part Austronesian.

Polynesians are 1/2 Melanesian and 1/2 Austronesian.

Melanesians vary, but the some of the Austronesian speakers in the Papuan coast and eastern Indonesia are 20% Austronesian and 80% Papuan. Austronesians only settled the coast of Papua, so the interior remained Papuan. The Austronesians brought language but few genes.

I believe Micronesians are 1/2 Polynesian and 1/2 Papuan.

Amerindians are simply Northeast Asians, the same folks as Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians and Siberians, but they are closest to Siberians. The main difference is that the Amerindians are from a more primitive and archaic type of Northeast Asian that may not have gone though the high IQ mutations. I would call them Paleomongoloids, whereas the others are generally Neomongoloids. So Amerindians are just an early version of the highly functional Northeast Asians.

Some relation to the Northeast Asians can be seen in their features and sparse, Northeast Asian like body hair. The hair on their heads looks very Northeast Asian too. Whereas a Northeast Asian baby is calm, cool and collected, an Amerindian baby is silent but very aware and watchful, like an Indian hunter hiding in the woods waiting for a deer. They are so deathly quiet that observers often wonder if they are dead. On the other hand, Black babies are precocious physically, very fast in development and tend to be very active physically and even boisterous. They are quite extroverted.

These racial differences in babies are present from the very earliest stages of life and I am convinced that they are biological in nature. I also believe that this shows that there are obvious differences between the races at least in personality. If those differences are showing up that  early and that uniformly, they cannot possibly be due to culture. Babies are not effected tremendously by culture anyway.

Amerindian IQ is absolutely not 70. They are not that dumb. Scores vary, but a figure of 87 for the whole continent seems pretty good. Some are lower. I believe that Indians in Mexico are 83 and in Guatemala is the same.

87 IQ is not a bad score. Your average human has an IQ of 89. Certainly 87 IQ folks or even 83 IQ folks do not need all sorts of social programs to keep them clothed and fed. Keeping them away from the booze is much easier. These people lived life without social programs for 12,000 years. They did just fine. They don’t need welfare to survive.

Although the 87 IQ is close to the 85 US Black IQ, Amerindians have only 2X the White crime rate, whereas for Blacks it is 7-8X the White crime rate. This shows that attempt to put White-Black crime differences all down to IQ is a fool’s errand, but that is what so many HBD types, usually racists, do. There is more driving Black aggression, crime, violence and antisocial behavior than just IQ.

I am thinking that extroversion and associated problems with impulse control and delayed gratification along with higher testosterone in both males and females may have something to do with it. Also some genetic mutations that elevate the risk of violence and criminality in Whites are present at much higher levels in Blacks. It is seen in only .1% of White men, but I believe the rate is  ~5% in Black men.

We need to stop IQ fetishization and trying to reduce all racial issues to IQ. There’s a hell of a lot more going on with humans than just IQ, and it doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure that out.

48 Comments

Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Central America, Crime, Filipinos, Guatemala, Indonesia, Indonesians, Intelligence, Latin America, Malays, Melanesians, Mexico, Micronesians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Whites

No Conservatives Allowed on This Website!

We have had a few conservatives posting here in the past few days. These are US-style conservatives, which are the worst kind of all. US-style conservatives are absolutely banned from posting here in any way, shape or form.

Conservatism means different things in different countries, so conservatives from much of the rest of the world (except Latin America and the UK) can continue to post. Even Canadian conservatives can continue to post, as I do not mind them. It’s not conservatism itself that is so awful. Almost every country on Earth has people who call themselves conservatives, and there are conservative parties in almost every country on Earth. But being a conservative just about anywhere outside of the Americas is more or less an acceptable position for me. I probably won’t like their politics much, but I could at least look at them and say that this is an opposition I could live with.

US conservatives and their brethren in the UK, Latin America, the Philippines, Nepal and and Indonesia are quite a different beast.

I have to think hard about conservatives in Eastern Europe, especially Estonia, Latvia and the Czech Republic. These fools had such a bad experience with Communism that they went 180 degrees in the other direction. I would have to see the positions of these conservative parties in those countries to see whether they would be OK or not.

