Category Archives: Europe

Galician, Portuguese, and the Possibility of a Third Language Between Them

Dwan Garcez: Portuguese and Galician are the same language.

This person is Portuguese, and what they are saying is Portuguese nationalism or Portuguese linguistic nationalism. Portuguese and Galician were one language until 1550 when they split. But that time period of 450 years is about the same as between Ukrainian and Russian and Belorussian and Russian. Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian are regarded as separate languages. And that is about the same time split as between English and Scots as Scots split off from English right around that time. Scots is regarded as a separate language from English. English has only 42% intelligibility of Scots.

Boy, I do not agree with that for one second. If you want to be sure you are not understood when you go to Lisbon, speak Galician!

If you leave Galicia, you will only be understood for six miles inside the country. After that, forget it. People who live on the border in Galicia say that they can understand their friends across the border in Portugal fairly well but not completely, and they usually both speak in Spanish to avoid communication problems.

Furthermore, Ethnologue has decided that Galician and Portuguese are different languages.

Portuguese people cannot understand well the Galician/Portuguese mix spoken right around the border with Galicia. Some Portuguese can hardly understand Tras Os Montes Portuguese at all. In fact, the Alto-Minho and Tras Os Montes dialects of Portuguese are not well understood in Portugal or in most of Galicia. This is really Galician but it is not well understood to the north in Vigo and Santiago de Compostela. Residents of the Minho, though they really are Galicians, say they do not speak Galician. Their lect is even further from Portuguese. You could make a case that Alto-Minho/Tras Os Montes is a separate language, but it would be a hard sell.

Already at least one Galician dialect has been split off into a separate language. Fala is recognized as a separate language and there are good grounds for making that case.

7 Comments

Filed under Dialectology, Europe, Galician, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Italic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Families, Linguistics, Portugal, Portuguese, Regional, Romance, Sociolinguistics, Spain

All Enemy Rebels Have No Agency

The US, NATO and our allies always insist that any anti-Western rebel group has no agency. They’re all just puppets being pulled by the evil Putin or the ayatollahs or whatever. They have minds of their own. They lack desire, needs, wants, goals and willpower. They are all silly pawns who obey their masters in some other country who push them around like chess pieces. They  have no more agency than a robot.

But the other side does it too. The Left claims that the Syrian rebels are mercenaries paid by the US. The truth is that radical Sunni Salafists have come from all over the Arab World to fight the Shia heretics ruling Syria. It’s all part of the Sunni-Shia Civil War breaking out all over the region. And 70% of the rebels are Syrian Sunni Muslims. Only 30% are from outside Syria, but those are not puppets either. They are anti-Shia fanatics who want to put in Islamic Law.

In the Ukraine, the US claims that everything was fine until the evil Russians came in and stirred things up. In other words, the Donbass rebels have no agency. They are just puppets pulled by Putin. But why would anyone agree to be a puppet for some other country. The truth is that the Donbass rebels rose up on their own due to a Nazi coup fomented by the CIA and the US State Department.  Russia opposed them rising up all the way. They wanted a federalized state instead.

For a long time, Russia refused to aid them and only stepped in when they were on the verge of defeat, and the native Russians in the area were getting massacred. Polls consistently show that 94% of Donbass people do not want to be part of Ukraine. Of course, anti-US polls are always inaccurate because fear and other spooks and bogeymen. All populations polling in a direction the US doesn’t like are literally living under Josef Stalin’s rule and they are terrified to poll against whatever the government tells them to. Cuz you know they might get sent to the gulags. And get a bullet from an NKVD firing squad. Because you know anti-US populations have no agency. They all love America, and they only reason they poll that way is fear and other spooky bogeymen.

Putin doesn’t have 87% support, he has 0% support. Russians are terrified of Putin and if you answer a poll question wrong, Putin’s friend Beria will put a bullet in your head. Or you go to Siberia. Or Putin starves you to death in a new fake terror famine like the last one. Because you know Putin is the spooky USSR. He’s really Stalin. Stalin never died, you know. He just reincarnated as Putin The Evil.

You realize things were much worse under Yeltsin and 20X more journalists were killed under Yeltsin? Russia was much more authoritarian under Yeltsin than it is under Putin. But Yeltsin had 6% support. Oh well, hand wave, but Putin’s a dictator. Yeltsin? That pickled liver was Our Man in Moscow. How could he be bad. Everyone  who is pro-US has a halo over their head, didn’t you know that? No really.

The Crimeans rose up on their own. The Crimeans were always a part of Russia or the USSR. There never was any country called Ukraine. It sprung up for the first time in 1991 and claimed it owned the Crimea. The Crimeans oppose being part of Ukraine from Day One and they even passed a number of resolutions saying that they were not a part of Ukraine.

Basically they never agreed to be part of Ukraine. When the US fomented a coup and the new Nazis came in and said they were joining NATO and throwing Russia out of their base in Crimea (presumably to turn it into a NATO base) Putin had to act. He had no alternative. There was no way he could lose his warm water port and allow NATO to set up a naval base right next door. Nor could he allow NATO to take Ukraine and set up an army right on his doorstep. Polls done by Western polling groups have consistently found that 87% of Crimeans support the annexation.

But see, the US and NATO claims that Crimeans and Donbass people have no agency. They have no minds of their own.

The Jews do this same garbage. Palestinians rising up on their own, maybe because Jews treat them worse than chattel. Well of course not! Zionism is wonderful! The Palestinians love it so much. They love Jews! They would never hurt one Jew, ever.

The Jews say that if it weren’t for Syria, Libya, and Iraq there would be no Palestinians. Before they said that about the USSR. The Palestinians were only rising up because the Soviets were whispering in their ear and telling them to. Hence we took down Libya, Iraq and now Syria on the orders of the Jews because in the US, we do whatever the Jews tell us to do. Iraq, Libya and now Syria were ordered to be taken down by the Israelis. First of all, they were all enemies of Israel, but second of all, if we got rid of all of those countries, the Palestinian revolution would end immediately.

Because, you know, the Palestinians are only shooting rockets and settlers because the Syrians, Iraqis, and Libyans tell them to and give them guns and stuff. This is also why Iran is on the list. Iran is the last of the Jews’ enemies to remain standing. All of the others have been taken out. Granted, Lebanon is an enemy of the Jews, but they have no military so no one cares much about them. Take out Iran and take out Israel’s last remaining enemy. And the Palestinians won’t fight anymore because they only fight because the evil Iranians tell them to. And they won’t get one more bullet because all the weaponry comes from Iran.

A similar thing is playing with Hezbollah. Does Hezbollah exist, maybe, because Israel repeatedly invaded Lebanon? Of course not! That has nothing to do with it! The Lebanese Shia love the Jews. They want to run up to Jews and kiss them on the lips! Nope, instead, Hezbollah only exists because of Iran. Every time a Jew mentions Hezbollah, they say Iran in the next sentence. Because you know Hezbollah are just puppets. Nasrallah is a man on a string.

They and he have no agency. They only take orders from Iran. They don’t. They don’t take orders from Iran. Hezbollah does whatever the Hell it wants and it is not unusual for them to have different goals and aims than the Iranians. The Iranians have no real control over them. Hezbollah is an independent entity with a strong anti-Israel position so Iran supports them, but Iran can’t tell them what to do. Hezbollah gets to do whatever the Hell it wants to. But as the interests of Iran and Hezbollah coincide it is unlikely that Hezbollah will do crazy things not approved of by Iran. On the other hand, Hezbollah is not some wing of the Iranian military taking direct orders from Iran like the Jews say.

Now if you want to say that Iran arms Hezbollah, you have a point. And part of the reason the Jews are trying to destroy Syria is because that way they can end the Iran – Syria – Hezbollah arms pipeline.

Another good case is Kashmir. If you think Indian Hindus are irrational and nuts in general, wait until you see how they feel about Kashmir. Want to see an Indian Hindu have a chimpout? Mention the word Kashmir. They will raise their voices, start yelling, pound the table and get threatening and menacing. And they will say one word over and over: “Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan! Pakistan!”

Because you see, Kashmiris have no agency. Kashmiris love India! They love Hindus! They want to kiss all the Hindus on the cheeks! They’re loyal Indian citizens! They have no beefs with India. Kashmiris have total love for India. They would never rebel. In fact, not one Kashmiri has ever taken up arms against India. Not one. Nope. Instead, 100% of the Kashmiri rebellion, armed and otherwise, is being caused by the evil bogeyman Pakistan.

Now Pakistan does aid some of the more radical armed Kashmiri groups, but most of the groups are actually headquartered outside of Kashmir in Pakistani Kashmir. They don’t have much of a presence in Kashmir itself. And now the resistance is mostly just constant rioting and stone throwing like in Palestine. But no matter. I’m sure every one of those stone throwers is a Pakistani in disguise. Those sneaky Pakistanis! They’re everywhere! Look out there’s one under your bed right now, Hindu! Boo! Pakistan! Boo! Boogeyman!

If you study the Kashmiri rebellion, it has internal roots. It never got going until about 1969 anyway because before that, the Kashmiris had tried to work peacefully within the system. Only when India blocked all efforts at peaceful change did the Kashmiris rise up. And in the worst of the armed conflict, 90% of the rebels were native Kashmiris.

India says, “Kashmiris are puppets cuz evil Pakistan bogeyman wants to steal our land hurr!” Actually, this is just more Indian lies. Only 6% of Kashmiris want to split off and join Pakistan. Most have traditionally only wanted an independent state in Kashmir. By the way, the UN has ordered international scofflaw India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide the fate of the region since 1949. India has always flatly refused. Because you know we can’t have people deciding their own destiny or anything like that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Arabs, Asia, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Hinduism, India, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Kashmir, Lebanon, Left, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, Palestine, Palestinians, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Shiism, South Asia, Sunnism, Syria, Ukraine, USA, USSR, War

Only Whites Are Expats?