Just to give you an example, Vladimir Putin is considered to be a right-winger, and his party United Russia advocates a politics called Russian Conservatism. Looking at the party’s platform, this is not only a conservatism that I could live with but one I might even vote for!

Conservatives in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and most other places in Asia are acceptable. The conservatives in the Stans, Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia can be rather awful, particularly in the nationalist sense, but I will not ban them.

I dislike Indian conservatives, but I will not ban them.

Conservatives from the Muslim World are all acceptable. In the Muslim World, conservatism just means religious and sometimes nationalist. I can live with that. Even the ones in Iran are orders of magnitude better than the US type.

Conservatives in the Arab World are acceptable. They are mostly just religious people.

Turkish conservatives are awful, but I will not ban them. They are just religious and a particularly awful type of nationalist.

African conservatives are OK.

Conservatives in Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany,  the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Switzerland, Italy, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Romania are sometimes good, sometimes pretty bad, but they are all acceptable here. Conservatism in Europe mostly means nationalism. I am actually rather fond of the conservative running Hungary, Orban. LePen conservatives leave something to be desired, but they are acceptable. They’re mostly just nationalists. Hell, I might even vote for Marine LePen! If it was down to LePen versus Macron, I would absolutely support LePen!

Conservatives from Indonesia, Nepal and Philippines are not OK. These are an “everything for the rich elite, nothing for anybody else” type of conservative. Some of them even hide under the labels of Socialist or even Communist.

The word conservative has no real inherent meaning. It means whatever people say it means.

Anyway, the conservatives in the US are pure garbage and recently they have become out and out fascists after moving in that direction for a long time. And a particularly horrible type of fascist at that, a Latin American/Filipino/Indonesian style fascist. I will not allow any US conservatives to post on this board. You all are lucky I even let you lurk here. That’s an idle threat as I can’t ban lurkers, but if they all stopped lurking, I would not mind frankly.

You all really ought to go back to the gutters you crawled out of.

PS This especially applies to Libertarians, the very worst of all the US conservative vermin. We shoot Libertarians on sight here, so you better watch out.

*This applies only to economic conservatives. If you are not an economic conservative, and your conservatism is only of the social variety or you are only conservative on race, religion, guns, law and order, respect for tradition, American nationalism, the military, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity issues, you can stay. I’m not crazy about some social conservatives, but I can live with them. I will probably even let patriotards post as long as they are not economic conservatives.

I am an American nationalist myself. I just don’t like patriotards. Of course, I very much dislike and even hate the country as it is right now, but I sure don’t want to make it worse! I have to live here too you now, and it might as well be as pleasant as possible as long I stay here.

I want what’s best for my country. I don’t want to harm this country or screw it over. That will be bad for me! And believe it or not, most US patriotards do not want what is best for the country! I have dreams of a greater and better America. It’s not impossible, but we will have to undergo some serious cultural changes. One of the reasons I am so against illegal immigration is because it is ruining my country and making this place even worse. Also illegal immigration is terrible for US workers and I am for the workers. I am against H-1B visas for the same reason – they are wrecking my country. IT workers are workers too, so they are my comrades. I want what is best for America and American workers.

I cannot live with economic conservatives. I like cancer way more than I like US conservatives. Cancer is much more decent and respectable.

5 Comments

Filed under Africa, Armenia, Asia, Australia, Belgium, Britain, Cambodia, Conservatism, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, Fake Guest Workers, Fascism, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Illegal, Immigration, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Islam, Italy, Japan, Labor, Latin America, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, NE Asia, Near East, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Political Science, Portugal, Regional, Religion, Romania, Russia, SE Asia, South Asia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, USA

A Bit about the Sasquatches

Paul C.: Also, what other secret information do you have?

I know this sounds absolutely insane, but I was selling the directions on how to get to one of the hottest Sasquatch Habituation Sites in North America. That would be the Alberta Habituation Site. It was a closely guarded secret and the information was almost impossible to come by, but a lot of people wanted to go out there and see if they could find the Sasquatches.

If you wanted directions to that site, I sold the directions for $100. And I had a number of buyers too.

It’s amazing all the ways you can make money if you just put your mind to it.