Trash: White are COLONISTS essentially. We do not have the same primitive tribal link to the land that Mestizos or Africans do. So you move to Sydney and write your parents every day on e mail. Maybe a once a year trip.

I know many whites who moved to Australia from California. They did it simply to get away from NAM’s and be in a White individualist country. They were happy to do so…like I was happy to leave Greater Detroit.

First of all, residents of Europe are not colonists at all. They have all lived right where they are. The only White colonists are in South Africa, the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

And what makes you think Australia is individualist? Last time I checked, it was quite socialist.

And for exactly the same reason that you say Whites leave the US, many people all over the world leave their lousy countries to move to a better country. There is an economic element of course, but there is also the notion that their own country is a Hellhole.

Bottom line is people all over the world move all over the place all the time.

Inside Latin America, there is huge migration. Costa Rica is now full of Nicaraguans. Cuba is full of Jamaicans and Haitians. The Dominican Republic is full of Haitians. Argentina is filling up with Bolivians and Peruvians. Plenty of Colombians have moved to Venezuela. Central Americans move to Mexico. And many Latin Americans have moved to Spain now due to the common language. The Whiter ruling class of Latin America seems to live about half their lives in Spain.

Many Latinos have come to the US and even Canada now. People from all over Latin America come to the US. Most are from Mexico and Central America – mostly from Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica. From the Caribbean, we have many Cubans, Dominicans, and Haitians. Many South Americans such as Colombians, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, Chileans, Peruvians, Argentines, Uruguayans, and Bolivians. I have met South Americans from all of these countries in the US.

South Asians pour into the UK, US, Canada and the Gulf states.

Europe is filling up with Black Africans. Many North Africans moved to France and the Netherlands. All of Europe is filling up with Syrians. There are a lot of Iranians in the Nordic states. Turkey is full of Syrians, Crimean Tatars and Kirghiz.

Black Africans flood into South Africa and also the Arab states of North Africa. Libya and Egypt are full of Black Africans, mostly Nigerians. Right now there are some Nigerians in SE Asia and there are quite a few in China. Nigerians appear to be one of the more mobile groups of Africans.

Filipinos flood into China, the US, Australia, the Gulf and Jordan. Chinese move to Australia, the US and Canada. Koreans move to the US. China is full of Koreans.

Palestinians and now Syrians have been living all over the Arab World for some time now. Lebanese move to Australia.  Quite a few Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, and Yemenis moved to the US. Many Uighur Chinese have moved to Syria.

Polynesians move to the US and Australia.

Central Asians pour into Europe and the US. Residents of the Stans such as Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, and Uzbekistan and Tajikistan move to Russia.

104 Comments

Filed under Africa, Americas, Arabs, Argentina, Argentines, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Bolivians, Brazilians, Canada, Caribbean, Central America, Chileans, China, Chinese (Ethnic), Colombians, Colonialism, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Egypt, Egyptians, Eurasia, Europe, Europeans, Filipinos, France, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hispanics, Hondurans, Immigration, Iranians, Iraqis, Jamaicans, Jordan, Koreans, Latin America, Lebanese, Libya, Mexico, Middle East, Near East, Near Easterners, Netherlands, Nigerians, North Africa, North Africans, North America, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Palestinians, Peruvians, Political Science, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, SE Asians, Sociology, South Africa, South America, South Asians, Spain, Syria, Syrians, Turkey, Uighurs, Uruguayans, USA, Venezuela, Whites, Yemenis

Female Rule Is Feminism In Power and Nothing More or Less

TJF: To Rob:

The West is under female rule..? Not sure if I understand, what are you labeling as female rule aside from some rules passed on college campuses regarding consent…?

Look! Female Rule is feminism! Female Rule occurs when feminists gain so much power that they can start imposing their rules and laws on society. Female Rule is Feminism in Power, period.

Female Rule is imposing rules and laws on society that are based on the rules and mores of women and against those of men. We have generally had Male Rule because male rules and mores at best are at least sensible, but they don’t lead to this World of Justice that women want and demand because life is messy, unfair and often cruel with no legal or societal repercussions for this nastiness.

The crazy Consent Rules came about because women are determined to stop date rape on campus. Thing is you cannot stop it. Date rape will go on. And it is almost impossible to prosecute. This is a horribly unfair thing. But men will just shrug and say life is imperfect and unfair. Yet women will try to create a Just World when there is no such thing and there probably cannot ever be such a thing.

First women tried “No means no!.” That’s not even true for starters, but to women it made a lot of sense, and they took it up as a Female Rule mantra. Well, “no is no” did not stop date rape because women were too stupid to make the rule work. Turns out that women are so dumb that a lot of times when they didn’t want to have sex, they were too frightened or frozen or whatever to say no. So they said nothing and the sex went forward. However it was rape because the man could not read her mind to determine that she was not willing even though she never said no. This led to the lunatic “silence is not consent” bullshit that has taken campuses by storm. Men are now expected to be mindreaders.

Because “no is no” was such a miserable failure, women upped the ante to “Affirmative Consent” which has got to be the most insane sexual rule ever imposed by humanity in its history. That’s not working well either as a lot of men are just bailing out of sex altogether rather than negotiate that minefield and women are complaining that men won’t ask them out.

This is the way women try to solve problems. Men just shrug their shoulders and say, “What are you going to do? Life’s not fair. We can’t solve every problem. Some problems cannot be solved. Some problems are best dealt with outside the structures of administrative law and the judicial system.

In the UK and in parts of the US, there are now major moves to make it illegal to have sex with a woman who is intoxicated. I have asked some women about this and they get those hard faces and say that if she’s drunk or loaded, you can’t have sex with her. Well that ends 50% of the sex in the US, as that’s how much is done under the influence. Once more, it’s women trying to solve an unsolvable problem, that of women getting so wasted that they are blacked out and then they have sex against their will. This is an unsolvable problem. It can be solved by women refusing to get blackout drunk,  but women won’t do that, so the problem goes on.

Indeed. But those campus rules are very important. They are spreading across to many other states now. And you are guilty until proven innocent. This is another aspect of Female Rule because women don’t believe in fairness or fair fighting.

The lunatic Pedophile Mass Hysteria that has conflated statutory rape with pedophilia and child molesting was caused by Female Rule. The new Creeper Mass Hysteria in which all men who women are not attracted to are labeled creeps and society agrees was also a creation of Female Rule. Female Rule has also created a situation whereby men are being charged with child molesting for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age. Incidentally, this is a mitigating factor in federal law but not in states’ laws.

Female Rule created the craziness that says that if a US man goes overseas, if he has sex with one under 18 year old girl one time, he has broken US child molestation law, even if he comes from a state where the age of consent is 15.

Female Rule created the sheer idiocy of domestic abuse law where a woman was able to hit me or try to hit me 35-400 times in one night, and I hit her back once and according to Female Rule, I would have had to go to jail. I just barely avoided going to jail that night. Female Rule says any time a man hits a woman, even in self-defense, he’s going to jail. Under Female Rule, you can’t even fight back if a woman hits you, and they hit us all the time now as Female Rule has emboldened them and encouraged them to bring out the innate but suppressed basic insanity and indulge it as much as possible.

Female Rule created idiotic child support laws that throw men in jail for nonpayment even if they are unemployed or disabled. Many homeless men have gone to jail for nonpayment of child support. You can’t make payments if you’re broke!

Female Rule created the lunacy of sexual harassment law which has now spread across the land according to which apparently if I ask any woman at work for her phone number, or ask her out, or make funny comments, or God forbid even look at her too much, I can be fired for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment law, creep-shaming and Feminism’s general hatred for men expressing sexual interest in females at all in any way has led to a lot of men becoming very shy around women for fear of being called a “creep.” There are university campuses where women are openly complaining that men won’t ask them out anymore. It’s because of Female Rule which has made them afraid to even flirt with women.

54 Comments

Filed under Britain, Crime, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Law, Law enforcement, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, Women

“From Andalusia to Far West Texas,” by Alpha Unit

The wild ancestor of modern cattle is the aurochs. This nearly seven-foot-tall beast ranged throughout North Africa and Eurasia. Domestication occurred independently in Africa, the Near East, and the Indian subcontinent between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. Humans have been raising cattle for their milk, meat, tallow, and hides ever since.

But the practice of raising large herds of livestock on extensive grazing lands didn’t begin until around 1000 CE, in Spain and Portugal. Cattle ranching, in particular, was unique to medieval Spain.

During the Spanish Reconquista, members of the Spanish nobility and various military orders received grants to large tracts of land that the Kingdom of Castile had conquered from the Moors. Pastoralists found that open-range breeding of sheep and cattle was most suitable for these vast areas of Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura, and Andalusia.

It was in Andalusia that cattle ranching took hold, with cattlemen owning herds as large as 1,000 head or more. Those cattlemen oversaw the first cattle drives. Cattle could be driven overland as much as 400 miles from summer pastures in the North to winter ones in Andalusia. The vaqueros who herded the cattle were freemen hired for the year and paid in coin or in calves.

Andalusian ranchers introduced the use of horses in managing cattle – a necessity in the long overland drives to new pastures. They also established the customs of branding and ear-marking cattle to denote ownership. By the time Columbus left Spain on his first voyage, the cattle industry of Andalusia had undergone a few centuries of trial-and-error improvement. On his second voyage Columbus unloaded some stallions, mares, and cattle on the island of Hispaniola, introducing cattle to the New World.

Conquistadors who arrived in the New World in search of gold continued what Columbus began, turning Andalusian cattle loose throughout the Spanish West Indies and other parts of Spain’s colonial empire.

In 1521 Gregorio de Villalobos defied a law prohibiting cattle trading in Mexico and left Santo Domingo for Veracruz with several cows and a bull, importing the first herd of Spanish cattle to Mexico. Hernán Cortés brought horses and cattle to Mexico as well, and by 1540 Spanish cattle are permanently in North America.

Cortés had set about using enslaved Aztecs to herd cattle. Slave labor to herd cattle was overseen mostly by Spanish missions, which came to dominate ranching. Under Spanish law no Indian slave was permitted to ride horses, but this obviously impractical law was ignored. Aztec Indians became the first vaqueros of New Spain (Mexico), where conditions for raising cattle were even better than those in the West Indies.

By the 1600s there weren’t as many Native slaves, as thousands had died over time from exposure to smallpox, measles, and yellow fever, in outbreaks that began among the Spaniards and to which Natives had no immunity. As a result, the vaquero labor force came to include mission Indian converts, African slaves, and mestizos.

New Spain’s borders spread northward into what is now the US Southwest. The sparsely populated northern frontier regions of northern Mexico, Texas, and California didn’t have enough water for farming but the climate and acres of wild grass and other vegetation made them ideal for cattle ranching. Cattle and horses were now a feature of American life and were beginning to shape American identity.

Beginning in the 1820s, Anglo settlers moved to the Texas region of Mexico in search of inexpensive land. Texas was severely underpopulated, so Mexico had enacted the General Colonization Law of 1824, permitting immigration to all heads of households regardless of race, religion, or immigrant status. Anglo Texans were largely farmers and didn’t warm initially to the Spanish-Mexican concept of large-scale ranching. But ranching became popular among Anglos after immigration agents began promoting it. Texas cattle were so plentiful and cheap that most people could begin raising livestock without a large investment.

Anglo Texan cowhands and their counterparts throughout the US were the latest incarnation of the vaquero that got his start in southern Spain. The vaquero rides on, whether he’s Native, mestizo, Black, Hispano, or Anglo.

12 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Alpha Unit, Americas, Amerindians, Animals, Blacks, Caribbean, Colonialism, Cows, Domestic, Eurasia, Europe, European, Europeans, Guest Posts, Hispanics, History, Horses, Immigration, India, Labor, Latin America, Livestock Production, Mestizos, Mexicans, Mexico, Mixed Race, Near East, North Africa, North America, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South America, Spain, Spaniards, Texas, The Americas, USA, West, Whites

Look What Happens When You Let Women Run the Show

Yee: This is just male chauvinist nonsense. Either rule will work when you enforce it, people learn to adapt. Taliban and Saudi societies are so difference from the Philippines, still people in these places live a normal life.

As for the rulers themselves, as long as they’re good at organizing things, it’s will work. This is the main quality that required to run a society. Females actually are better.

Depends. Are the women ruling according to the rules and mores of women or according to the rules and mores of men. Look what happens when you let women make the law. Prohibition was put in by women. Women’s long-term activism was the only reason that Prohibition was passed at all. Although it came one year after women were given the right to vote, Prohibition was a societal change that was made by the rules and mores of women. All over the world, whenever alcohol is made illegal or restricted, it done most of the time by women.  The result of Prohibition? Total chaos.

That’s what happens when you let women make the rules. And in Communist insurgencies, typically Maoist ones, they often put women in charge of the local village and town governments. What’s the first thing they do? Over and over I have read that the first thing they do is make alcohol illegal. Result of making alcohol illegal?

Chaos.

Sweden is governed according to the rules and mores of women. That’s why it is a nightmare state for men.

Female rulers are fine. You can have an all-female government for all I care. But they must govern according to the rules and mores of men, not women.

Look what happened in California when we let women make the rules. The state of California just voted that on all university campuses, you must have affirmative consent for every sex act. Like you want to kiss her, you have to ask, “Can I kiss you?” You want to touch her tits? You have to ask her, “Can I feel your tits?”

Guess who put those rules in?

Women.

What is the result of this stupid-ass “affirmative consent” nonsense?

Chaos.

Those are the sort of lunatic rules and laws that you get when you let women run the show and govern according to the rules and mores of women. According to the rules and mores of women, that idiot affirmative consent rule is 100% rational. That’s how women actually think. They think a rule like that is completely reasonable and sensible.

19 Comments

Filed under California, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, Higher Education, Law, Left, Local, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, West, Women

Female Rule Doesn’t Work, and Men Are Necessary for Any Societal Achievement

Betty: It’s right that the reaction of these women is exaggerated but to say that they are incapable of running a country is plainly wrong. All war, chaos and problems were and are caused by male presidents like Hitler, Erdogan, Trump, etc. So it’s rather males being drama queens.

Saying that all women would make these memes illegal just because SOME have that point of view is almost equal to saying that all Muslims are terrorists because ISIS members consider themselves Muslims.

On top of that, many years ago when women weren’t allowed to work they were controlling a whole household of like 10 kids while cooking and cleaning every single day without help. So I’d say women are very capable of running a society or country, as for example Maria Theresia reigned Austria instead of her husband, which went perfectly fine.

Women can govern in partnership with men but countries must be ruled by the laws and mores of men. Women are free to help us run countries only as long as those countries are run according to the rules of men.

If you let women govern according to the rules and mores of women, things will fall apart pretty quickly. A lot of Communist groups put women in charge when they took over small rural villages. It was always a catastrophe. The first thing women do when they get in charge is make prostitution, gambling and booze illegal. Those are the three things that men need to make like tolerable enough so they don’t kill themselves, and those are the first things women outlaw. Thanks a lot, ladies. This rule does not work very well. Men are not very happy, but really no one is very happy. Things rapidly become pretty chaotic.

Sweden is currently being ruled by women. It’s under Female Rule – I mean women ruling according to the rules and mores of women along with a bunch of Beta cuck men helping them. It is not going well. The men are leaving in droves to go to Thailand to grab Thai brides because they have had it up to here with Swedish women.

Maria Teresia, many queens, and Thatcher all governed according to the rules, laws and mores of men. That’s not even Female Rule. That’s called Male Rule with Female Rulers – Women governing according to the laws, rules and mores of Male Rule.

Female Rule is when women impose their worldview on society. As long as the male rules of society are kept intact, women are free to take any government position they wish.

There are societies in Africa that are essentially under Female Rule. The men have just said, “The Hell with it, we’re done, here, you ladies take over. Have fun.” Women hold most of the power in these places. There is little violence or crime and actually there are not even a lot of serious disputes. These are sort of peace love dope hippie- type societies.

On the other hand, not much gets done in this places. They tend to stagnate and cruise in stasis. In particular, there is not much education because I suppose most women are just not interested in that. A lot of stuff that needs to get done never gets done, and everything gets put off. So you have societies without a lot of serious conflict, but on the other hand, there is little advancement.

I think women want to find a happy place and just be relaxed and go with the flow there rather than deal with the sturm and drang of continuous progress.

Personally I do not believe women can run societies, or if they do, they have to do so in partnership with good men or according to the rules of good men.

I feel that men are essential for any societal advancement. Women are free to help us men in societal advancement, but if you put them in charge, it’s just not going to work. Women just can’t run societies. There’s nothing wrong with that. Women can’t do everything, you know. So there’s some stuff they can’t do well? So what? There are plenty of things that women are great at. They should focus on those.

85 Comments

Filed under Africa, Austria, Britain, Europe, Gender Studies, Government, History, Left, Man World, Marxism, Masculinism, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Sweden, Women

No Putin Is Not Worth $60 Billion, and He Does Not Kill Journalists

Robert- In all seriousness why is Putin so great according to the Alt Right and Left? I understand he is an ‘answer’ to neocon bullshit so to speak, but let’s not delude ourselves about this guy.

Juan: He has brutally suppressed opposition to his rule, oftentimes through the murder of journalists, Chechens, whomever. It’s not a free society.

His political opposition are convicted in kangaroo courts of nothing.

Meanwhile Putin has massive investments in 0il in his country, allowing him to push policy to line his pocket books. He is worth $70 billion.

As I said above, an alliance with him and against neocons is a good thing, but this “muh poor Putin victimized by the West” rhetoric is not good.

I cannot speak for the Alt Right. The Left goes a bit too easy on Putin. Putin is definitely a thug. He has had a few people killed. Those people were spies. Intelligence agents, working for the FSB (Russian CIA). All of them were double agents. Even under Yeltsin, several US double agents were executed. In many countries, double agents are considered traitors. It is quite typical for countries to execute double agents. Double agents do not have a long life expectancy. I do not have much sympathy for such heedless and death-defying people. They chose a profoundly risky profession and they paid with their lives. So what?

Also, Putin is out for Putin. He supported Trump because Trump promised to go easy on him, while Hillary had him down as US enemy #1. Who do you expect him to support.

Russia has not been a free country since 1991 and it was not a free country before that all the way back to 1917. Russian people seem like to like benevolent dictators. It’s all they’ve ever known. Most of them don’t even believe in democracy. Putin is extremely popular, with popularity at 87%.  Compare that to the popularity of US-supported Medvedev and  Yeltsin at ~10%. Isn’t it better to have an authoritarian leader who everyone loves as opposed to one who everyone hates?

You must understand how many people in Russia are corrupt. Putin is about the least corrupt man in the whole country. Nearly the entire opposition is dirty and corrupt. Many to most have organized crime connections. Well documented white collar crime has been aptly demonstrated among nearly all major opposition figures. Some of these people have run afoul of Putin and  have been tried and convicted in completely fair courts of law. The Russian legal system is quite fair. There are no kangaroo courts in Russia. A charge of selective prosecution could be made though. The opposition figures now in prison should have thought about that before they committed their dirty white collar crimes.

Putin does not have one nickel of investment in oil in his country to my knowledge.

The Chechen War has been going on since 1991. It’s been a Dirty War from the start, exactly like all of the counterinsurgencies the US supports. Russia’s war against the Chechens is not much different from your typical US supported counterinsurgency. Killings of opposition journalists, human rights activists and Chechen opposition figures and rebel supporters have been going on the entire time. In recent times, almost all such killings have been linked to the internal security forces of Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, etc.

I agree that some journalists have been beaten up for reporting the wrong things. Probably Putin’s thugs did this. But the other Presidents murdered journalists. Putin just has a few beaten up. That’s an improvement. Mostly all Putin ever does is shut down opposition media. Most of the opposition TV has been shut down. I think some is still available on cable though. I am not sure about opposition papers, journals and magazines. Actually I believe that the opposition media is alive and well. For instance, I can point you to a CIA-run website that quotes Russian opposition figures on a daily basis. Often they are professors, researchers, journalists or think tank workers. Most are employed inside Russia. They sit there in Russia and shoot off their mouths every day and nothing seems to happen to them. Often the quotes are from Russian papers,  magazines, journals, TV stations or radio stations. I assume that all of these are active in Russia. For the most part, it seems that these opposition figures are left alone. You would be amazed at the sort of crap these people say on a daily basis. A lot of them are openly treasonous, supporting the enemy in wartime. For instance, many support Ukraine in the current war.

The Internet is free in Russia and a vast proportion of Russian language media is run by the Opposition, mostly out of Europe. Finland is a major center for this. Any Russian can call up any Russian Opposition website anytime they want to. Most such sites are also in English because most of their readership is among English speakers. Opposition daily newspapers and magazines can be purchased for sale every day in Moscow. I believe the big foreign press is on sale there. I am sure you can buy a copy of the New York Times in Moscow. It is just that nobody wants to read this stuff.

The truth is that the Opposition has no support. The Opposition leader who was killed had gotten 1% support in the last election. The pro-Western Opposition, which is most of the Opposition that the US cares about, has 5-10% support, closer to 5%. Nobody likes them, nobody wants them. I have known some Russians and I asked them about the pro-US Opposition. They all told me, “Oh you mean the traitors? We don’t call them Opposition here. We call them the traitors. Everybody hates them. They support the US. Here in Russia, if you support the US, you are a traitor who supports the enemy. All Russians oppose the US as an enemy state.”

Putin has not murdered one single journalist during his most recent terms in office. In fact far fewer journalists have died under Putin than under any previous President.

There are deaths of journalists in Russia. A few journalists have been killed under Putin. These hits were mostly mob hits or personal disputes. A few were political killings in the Caucasus.

Since 1991, the vast majority of journalist killings have been in the Caucasus. These have all been related to the insurgency down there. Journalists suspected of siding with the rebels or writing about human rights abuses have been killed. This happens in most insurgencies. US-supported insurgencies are notorious for slaughtering journalists and opposition media. The US murdered opposition media in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is standard Pentagon procedure to target opposition journalists as combatants in modern warfare.

By far the most killings of journalists occurred under Boris Yeltsin. Vastly more journalists were killed under Yeltsin than under anyone else. Yeltsin was a stauch US ally and not a single disparaging word was ever written about him in the US press. He also stole elections. Putin’s elections are much freer than Yeltsin’s, and Putin is far less corrupt.

Putin is not worth $60 billion. This is just flat out fake news. In 2007, Putin had a net worth or $150,000. In 2012, Putin’s salary was $130,000. Surely his net worth now is hardly worth more than it was in 2007. Putin has not used the Presidency to enrich himself, unlike our current Scumbag in Chief. Russia’s Executive Branch is vastly more honest and less corrupt than America’s. What I think is amusing is that Americans who just elected a multibillionaire who has filled his Cabinet with billionaires and multibillionaires, are outraged that Putin is supposedly a multibillionaire himself. It’s rich, but all US criticism of anyone is usually pretty rich. We’re Number One all right. Number One in exceptionalism, self-delusion and hypocrisy.

120 Comments

Filed under Caucasus, Corruption, Crime, Eurasia, Europe, Finland, First Chechen War, Geopolitics, Government, Journalism, Law, Left, Near East, Organized Crime, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, Second Chechen War, US Politics, USA, War

We Have No Choice – We Must Support the Democratic Party

Latias: Look at the comment section in this thread.

It really shows how anti-imperialist the Mainstream Left is. Look at the hostility the author gets.

From the author:

[There was a reference to Putin dining with Jill Stein]

Based on death toll, better to dine with Putin than 3 presidents in my lifetime — [W?] Bush, Reagan or Nixon. I prefer cooperation to confrontation. We don’t need a new Cold War. The world’s greatest human rights violator abroad (that’s the USA in case you don’t now) is in no position to throw stones from its glass house. The candidate you mention is not without flaws – she has some unscientific views and that’s practically inexcusable from a physician. But Putin’s crimes abroad pale in comparison to those of every single US president of my lifetime, present administration included.

Yes, that is true about Putin.

First of all, that’s not really the Mainstream Left in the US. That’s the Democratic Party, and calling the Democratic Party Left is some sort of a sick joke. Daily Kos is the site of the left wing of the Democratic Party (the base), but those people are what we might call liberal Democrats, and in my opinion, there are hardly any Americans more awful than these liberal Democrats, mostly because there is almost nothing liberal about them. Liberal Democrats in the US are basically rightwingers in most of the rest of the planet.

The problem is that both parties are utterly committed to horrific US imperialism. The US is the imperialist pig enemy of all of mankind, but both parties are just fine with that and the majority of the American people think it’s great too. So the imperialism is probably going to be one of the last things to go. Trump ran as isolationist, but he is now governing as a wildly crazed typical American imperialist pig. Recall how horrifically imperialist even Bernie Sanders was. This murderous imperialist pig crap is nearly woven into the very genes of Americans. It will be very hard to root out.

We have to support the Democratic Party though. We have no choice. They sort of suck, but the Republicans are 50X worse. And the Democrats do do quite a few good things. The problem is more that there is progressive agenda simply yields incremental change. I can live with Democrats. I can’t live with Republicans. The Republican Party is one of the most extreme rightwing parties on the whole planet.

Look, let’s get real here. The United States itself is one of the most extreme rightwing countries on the planet. That’s the people of the US. The people – Americans – are basically fanatically ultra-rightwing freaks. They are out of step with nearly the entire planet. There are hardly any nations on Earth as rightwing as the US.

The only country more rightwing than the US I can think of is Colombia. Show me any other country anywhere on Earth where majorities regularly elect parties that are as radical right as the US Republican Party. Show me one country, one.

Well I will say that the new British government is trying to copy the Republican Party. But I do not think even the horrific Tories are as bad as the Republican Party. But the Tories are probably one of the only countries on Earth that actually ape the US Republicans. US Republican Party conservatism is pretty much rejected across the board in most every country on Earth.

Just a question. How rightwing are the governments of the Baltics and the Czech Republic nowadays? I do not think they are as rightwing as the US Republican Party. Estonia and Latvia are horrible countries, and all of the Baltic countries are Nazi countries with Nazi populations. Ukraine is run by out and out Nazis and maybe half the population are out and out Nazis, but even they do not practice US Republican Party conservatism.

And the present government does not even have the support of the majority. The only reason they are in power is because they outlawed the main opposition party, murdered some of its lawmakers and quite a few of its activists, and tried to set the house of its presidential candidate on fire. They failed in the last one, setting his neighbor’s house on fire. Oh by the way, the Ukrainians had the full support of the US in all of us. The US supported them as they outlawed the opposition party, murdered opposition lawmakers and many activists and tried to burn the opposition presidential candidate to death. After all, this murderous Nazi party was put in by the US government in a US-sponsored coup.

4 Comments

Filed under American, Britain, Colombia, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Imperialism, Left, Nazism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, South America, Ukraine, US Politics

A Look at the Cooperative Mode of Development

Juanny Boy: Robert – I have a question about this.

What’s the benefit of Centrally planning industries that are largely not predatory like clothing, computers, etc.?

It seems they are produced less efficiently under Marxism.

But in industries like health care, water, it is a necessity because of the potential for abuse.

One thing we could do is to have firms owned by their workers. This is called the Cooperative Mode of Development and I think this is a great model. Many say it is a non-capitalist mode of development. For instance, in this model there is no exploitation of workers, no labor theory of value, etc.

In capitalist firms, workers and management and ownership are enemies. The management and owners are always trying to abuse the workers more and more because the worse they abuse the workers, the more money they make.

But when workers own enterprises, there is no incentive to reduce worker pay and benefits, force longer work hours, skip on regulations, disallow sick and vacation time or to abuse workers at all. Why would the workers who own firm vote to lower their salaries, reduce their benefits, make their working conditions worse, deregulate the firm, disallow vacation and sick time, or raid worker pensions. There is no incentive to do any of these things.

Further in capitalism, there is a tremendous incentive to replace workers with machines. But if workers owned the company, why would workers vote to replace themselves with machines? Which workers would be so stupid as to say, “Please fire me and replace me with a machine. I will just gladly become poor, broke and unemployed?” No one will say that.

One problem is that workers cannot be counted on to run their own plants. They tried this in Yugoslavia and it did not work. The revenue from the firm could either be taken home as profit or reinvested in  the firm. Workers generally chose to give themselves large paychecks and to underinvest in the firm. This eventually caused the collapse of the enterprise because if you stop sinking money back into your firm, eventually your enterprise falls apart from lack of internal investment.

The Mondragon cooperatives in the Basque Country of Spain have solved this. All the plants are worker owned and controlled, however the workers do not have the right to decide how much of the revenue to take home as pay and how much to reinvest in the firm. These decisions are made at the highest level. All of the co-ops are ultimately owned by several large regional banks. It is here that the decisions about how to allocate revenues are made. Workers cannot be relied upon to make these decisions because they consistently choose to take home too much as pay and to not reinvest enough in the firm.

In addition, at Mondragon, the workers hire and fire their own management. You would think that workers would abuse this also as they would hire the managers that let them slack off the most and did not force them to work hard or be responsible. However, there has been no such abuse. Workers make good choices for management – firm but fair managers. The important point is if the management becomes abusive, they can be fired by the workers.

This Cooperative Mode of Development works very well in  my opinion.

9 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Europe, Labor, Left, Regional, Socialism, Spain, Yugoslavia