There are those of us who are absolutely certain that these things are real, and there are lots of us out there working on this. If we ever prove these things are real, it’s the story of the century. The are definitely shot and killed from time to time, and I know of a few cases. In fact, a good friend of mine shot and killed two of the damn things! And I believe him too. There’s no way he is lying about this. I know people who knew him before he shot these things and they said he never believed in them and laughed at and ridiculed people who believed in them. Do you have any idea how many stories like this I have of people who thought Bigfoot was the stupidest thing in the whole world right up until the day when the 9 foot tall thing ran across the highway in Oregon? Or whatever your story is. I cannot even count how many stories like this I have heard.

I believe they are real because my good friends told me that they saw these things. They told me with a straight face and there’s no way they are lying. They told they saw them as clear as air just like you were standing in this room next to me right now. The people I know who have seen them were nurses, university biology and anatomy professors, college professors, schoolteachers, authors, you name it.

They can ridicule us all they want to. We know these damn things are real. I just hope I do not die before we unveil these damned things.

I have heard of three shootings in recent years. A body was almost surely recovered in one of them as I know an impeccable source who saw a photo of it. In the other case, I am not sure if they got a body or not. The problem is that when you kill one of these things, you go over to look at it and it looks like an 8 foot tall Paul C. covered with hair. Everyone completely flips and thinks they have killed a person. Every single person who kills one is afraid of going down on homicide. Hence the bodies are left there or buried. Some seem to be retained but those have a very nasty habit of disappearing. The last I heard about the most recent is that the government was in possession of it for a while.

Even if you can keep the government from stealing it, these bodies have a way of disappearing. God knows where they go. They’re red hot dangerous to hold onto, so I suspect people dispose of them. Dump them in the ocean, set them on fire, who knows?

One more problem: if it ever gets out that you have a body, the government usually comes out and steals it. They come in black vans or helicopters and they are dressed in all black and they carry automatic weapons that they point at you. Seriously. The “men in black” come out and steal them. We have since learned that US military intelligence dresses in all black. We think these people are maybe with DARPA.

You are thinking cover-up. Yes there has been a longstanding government cover-up of these things since the Patterson film at least. The Smithsonian is very deep into this and has been covering this up for over a century. It all goes back to Powell Doctrine.

You are asking me where the bones are. We have them. They are in university collections, but they are all labeled “Indian.” Sasquatch bones look like human bones except they are much larger. Any strange ancient bones found in the US are automatically labeled “Indian.”

If you are wondering what they are, they are not apes. They are actually human beings. Sasquatches are people. Thing is they are not human beings like you and I. We are Homo sapiens sapiens. They are something else, perhaps something like Neandertalis or Heidelbergensis. You know those subhumans like Neandertal, Denisova, Flores Man, Sulu Man, Red Deer Cave Man? Well, guess what? They never went extinct! A few of them survived and that is exactly what these Sasquatches are. They are simply prehistoric men. It’s not as insane as it sounds if you think about it.

Just imagine if Neandertal or some of those other subhumans never went extinct. Well, this is the remains of them, the Sasquatches. Yetis and the other similar things are all the same creature, and Yetis exist too, just like Sasquatches. And those Orang Pendeks in Indonesia absolutely exist. I know people who search for them almost full-time and they swore up and down that these things are real. And a quite famous US journalist and environmentalist saw one in 1995. I think they may be related to Flores Man. Orang Pendeks are like the Flores Men that did not die out.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

21 Comments

Filed under Animals, Anthropology, Apes, Asia, Bigfoot, Canada, Government, Indonesia, Mammals, North America, Physical, Regional, SE Asia, USA, Wild

An Antisemite of the Anti-Zionist variety

The Jews now say that there are all sorts of types of antisemites. They have a list of all of them, most of which do not apply to me. However, I am definitely an antisemite of a certain variety.  I am “an antisemite of the anti-Zionist variety.”

So the ((( ))) doesn’t mean Jew, it means pro-Israel. That’s why Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein don’t get ((( ))), and quite a few Gentiles do. Really a (((Gentile))) is just as bad as a (((Jew))), and a Gentile and a Jew minus parentheses are just as good as each other. Outside of Israel, I pretty much could care less about Jews.

I am progressive, and many Jews are a great part of our movement and always have been. I have searched for other reasons to hate these people, but honestly there is nothing there for me.

Sure, they are a bit aggressive, and there is the “loudmouthed Jew” stereotype, but they are not all like this. I grew up with Jews, and my family had Jewish friends who were not like this. They were some of the most honest people I ever met. Anyway the belligerent, somewhat sociopathic Jew stereotype (for which there is some validity) only applies to Jewish men. Most Jewish women are very sweet and nice and they are quite nurturing. They’re also good fucks contrary to stereotype. I had a Jewish girlfriend for 5 1/2 years, and I almost married her. I also almost converted to Jewdism due to her. Now I am not sure I want to convert, as Jewdism is all wrapped up in Israel, and when it comes to Israel, my views are not much different from Saddam Hussein’s.

Jews are all over the place. On any question, you pretty much have Jews all over the map on it taking every and any side you can take.

Antisemitism has always been rightwing.

The argument is the Jews are purveyors of filth and modernity, but Gentiles would do the same, and Jews don’t do it to weaken us, they simply do it to make a buck.

I asked a Jewish multimillionare (Bronfman) this question. I said,  “Are you guys putting out all this porn to weaken us? Come on, be honest. I don’t care what you think.” He laughed and said, “I’d admit if it we were doing that, but really we’re just in it to make a buck. My family runs hotels, and the porn channels in the hotels are extremely profitable.”

The decline in culture has hit the Jews pretty badly themselves, as many of them have fallen sway to the general degeneracy that they supposedly promote. So they are weakening their own if they are doing this.

The other argument is Jews as purveyors of Communism, socialism, Leftism, and in general of all of the progressive movements we now think of as the Cultural Left. These leftwing Jews have other motivations, mostly being a light unto nations to bring progress into the world for the Gentiles. It is a bit insulting, as it implies that we can’t do it on our own, but maybe we can’t, and we need their help. I mean Gentiles left to their own devices quickly end up electing Hitlers, Reagans, Trumps, Thatchers, Pinochets, Christianis, D’Aubussions, Banzers, Francos, Salazars, Mussolinis, Streussners, Quislings, Rios Montts, Trujillos, Bautistas, Alfonsins, Harpers, and other monstrosities.

I could care less if the motivation is somewhat insulting. If they want to lead the way to progress, so be it. As far as Jews as Commies, well I am pretty much one myself. As far Jews leading the modern progressive movements, I supported all of the various Liberation movements of the 1960’s and was a hippie, a movement led by Jews. So the hatred of progressivism and liberation and subsequent antisemitism is just reactionary crap.

Another argument is that the Jews are a bunch of crooks, white-collar criminals.

This is true to some extent, but the Jewish non-businessmen I have known were quite honest. In fact, I feel I could go over to their house, give them $300,000, assure them that holding it was not illegal, ask to come back in 4 months and get the money back, whereby I would give them $10,000 for their trouble. I am certain that when I returned, these Jews would give me the whole thing back without even stealing a nickel. Plus these Jews probably wouldn’t ask me how I got it, whereas these uptight Gentiles might freak on that.

At one point, there was indeed a split between Europeans (often Northern European) ways of doing business such as the gentleman businessmen of the Great Lakes region and the town businessman of early Germany who were honest if only to keep peace in the town.

These town businessmen reported that everything would be fine until some Jews came in, started being crooked and soon ran the Gentiles out of business and then monopolized the place.

The Germanic businessmen of say Minnesota in the late 1800’s simply had a sort of Germanic honor code for doing business where profits were often split up by various town businessmen, and there was not a lot of people running each other out of business. Instead of that, there was market division.

There was also a typical Germanic efficiency, politeness and decency where a man’s word was his honor, and a handshake was as good as swearing on Bibles. In fact, in these places, Gentile businessmen who acted like crooks were quickly outed, boycotted and even prosecuted. The family name became mud, and they were cursed and avoided on the streets as outcasts. The wealth of the family was often ruined, as they had more or less dishonored their family names similar to the Northeast Asian codes of moralistic honor, guilt, shame and outcasting.

These Germanic businessmen were appalled at the Jewish businessmen moving into their state because their business tactics were so low and cunning. Also the Jews tended to bring some Organized Crime. You can actually find old newspapers from the 1890’s Great Lakes Area discussing this sort of thing.

The problem with this Jews as White Collar liars, cheaters and thieves analysis is that modern business has become so “Judaized,”‘ particularly the New York businessmen like Trump whose style is “ultra-Jewish,” that the Gentile businessmen nowadays are as much liars, cheaters and thieves as the Jews or maybe even worse.

I would rather be ruled by the Jewish Rich than by the Gentile Rich. The Gentile Rich are Donald Trumps, the Jewish Rich by Sulzbergers, nasty but still preferably to the Trumps, as rich Jews are quite a bit more progressive than rich Gentiles and surely less inclined to fascism.

Another argument is that Jews are not alone in being lying, cheating, thieving businessmen.

Indians have the same reputation, and theirs is actually much worse than Jews, as Jewish crooked businessmen are often nevertheless politically liberal. Indian white collar crooks have all of the bad qualities of Jews and none of the good  qualities, which are considerable.

The Chinese also seem to be some pretty sharp and harsh businessmen. They seem to be just as bad as Jews or even worse, as when they obtain an elite status such as in the Philippines, they quickly destroy the country by turning it into a banana republic tin pot dictatorship. They are quite similar to Latin American White Rich. Actually they are worse, as the Filipino Chinese ruling class in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines are actually out and out criminals. I mean as in Organized Crime criminals. Like that. Jews in the US don’t go in for that much these days, though they did 75 years ago.

So if Chinese and Indians have all of the bad qualities of Jews and none of the good qualities, why hate Jews? What’s the point? I suppose you could hate Jews, Chinese and Indians, but now you hate nearly half the human race, and for what Godly purpose? Capitalists are pretty much crooks the world over, as capitalism turning to Organized Crime is about as inevitable as the transformations to Fascism or Modern Feudalism that it is nearly a Law of Political Science as the other Marxist maxims are.

The main argument nowadays is a racial one and has been for some time now: Jews as destroyers of the White race.

First of all, I doubt if they are, as I know some pro-White Jews who call themselves White Europeans and wish to live in White European societies, as these are the best ones. They also think that it was Jews who substantially made White European societies as pleasant as they are, and they are correct. Jews I have known, especially from Detroit and New York, were quite racist against Blacks, much more openly racist than most Gentiles. I am not a White nationalist and I could care less about the White race, so I do not care about “Jews as enemies of the Aryan race” arguments, never mind the extremely nasty history of this argument. And this argument is extremely rightwing.

There are religious arguments against Jews purveyed by both Muslims and Christians. I am not a Muslim, so I could care less about their beefs with the Jews. Anyway, Muslims act as bad as Jews or probably a lot worse. Christian antisemitism has always stricken me as rather retarded. Why should I hate Jews because a bunch of Jews killed another Jew, my hero, who happens to be the greatest Jew that ever lived? I would have to hate my hero too. And for the first 100 years, my hero’s religion was open to Jews only.

My point here is that there is that antisemitism is a rightwing movement and has always been so. Leftwing antisemites are few and far between despite the hysterical rants of paranoid Jews. In fact, when Leftists or Communists go antisemite, they start going rightwing fairly quickly afterwards, either converting to a hardline form of Islam or becoming into or making alliances with rightwing White racist antisemites. It seems when people go hard antisemite, they naturally turn rightwing. The former leader of the Red Army Faction, an antisemite, has now gone extreme rightwing. There are many more cases of this.

Bottom line is there is just not much in antisemitism to appeal to any Leftist or progressive, so why should we move that way? Antisemitism is an inherently rightwing philosophy. Why shall the Left take this reactionary politics up then?

The exception of course being some shitty little country, in which case I am very much against that tumorous growth in the Levant and honestly would not mind if it vanished from the Earth. This makes me “an antisemite of the anti-Zionist variety,” a mantle I am quite proud to take up.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Asia, Asians, Capitalism, Capitalists, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Conservatism, Crime, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Europeans, Fascism, Germans, Indonesia, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Middle East, Midwest, Minnesota, Organized Crime, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Scum, SE Asia, Socialism, South Asians, Thailand, The Jewish Question, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites