Category Archives: Sociology

73% of Venezuelans Continue to Support Chavismo

Tulio: Robert, I have two friends from Venezuela, a married couple, the female is white, the male is dark brown. I assure you they are not racist, they have never called me “mono” and they have been completely and 100% kind to me as long as I’ve known them. I have even visited them and stayed in their home, and they have visited me and stayed in mine. Never seen their bank account but I’m pretty sure they are not rich.

They are probably middle class by Venezuelan definition. They are 100% opposed to Chavismo. I don’t even know where they fall on the left-right continuum per se. They really don’t even talk much politics with me outside of opposing the condition their country is in. They are now living in Santiago, Chile where they worked and resided since the rise of Chavez, but frequently go to Venezuela to see family. I’m not an expert of Venezuelan internal affairs by any means. I’ve gotten a lot of my info directly from them.

Neither of them seem “right wing” to me in any sense that I understand the term. They seem to want nothing more than a stable, functional and non-authoritarian government. I also see massive marches in Caracas. I can’t believe all those tens of thousands of people are rich, right wingers. When I see close up photos of the crowd, they look like just ordinary Venezuelans to me. You seem to be painting a broad brush here and assuming anyone against Chavismo is a hard right-winger

Any Venezuelan who has the money to travel out of the country to the US or back and forth to Chile all the time, all by plane, is by definition not middle class. I would call those people upper middle class.

There will never be a government like they want in there as long as Chavismo is in because the Opposition will always be rioting in the streets and tearing stuff up like they have been doing ever since he got in. These people say they want a non-authoritarian government, but they supported the coup against Chavez. The first things the putschists did was to dissolve Congress, the National Assembly and Courts and put in martial law. They put a dictatorship in as soon as the coup took power.

The poster’s friends say they want a non-authoritarian state, but they support the extreme dictatorship that took power in the coup. The Opposition riots in the streets and calls for a coup every time they lose an election. This is because every time they lose an election, they insist against all evidence that it was stolen from them. Their calculus is that the only legitimate elections are the ones that they win. If the other side wins, it’s automatically stolen due to fraud, and we need to have a military coup to put “democracy” back in power. That ideology does not sound very democratic to me.  To the Opposition,  the definition of democracy is “when we win.” The definition of dictatorship is “when the other side wins.” Sound like a democratic project?

streambe_701e8e79-0687-3fce-8148-a667ce920929--1399436008

A decptively large Opposition crowd in Venezuela. You will not find one working class, low income or poor person in that crowd. Everyone is middle class to rich. And no matter how big that crowd is, the Chavista march will always be a lot bigger. That crowd represents 27% of the population. That’s called a minority movement.

They lack majority support. That crowd is the upper class, the upper middle class and unfortunately a lot of the middle class. There are a lot of middle class people in those crowds.

This is where the poster is getting his ideology from. Them and their lies. The Venezuelan Opposition is out of their minds. They are not rational and they are not honest. They lie constantly. They are as bad as Trump and the Trumpster Republicans, and in fact, both movements are very similar.

The project of the Opposition is extreme rightwing. I told you that they regularly call Chavez mono and that they removed Bolivar’s portrait because he was a bit too swarthy and not White enough and replaced it with a more proper Nordic one. The poster’s friends may not be racist reactionaries, but a lot of the people in the Opposition are very racist, and the poster’s friends are not denouncing that. I guess they are OK with it.

The project of the Opposition is to dismantle all of Chavismo and to go back to the way it was.

They are going to take it all down – the free health care, the free education, the neighborhood councils and circles, the public housing, the redistribution of oil income to the people, the cheap government-subsidized food and household goods to the people, the free houses given to the people, the public spending on infrastructure, the whole nine yards. Before Chavez came in, you never went to the doctor, the dentist or the eye doctor because you could not afford it. You either got over the medical issue or you died. Raw sewage ran down the streets of the shantytowns on the hills. In 1989, 91% of the people could afford only one meal a day and that was the same percentage of people in poverty. Venezuela had always been like this since Independence. The oligarchy had always been in charge and had never lifted one damn finger for the people.

All of the opposition politicians want to go back to that. All of them. The poster’s friends may not realize this, or perhaps they do not care. The Latin American middle class has always lined up with the Extreme Right project of the rich and the oligarchs, much to their detriment. This is because they consider the opposition to that  project to be Communists, and they think that is worse.

In Latin America, it’s Commies or Fascists. That’s your choice. Pick your poison. That’s because moderation or a Centrist project never works down there. The problems are too severe, and Centrist projects never touch the power of the oligarchs, so nothing ever changes.

Venezuela has never been more democratic than under Chavez. Venezuela has the freest press in Latin America. The authoritarian dictatorship crap is another big fat lie the Opposition made up.

73% of the Venezuelan people continue to support the Chavista Project because it’s the only one that’s for the people. The Opposition has no numbers. Those people you see marching above are part of the 27% opposition, and that is why they never win. I would also point out that pro-government marches happen at the same time as those Opposition marches, and they are almost always much bigger. You just never read about them in the Western media.

Those 73% are not stupid. They remember life back when the oligarchy ruled. They know that the Opposition wants to go directly back to that and not change one thing. This has been their project from Day One. Yes, it is a very far right, reactionary project. Compared to what the Opposition wants, most of the people want to stay with Chavismo.

2 Comments

Filed under Chile, Conservatism, Fascism, Government, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South America, Venezuela, White Racism

WB Jim Crow, LTNS

Here.

Thank you, Donald Trump. Thanks for this. I had nearly forgotten what it was like back in the good old days of Bull Conner, etc. Appreciate the reminder, Donald.

It’s not back to the future. More like back to the 1950’s. Here we are in the pre-Civil Rights Era again. How long before the Supreme Court guts the Housing Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act the same way they gutted the Voting Rights Act? Anyone taking bets?

Boy, when we White people think our backs are against the wall, we sure turn into vicious racist shits, don’t we?

God forbid when we turn into a minority. When Whites are a minority, it’s time for Apartheid, fascist dictatorships, vast, fetid Brown and Black slums on the mountains with raw sewage running down the streets, and of course don’t forget the death squads. Logically, the reaction is an armed Left. What sort of reaction would you expect?

White civilization, White decency, White manners, and stable and prosperous White societies are largely illusory. Whites only play that game when they’re a big majority and the non-Whites are a small minority. 

White people really can’t get along with other races, nor can we live in peace with them. We can only be decent to non-Whites if they are small minorities. Whites can only be decent at all when they are a majority and a solid one at that. Barring that, we are basically a race of ratfucks.

The Chinese are mostly the same. Chinese people are only decent at all when they  are in a majority Chinese country like Taiwan or China. When Chinese are a tiny minority as in Malaysia, Indonesia and especially the Philippines, they turn into a race of monsters.

There must be some larger pattern here. High achieving races can only act decent when they are the vast majority of the population. As minorities, they are thorough scumbags.

This is so constant that it must nearly be a rule of Sociology and Political Economics.

311 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Civil Rights, Crime, Law, Left, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Sociology, South, USA, 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.

132 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

Psychopathology of Serial Murderers

The primary problem with almost all serial killers is simply ASPD, Antisocial Personality Disorder, derived sociopathy or primary psychopathy. It is present in almost 100% of such cases. Most everything else is rather secondary to this primary character disorder, which is the most prominent symptom.

Very rare is the serial killer without this disorder, although there have been a few. I remember a long-distance trucker who turned himself when he walked into a Northern California police station with a woman’s breast in his top shirt pocket. He had camped out in forests while trucking and had picked up women and killed them. He kept the body of one in the truck for three or four days and drove around with it.

Experts said he was quite unusual in that they said he actually felt bad about what he had done. I wonder how bad he really felt though. You could not get me to drive around in a truck with a dead woman in the back for very long. I would go into severe panic pretty fast, would stop the truck, get out and start walking or probably running away. I would not be able to walk around with a woman’s breast in my shirt for long either. I would completely panic almost right away, take the shirt off, throw it on the ground and start running. But then I am a pretty guilty type person with a strong conscience.

Based on that, while I am sure he may have felt some guilt for his killings, the fact that he was able to drive around in a truck with a dead woman in the  back for 3-4 days shows without completely flipping out shows to me that he didn’t feel that much guilt, certainly not on the level that most of us would. And the fact that he could rather calmly walk into a police station with a cut off breast in his pocket without flying into total panic shows to me that he didn’t feel that bad about it. So guilt, even when it is present, is not as strong as in most of us, otherwise they would not have even done such horrible things in the first place.

Sexual sadism is also often present, and I have heard that Sadistic Personality Disorder is very common. Juvenile delinquency, voyeurism, exhibitionism, burglary, prowling, petty thievery, etc. typically precede the serial killings. When the serial killer starts killing, he usually has a fairly long rap sheet of more minor offenses. The murders are best seen as an escalation of a chronic criminal character type.

The ones who kill children are typically though not always preferential or fixated pedophiles. Certainly the ones who kill only children are preferential pedophiles. There is a type of pedophile called a mysoped, which is a sadistic pedophile. They are not very common. I doubt if 5% of pedophiles are like this, but these people are very dangerous. Probably almost all serial child killers are mysopeds and these crimes often have a sexual basis.

95% of rapists are the type that rarely if ever go serial, but the sadistic rapist, composed of no more than 5% of rapists, is very dangerous. Most if not all rapist serial killers are sadistic rapists.

The rage rapist is dangerous, but he generally does not intend to kill his victim although he assault her. If she fights back or gets difficult, he can fly into a rage and beat her so badly that she dies but again he usually does not intend to kill. I doubt if these types go serial much if at all. Serial killers intend to kill; rage rapists do not.

Malignant narcissism, the disorder, believe it or not, of our wonderful President, is also present sometimes. Ted Bundy was a malignant narcissist. Yes, our wonderful President has the same mental illness as Ted Bundy! Comforting thought.

A few have Schizoid Personality Disorder, and some of the more disturbed ones have Borderline Personality Disorder.

Schizotypal, Paranoid and Narcissistic Personality Disorders are rare if ever seen in serial killers. Schizotypals are probably too disorganized and decompensated and just out and out strange to commit such crimes. The serial killer must blend in, and schizotypals do not do that. A few schizotypals have committed mass murders. James Holmes the Aurora Batman Theater Shooter, was a notable case. But note that he was caught immediately.

Paranoid PD is rarely if ever seen. These people tend to be rather retiring and like to hide away from a hostile world. They also do not like to call attention to themselves from a hostile world. They are suspicious and distrustful by nature and this makes it hard for them to blend in well with ordinary society as serial killers often do.

Narcissists are usually too self-centered to kill. While narcissists are often very mean, the disorder is usually well-controlled in that the rage rarely escalates to homicide. There have been a few cases of NPD’s committing mass murder, usually of their families.

The case of Jeffrey MacDonald, the mass murdering physician of Fatal Vision, seems to be such a case. This is a superb true crime case by the way.

Also narcissists think that if they kill, they will get caught, and if they are in prison or jail they will not be able to live this wonderful life they are supposed to be killing. They are “too cool to kill.” Killing would mess up all their wonderful plans to exploit others and hold them up to contempt by millions of people, which the narcissist would have a hard time taking. The narcissist is “too good for prison.” Prison would be such a crushing blow to their self-image that it would very hard to take.

However, malignant narcissists can be very dangerous because this is a combination of psychopathy, sadism, Paranoid PD and Narcissistic PD. When you weaponize NPD with paranoia, sadism and particularly psychopathy, you create a dangerous illness.

Cluster C Personality Disorders like Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, Self-Defeating Personality Disorder, Dependent Personality Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder are rarely if ever present in these types. These are PD’s where aggression is mostly displayed passively, and serial killers display aggression actively, not passively.

Mood disorders do not seem to be common. Bipolar Disorder is not common, and serial killers are rarely if ever depressed. They displace guilt and loathing outwards instead of pushing it inside of themselves as depressives do. Depressives are passive, and depression acts as sort of a freezing agent in that it tends to immobilize people by its nature. Men in general tend to either experience less depression than women or mask it with other things such as anger and rage, drinking, drugs, gambling, promiscuity or even workaholism. It is simply not acceptable as a man to be depressed, so depressed men simply channel their depression into other things and say they are not depressed, they are just drunks or workaholics, for instance.

Substance and alcohol abuse issues are quite common with serial killers, but the better ones are more sober, as drinkers and dopers tend to be scattered and unreliable and serial killers must be on the ball  24-7.

Only a few are psychotic. 2% of serial killers are psychotic. Psychotic people can barely organize a trip to the bathroom. How are they going to plot out elaborate and professional serial homicides?

They are motivated by many things, but your typical rape-murders of murders of attractive young women almost always have a sexual component. I would call these serial killings lust murders. The Germans coined the term. Even among the lust-murders, there are a number of different types. Some are motivated by purely sexual desires, others get off specifically on killing and the power gained from it, others are hunter types who get pleasure from the hunt and chase as if they were hunting an animal, which they are of course, but when we refer to hunters, we are always talking about hunters of non-human animals.

2 Comments

Filed under Alcohol, Antisocial, Borderline, Crime, Criminology, Depressants, Depression, Intoxicants, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Narcissism, Narcissistic, Pedophilia, Personality, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotic Disorders, Schizotypal, Serial Killers, Sex, Sociology, Sociopathy

“Iran: Socialism’s Ignored Success Story,” by Ramin Mazaheri

Iran: Socialism’s Ignored Success Story

May 23, 2017

by Ramin Mazaheri

Iran just completed their presidential election, but this article will not discuss the candidates, the result or the political consequences.

I work for Iran’s Press TV, which essentially makes me a civil servant, and I think it is correct for me to not reveal who I voted for in order to preserve my independence within the government. I’m quite happy to work for “the people” instead of “a person” – as in private media – and I will support which ever candidate the people choose.

Why will I support Iran’s government, whoever is in charge? Truly, it is not for my paycheck.

I support Iran because I support socialism where ever I can find it, and Iran has socialism in abundance.

Iranian Socialism has been so successful at redistributing wealth to the average person; has safeguarded the nation’s security despite being ringed by US military bases and repeated threats; has grown the economy despite an international blockade; has produced a foreign policy motivated on political principles; and has fought against the divisive identity politics which undermine human solidarity.

I have actually seen Iran over the decades, unlike 99% of the journalists who claim to understand Iran, so you can’t dissuade me.

And I’m not even going to try to persuade you. This is not that article, either.

This article is to lay out for left-wing readers and supporters of socialism what should be crystal clear: Iran is a socialist nation. Even more than that: Iran is a socialist success story.

Iran, like all nations, has had its unique developmental history; of course we have been reading Marx just as long as anyone else, as well.

But the most convincing and simplest way I can put it to non-Iranians is this: Europe came to socialism through industrialization, theory and war, but Iran came to socialism through its religious and moral beliefs. The ends are the same, and that is all that should matter to anyone who is truly trying to promote socialism for the benefits it brings to the average person.

The Problem Is Not Us, It Is You

I repeat: The problem is not us, it is you…when it comes to looking at Iran’s contributions to socialism.

I believe that around 99% of Westerners have no idea at all what Iran is really like. Unfortunately, this total ignorance about Iran and the Muslim world is the historical norm in the West.

The greatest contribution of Middle East scholar Edward Said was that his book, “Orientalism”, definitively proved through historical scholarship that the West has never, ever, ever been favorable towards the Muslim world.

Not in the 8th century, when Muslims were occupiers of the Iberian Peninsula, not in the following centuries when Islam was an ideological competitor to Christianity; not in the 15th century, when the Ottoman Empire occupied the Balkans; not in the 19th century, when the Europeans occupied the Middle East & North Africa; not in 1916, when they redrew the borders for the West’s benefit; not in 1945, when they bombed countries like Syria which had fought on their side against the Germans and the Italians; not in the 1960’s, when their reaction to independence was neocolonialism; not in 1979, when they created the forerunner of the Taliban; not during 2 wars in Iraq, a war in Syria today, etc.

Said’s point was: Never has the West viewed or treated the Muslim world as equals, much less intellectual equals.

Given this history, why should us Iranians expect the reality of our high-achieving modernity to be accepted and admired?

LOL, believe me, I am over it! I write this to enlighten you, not me! I humbly hope that it works.

I will address the elephant in the room, and quickly: Yes, I assume that a large part of this prejudice is religious. Some Christians cannot accept that Islam promotes the most recent prophet of the monotheism which they both share.

Such religious prejudices are not my problem, and they do not blind my analysis of 2017 Iran.

No socialist believes in a “clash of civilizations” or “religious war”, anyway.

My point is not to criticize Europe for a lack of brotherhood with their fellow Abrahamic religion: My point is to criticize them in 2017 because most Westerners believe that that even the most leftist Iranian cannot even qualify as merely a “conservative social democrat”!

Can There Never Be a Muslim “Democrat” or an Iranian “Republican”?

The proof of this bias is the decades of Western support for the oppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Revolution and any Muslim attempt to allow their religion into their politics. This is even though Christian Democratic parties governed Europe for decades after WWII, and it is absurd to think that the Christian dogma is not upheld and promoted in European politics today.

So, if Iranians cannot even be allowed to fulfill 19th century notions, why would the West accept that 2017 Iran can be even more truly leftist than the merely centrist ideology of European social democracy?

Of course, the average European cannot accept this, and this is why Western Socialists are aghast at my idea that Iran is an “ignored Socialist success story”.

The radical left of European Socialism, which seeks to destroy organized religion, is especially aghast, but they are a tiny minority and on the way out, thankfully. They do not realize that they have already been drastically tempered, if not ousted, in the still-Socialist countries they purportedly admire: Cuba is full of Santeria and Pope pictures, yin-yangy Confucianism is being promoted in China, etc.

But these Western radicals are a minority who simply cannot accept that spirituality cannot be rubbed out, largely because they see it as a choice or a social conditioning instead of a part of many people’s intrinsic nature (if not theirs). A modern Socialist must accept that this fight has already been fought and decided. The capitalists certainly advance as we chase our tails….

Even if leftist detractors can get past religion, they immediately will talk about Iran’s human rights faults.

I respond: Yawn yawn yawn African-Americans fill US jails; Muslims fill France’s jails; this is the centenary of the British-orchestrated Persian Famine, which killed 8-10 million people and actually made Iran the biggest victim of WWI, that is just one Western/capitalist inspired famine/death/human rights violation yawn yawn yawn.

I am not here to say Iran is perfect – only God can be – I am saying that Iran is absolutely no worse than the West. It is an undeniable fact that the current Islamic Republic of Iran has far less blood on its hands than most – and Iran has not invaded a country in 300 years!

Religion, human rights – these are all classic diversions from the facts presented against socialist societies, and Iran certainly is one.

Iran Checks All the Boxes as a Socialist Nation and as Revolutionary Socialist

What are the key components of socialism? Let’s clarify our terms.

The first is leadership by an avant-garde party committed to defending the revolution: Iran certainly has this, and it crosses over Principlist/Reformist party lines.

The second is central planning of the economy: Whoever had won, they would be largely implementing the 6th Five-year plan (2016-2021). And there is also the “Resistance Economy” approach promoted by many, which is certainly anti-globalization.

The third is control over the media: This is mixed – I would say Iran does not really have this in the traditionally Socialist sense. Cuba has no private media, for example, while Iran has dozens of private newspapers and innumerable TV satellites. But Iran does have limitations, so let’s check this box.

The fourth is support for foreign liberation movements: When the history of Palestinian liberation is finally written, just as a now-free South Africa thanks Cuba for sending troops to Angola, will not Palestinians do the same for Iran’s decades of support? The same with Lebanon and now Syria, correct?

The fifth is democratically devolving as much democracy as possible in order to empower the average person: There is no doubt that Iran is the most vibrant democracy in the Middle East, and by a huge margin. The difference between Iran’s social-democratic procedures and guarantees in 2017 when compared with 1978 is obviously laughable. I write this from Paris, a nation in an 18-month state of emergency with no end in sight….

If your country has these five crucial components: Congratulations! You are in a socialist country!

A little bit more on each for the naysayers….

An Avant-Garde Party

Iran is a one-party system – that party defends the 1979 Revolution. China is a one-party system – promoting Chinese communism. Many would say that the US is a one-party system – promoting imperialist capitalism.

The difference between Iran & China and the US is that in the former their one-party systems are formalized, explicit and well-known; in the US it is informal, but just as strong, and maybe even stronger.

I don’t think this needs much further explanation but, for example, you cannot propose to end the Iranian Revolution and run for office. In France a presidential candidate in their recent election (Jean-Luc Melenchon) won 20% of the first-round vote by proposing to abolish France’s current 5th Republic.

Like all socialist countries, Iran is criticized for not having democracy but they do: it is simply within their own particular structure. Just as in the USSR, there was lively debate about how to advance their own system – should we following the right-wing model of socialism of Bukharin/Khrushchev or the left-wing model socialism of Lenin/Trotsky? – but there was no debate about deviating from their chosen national system, i.e. communism. When they did allow such debates under Gorbachev, Soviet Socialism was almost immediately subverted by capitalist reactionaries and consigned to oblivion.

Again, please examine the repression of communism in the US, South Korea, Greece, Italy, Chile, etc. for historical examples of capitalist “one-party systems”, which are definitely NOT avant-garde and promoting socialism….

The idea that Iran has no avant-garde party but is some sort of totalitarian structure governed by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is only expressed by those who are supremely ignorant about Iran. For the second presidential election in a row Hassan Rouhani won despite not seeming to be Khamenei’s preferred candidate, after all.

Central Planning of the Economy

I think I can illustrate Iran’s state of economic socialism with this anecdote: Back in 2013 all 8 presidential candidates were pushing for more privatization…not to promote capitalism, but because everything has already been nationalized for so long, LOL!

So Iran has already done the nationalizing, and maybe they need to do more? However, socialist countries have increasingly agreed that some revenue-producing businesses are needed to meet some of the basic needs of their people: North Korea has the Kaesong Industrial area, Cuba’s Port Mariel is giving some space to completely foreign-owned businesses, Vietnam and China have plenty of state-run capitalist enterprises, etc. The reality is that even producing things as simple as soap need some expertise, and very often only capitalist corporations can have that expertise.

That’s why the Iranian government went on a spending spree in 2016, but it was decidedly not your typical capitalism. (I do not want to appear to credit only the Rouhani administration because economic policy is produced by the entire government in 5-year development plans, as already noted.)

Iran was feted like a king in places like France and Italy because they were prepared to spend dozens of billions of euros. But what pleased me was how Iran spent: They demanded equal partnerships, joint ventures and technology transfers.

These are the ways in which foreign investment can be mutually beneficial and not exploitative – this was good for France too. I am not a dogmatic person who is absolutely against all capitalism, but I am against all exploitative capitalism.

My point is: It was a socialist spending spree, not a capitalist one. Iran did not just give money away; they did not waste money on vanity projects; this was not one billionaire dealing with another for their own benefit; they invested in Iran via long-term central planning, i.e. the socialist view of economic management.

This is not like France’s ruling “Socialist Party” recently selling off national industrial jewel Alstom to the United States’ General Electric: The French people got nothing for that. That was capitalism; that was globalization

Iran is not in favor of globalization – they are not even a member of the World Trade Organization, unlike 164 other countries. Some will say this is solely due to the opposition of the United States, but it is not: As many in Iran said during the election: membership in the WTO is against Iran’s principles…and these are socialist principles regarding the economy – there is nothing about the WTO in the Koran.

Control over the Media

It’s true you can’t have Charlie Hebdo in Iran – hardly a major loss –but Iran is certainly no Cuba.

Iran’s refusal to crack down on TV satellites which permit reactionary, anti-revolutionary channels like BBC Persian and VOA Persian (UK and US government-funded respectively) appears to be a dangerous fire which Havana will not tolerate. This tolerance does give Iran “human rights” credibility with the West – well it doesn’t, but it should!

I would suggest that Iran is simply confident that foreign propaganda cannot overwhelm the obvious successes of the 1979 Revolution. I imagine that Cuba feels that they cannot take chances, being just 100 kilometers from the USA.

Of course, Cubans simply laugh at Western propaganda channels like the US government’s pathetic Radio Marti. Cubans are supremely intelligent politically and, after all, their education programs are decades older than Iran’s.

Iran, like Cuba and China, bans pornography. I note that such respect for sexuality and for women is a very basic tenet of Socialism. If your utopia includes unfettered access to porn I suggest that you are a libertarian, and not a socialist.

I remind again that the media glasnost implemented by Gorbachev was a major driver in the catastrophic implosion of the Russian Revolution. To privatize media means, necessarily, that you are giving those few people rich enough to actually start newspapers the chance to promote their obviously capitalist worldviews.

I, for one, am not about to cry over the lack of published capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist, regressive anti-revolutionary nonsense, and neither are most Iranians. As sad as the Dutch may be about it – Iran is not Amsterdam!

Support of Foreign Liberation Movements

Some will say that Palestine is just a “distraction” from Iran’s own problems. Nonsense – this is a point of pride to all Iranians. This is a point of admiration for Iran from the entire Muslim world, just as it is a negative point for much of the Western world.

This is another way Iran is revolutionary Socialist country: they support oppressed countries on the basis of ideology. Perhaps Iran is not the “Mecca of Revolutionaries” which Algeria was in the 1960’s, but let’s agree that the rate and scope of revolutionary movements worldwide are at a much lower level today, sadly.

Russia may support Syria, for example, but it appears more for Moscow’s self-interest and the idea of national sovereignty – which is the idea of national self-interest – rather than a moral-based ideology.

Call Iran the same as Russia – no insult there – but you cannot deny that Iran supports Palestine for reasons which are clearly to the detriment of their own success, i.e., they do it out of solidarity and morality. Were Iran to recognize Israel they would surely have the international dogs called off them…but Iran is a revolutionary Socialist society, as you are hopefully agreeing with by now.

Iran is also an anti-racist society, like all modern socialist societies.

They constitutionally protect minorities, with parliamentary seats for Armenians, Assyrians, Christians and Jews, despite their small numbers. Iran may not promote them, but their tolerance of local languages like Azeri and Kurdish far exceeds that of many minorities in Western Europe. Iran accommodates the 5th-largest number of refugees in the world, while French authorities put up gates and even ‘’anti-migrant boulders’’ to deny refugees even the barest shelter.

When it comes to religion they are extremely tolerant of ancient Iranian Zoroastrianism and all of the pre-Prophet Muhammad Abrahamic religions. Any religion after Prophet Muhammad? Well…it is an “Islamic” Revolution, after all.

This is perhaps a pedantic point but an important one on a verbal, Foucauldian level: Has there been any “revolution” in the world since WWI which was not “socialist”? I can’t think of any, because without a socialism component it cannot be a revolution – it can only be a continuation of the capitalist/feudalist/bourgeois status quo, or a military coup.

Empowering People

The two fundamental tenets of socialism are redistribution of wealth and empowering the average person so that they can reach their full potential. Dismantling the social roadblocks thrown up by capitalism against the non-wealthy has clearly been a major goal of the Islamic Revolution, and I can quite easily prove it has been achieved with a tremendous amount of real-world success.

Since 1990 – when the West’s attack dog of Iraq was beaten off – no country’s Human Development Index has improved more than Iran’s, with the lone exception of South Korea.

Everyone should take notice, especially Socialists, as it is we anti-capitalists who prize human development – not economic development – above all.

That’s why I’m going to leave the Human Development Index as the only proof of success. For me, I have so many other econometrics, anecdotes and personal reflections to prove that Iran has succeeded in creating a new, better, modern society that to do so is quite boring.

Bottom line: It is obvious that I do not have to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Despite the tremendous amount of opposition, violence and propaganda, Iran has advanced the most in the past 3+ decades.

I say “the most” because, unlike South Korea, Iran has done this without 30,000 US troops currently on its soil; it was not preceded by decades of brutal dictatorship which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people (mainly leftists); and they did not collaborate with the Americans in the division of their nation which currently causes the greatest possibility of thermonuclear war.

Iran didn’t get to #1 as many others did: by capitalism and imperialism.

Iran’s recent election had a 73% voter turnout rate, ranking it #12 in the world. Unlike many of these other 11 countries, Iran does not compel citizens to vote. There is obviously tremendous support for the Iranian system from the Iranian people because…they are not blind to success, I would say!

The hardest thing to get people to do when it comes to socialism (or Iran) is to think realistically: Nobody can achieve “perfect” socialism. No country has 100% voter turnout. No country has zero human rights violations.

But for Iran you have add on another layer of misconception: Many of the “restrictions” in Iranian society predate 1979 by centuries: women were largely wearing the hejab before then; unmarried people, especially young women, also lived at home before 1979; alcohol could send you to prison then and now.

My point is: Iran is a culturally conservative nation, and it was like that long, long before 1979. You will have to simply trust me that Iranians don’t need a government to make them want to live in a society which appears conservative to modern Western standards.

Again, Iran is not Amsterdam, LOL! Maybe you can talk about the royal court in Shiraz in the 14th century as being a hotbed of drunken poetic reveling, but this is does not reflect the reality of life for the average person.

Only an Iranian will agree quickly with this statement and move on: Take away the 1979 Revolution and you would still have many of the same rules in place – they would just be enforced informally.

I will, lastly, put it this way: Take away the mullahs, and you still have to deal with my grandmother!!!!!

But to believe that the government has not empowered people since 1979…well, back then the average woman had 7 children, was illiterate 70% of the time, and the UN was not calling its health care system “excellent”.

Today, the birthrate is 1.7 children per woman, the overall literacy rate is 93% and the right-wing Washington DC-based think-tank the Brookings Institution runs dumbfounded articles with headlines like “Are Iranian Women Overeducated?”.

All in 30+ years…and have you thought it was capitalism that did it?!

Socialists Who Ignore Iran Are Not Really Socialists At All

Do you still want to think that Iran is a country solely motivated by religious radicalism and not the ideals of socialism? Well, then I place you on the right and the left, and that is the point of this article.

It is bad enough that the right (capitalists, imperialists) not only co-opt Socialist ideas as their own (social security, Medicare, Medicaid, affirmative action programs, welfare, free schooling, free nurseries, etc.), but it is laughable when the left refuses to see the leftism in Iran because it does not fit with their preconceived, totally inflexible notions.

Any true Socialist/Communist should realize that attacking Iran is doing a capitalist’s job for them.

And how can someone who proclaims to be a “leftist” have the exact same interpretation of Iran as a right-wing capitalist does?

Again, it is simply laughable that Iran is “not” what it really is.

But this is what always happens: Chinese communism “is not really communism”…despite having 1-party rule, a state-run economy, control over the media, support for Vietnam and North Korea, and the 2nd highest HDI improvement from 1970-2010.

North Korean communism is just a “cult of personality”…despite expelling the Japanese, resisting the Americans, maintaining their independence, security and high-level of education. Cuba is just the Castro dictatorship and, again, not communism.

This is all anti-socialist propaganda – for capitalism there can never be ANY “Socialist success story”.

You remain adamant that you do not want to implement all the principles of the Iranian Islamic Revolution in your country?

Fine, it is your country to decide for as you like. Like I wrote, no worries – Iran hasn’t invaded in 300 years and it sure seems like our military is necessarily focused on defense.

But just because you disagree with some aspects of the 1979 Revolution I encourage you not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I remind you that I needed only one fact to prove that Iran has been improving at a rate which is essentially the best in the world over the last 3 decades – how far below Iran does your country rank, hmm?

I write this article because practically no media in the English language will ever pursue the links between Iran and socialism. We leftists know this not just anti-Iran bias, but a much larger anti-Socialist bias.

However, it is truly suicidal to ignore the left-wing successes in Iran because, even if you reject some of them, Iran has clearly found MANY modern solutions to our MANY modern problems: surely some of them can be of use to you, right? Is Iran ALL wrong?

Of course not – only Satan can be all wrong.

Therefore, I advise those fighting against capitalism and imperialism: Please afford Iran a bit more respect and interest than you would afford Satan!

And Now I Take Our Victory lap

I can only laugh at those who say Iran’s revolution has failed!

“Oh really? Who was the puppet that was installed? Who was the king that was restored? What is the name of the popular democratic revolution which replaced the peoples’ one of 1979, because I have not heard of it and I still see many familiar faces from 1979?”

The revolution has succeeded, and I am not sorry to say so.

Not that I care about your opinion – this is for YOUR own benefit: YOU will not win socialism, anti-capitalism or anti-imperialism in your country if you cannot learn from the successes of others.

But sadly, your inability to recognize socialism in Iran imperils all of us, because the people worldwide cannot win in the long term if even like-minded leftists cannot stick together to work against fascism, capitalism and racism.

But Iran, Cuba, China, etc. – we can win enough of these things for ourselves, at least.

We are doing just fine – steady as she goes, eh? All thanks to central planning, as the capitalists veer from crisis to crisis, with the 1% sucking up a greater percentage every time. Our election had huge participation rates, as usual, dwarfing the European cultures who probably want to claim they invented voting, along with everything else. Asia has heard it all before….

For the non-Western readers: I know that the vast majority of you already support Iran. I have talked with too many of you over my life – I know better. I also know that for us “field slaves” we have to give that impression in order to survive, sometimes, or at least to avoid annoyances.

Anyway, many Westerners appear to misunderstand Socialism completely: they don’t realize it is intrinsically a global idea; they think the Franco-German-Russian (European) variety is the only one. More Eurocentrism blinding them to reality, and necessarily limiting them….

But I look across the West and I see nothing but leftist failure after leftist failure: The fall of communism in Russia, the breakup of Yugoslavia, the obvious absorption of “left” parties into the dominant right-wing parties, the rise of austerity, the advance of globalization at the expense of national interests….

So the next time you look at Iran, you should applaud it as a rare socialist success. Iranians will certainly keep living their path of creating modern socialism, Inshallah.

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television.

8 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Armenians, Asia, Assyrians, Capitalism, China, Christianity, Conservatism, Cuba, Economics, Eurasia, Europe, European, France, Government, History, Imperialism, Iran, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Journalism, Latin America, Left, Middle East, NE Asia, Near Easterners, North Korea, Palestine, Political Science, Politics, Pornography, Regional, Religion, Revolution, Russia, SE Asia, Socialism, Sociology, Syria, Vietnam, War, Zoroastrianism

Why Many People from Indiana Do Not Seem Well-Educated

I hate to say it, but I have noticed that a lot of folks from that part of rural Indiana around Delphi cannot spell, punctuate or use grammar to save their lives. Many can barely write a proper English paragraph.

Indiana has a low rate of college graduation, something like 11%. That’s very much on the low side for the US.

It’s not much that the people there are dumb. They’re probably around as smart as anywhere. But I have been told that most people in Indiana who are college material either leave the state for university or go to university in Indiana and then leave the state for work. So what is happening is that plenty of bright people are being born and brought up in the state, but most of them are taking off around college age for school and later for work.

So what’s left is a lot of people with a high school education who can’t write English very well.

In their defense, I would say that if you live in a town like that, you simply do not need a university degree, and you sadly you don’t even need to be able to write a proper English paragraph. The jobs that are available there mostly don’t care how well you write and a degree is not needed for most of the jobs. No one cares if you can’t write proper English, so there is no social penalty for not writing well. Humans are basically lazy. If there’s no overriding reason to learn something, they usually don’t bother. Instead humans are adaptive. They learn whatever they need to learn to do whatever they need to do. Anything more is seen as superfluous and a waste of time. Some people like me learn things as a near-sensual activity, but I’m not a normal or typical person and most folks don’t have that same attitude towards learning new things.

They are being raised in working class communities where the emphasis is just to graduate high school and go get yourself a job. There’s no premium or status given to intelligence, education, erudition or knowledge.

So this tends to discourage people from self-educating themselves, which believe it or not, even people like me have done a lot of.

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.

37 Comments

Filed under Education, Higher Education, Labor, Midwest, Regional, Sociology, USA

How a College Degree – in Anything – Helps You in Later Life and Work

Many entry level jobs with advancement possibilities used to require a college degree – in anything at all.  They could care less what it was in. The idea was that if you were able to get through college at all, you were probably reasonably bright. College grads in the US have average IQ’s of 115, so they are more intelligent than 82% of the population. College  isn’t supposed to be for everyone. It’s not supposed to be so easy that someone of average intelligence can fly right through.

In addition to being reasonably intelligent, if you graduated from college it showed that you had a good work ethic and a level of perserverance and persistence under serious pressure. You have no idea how many people drop out of college. Last time I was at university, I noticed a lot of students who didn’t seem to be college material. I noticed that almost all of them were freshmen and sometimes sophomores. Some of the girls were really hot, but they didn’t seem real smart. I was wondering what the Hell they were even doing in college. Without fail, I noticed that almost 100% of these people were gone after their freshman or sophomore year. They just couldn’t handle it.

Also a lot of bright students get involved in working, often full-time. Everyone says work your way through school, but I say that;s a bad idea. I knew lots of students who worked their way through school. The more hours they worked, the more likely they were to drop out. Studies have now shown that there is nearly a linear relationship here.

When you are college age and your parents are not wealthy, you often have to live with  your parents. You can only work part-time, and it doesn’t leave you with much money. Many of your friends who did not go to college are now working full-time and they are bringing in all sorts of money. Many are moving out. They are partying all the time on weekends. They start dating, and that costs money. It’s pretty hard to date with no money. It’s hard to hang out with your working friends when you are in college as they seem to have no respect for what you are doing. At best, they see it as an oddity.

You really don’t get any bonus points among the working crowd by being in school. A lot of these people are insecure and get defensive about not going to college. You get insulted a lot and called a loser for going to school. Because, you know,  they didn’t go, they feel insecure, so they need to insult you to feel that they are somehow better.

I really advise anyone in college to just associate with other people in college. They’re all in the same boat you are. People who are not in school and are in the workforce full-time are doing something very different with their lives and I don’t think college students can get along with these people. It simply doesn’t work. A good rule in life is to hang around with  people who are doing whatever you are doing. If you hang out with people who are doing something much different from what you are doing, it just doesn’t seem to work. Would be nice if it did, but it just doesn’t.

I have been told I know a lot of stuff, but frankly, most of it is from being an autodidact. A college education ideally teaches you how to think – it teaches you critical thinking skills. Then you take that ramped-up college-educated brain out into the world and use it to gain new knowledge or even to work at jobs where you have no training or background but the only requirement is that you have to be smart.

Once you learn how to think, you can now work at all sorts of jobs that require nothing more than being smart. I am not obviously using my degrees now for work, but my degrees taught me how to think. For one of my side jobs, counseling, the only requirement is that you have to be smart. I have no degrees, credentials, licences or any of that, as you do not need them. But college taught me how to think and this job requires serious brains, so I am able to do it. In addition, I learned a lot of this job simply through study for many years.

I had a job a while back as a linguist and anthropologist. I had a degree in Linguistics, but we were never taught field linguistics. So I simply went out and checked out a small pile of books on how to do field linguistics.  Then I got on the phone and called all over the country to some of the bigger linguists out there, and I asked them how to do the job. Mostly I wanted to know how to make an alphabet. They gave me a lot of tips. With those skills, I was able to invent an alphabet for the tribe. I also made a dictionary and a phrase book. For the phrase book, I ended up being creative director.

Although I can’t do art, I designed the book. I wrote out of all of the text and then I set aside spaces where I wanted the drawings to go. I specified what drawings of what I wanted in each space and how big they should be. For instance, “a drawing of an old Indian woman weaving a basket here.” I have no idea how I did this, as I never really got trained. We were supposed to learn layout in Journalism school, but I never got taught it because it wasn’t in the courses. You had to go to the print shop and learn it on your own. My art skills are atrocious. But I think those fancy degrees I got ramped up my brain nicely enough to where I can now design books, though I never took a single hour of a course in how to do it.

Later I had to do a lot of anthropological work, so I simply went and checked out a small pile of books on how to be a field anthropologist. I also called up a few anthropologists and talked to them. Then I read all of the previous anthropological work that had been done on the tribe, hundreds of pages. After a while I got a feel for how to be a Cultural Anthropologist. I simply taught myself how to do the job.

I recently worked as Graphics Editor on a book series. We were in charge of making maps of languages and where they were spoken. We had maps of regions and we had to shade in and label each of ~50  languages and where they were spoken. The speaker populations were colored onto maps of Eurasia. We had ~5 maps to work with. After a while, I figured out that all of the maps were wrong and they were all wrong in different ways!

And it wasn’t exactly obvious how or why they were wrong, and it was not clear where the speaker population should properly be shaded on the map. After quite some time, I finally got a feel for it, but it was a pretty wild project. All the source material was wrong and all of it in different ways! Eventually we figured out how each map was wrong and in what way it was wrong. Many of the maps were also correct for some populations too, and after a while, I figured that out too. But it was a pretty crazy project. I know nothing of graphics. I took one university geography course, but it did not help me. I can’t draw to save my life. But I worked with an artist and gave him instructions of where to shade in the groups. I didn’t need to know how to draw and I didn’t need to know anything about maps. I just needed to know how to think.

Even for this sleuthing we are doing here, I believe my university education is helping me to do this. I never took one minute of a single criminology class. But I didn’t need to. What I and hopefully the rest of you are doing here in this sleuthing is that you are simply using pure, raw critical thinking skills. Sure you need special training to be a detective, but if you have ever met any detectives, one thing you will notice is that they are whip smart.

This sleuthing we are doing here is a great example of how learning critical thinking skills alone gives you a skill that is now transferable to all sorts of work in which you might not have received any training at all. None of us need to be Criminology majors to sleuth out this crime. All any of us needs is good critical thinking skills. That’s what is truly necessary for this sort of work.

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.

6 Comments

Filed under Anthropology, Education, Higher Education, Intelligence, Labor, Linguistics, Psychology, Sociology

My Reaction to the BBC Show “Three Girls,” by Magneto

My Reaction to the BBC Show Three Girls

by Magneto

I was very surprised when I saw the three-episode drama series “Three Girls” on BBC. It is a drama about the true events of Pakistani men grooming and raping young White British school girls. The reason I was surprised was because I never expected such a Cultural Marxist, pro-multiculturalism channel like the BBC to ever show anything which might give a negative impression on immigrants.
The first reaction most people will get after watching that is to feel anger and hate towards Pakistani men and to want to expel them from the UK. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Three Girls show caused the membership in White Supremacist organizations to double or triple. It’s a very disturbing show that is guaranteed to get an emotional reaction out of people.
But on thinking a bit deeper I realized that why should I feel angry? After all, these are the same White western women who have been shitting on White men for decades now and treating White men like shit in the name of feminism. Why should I care if they get raped? White women have treated White men like shit for decades, and now all of a sudden White men are supposed to jump to their defense? After years of White women screaming they are independent and don’t need a man’s help?
White women have effectively betrayed their own race by accepting feminism. Men do not have a duty to help people who have betrayed them. White women disrespect nice, normal White men as “nice guy Beta males,” go jump on the cock of the first Pakistani man they can find, and when things go wrong, expect the same nice guy Beta male White men to come to their defense and rescue them?
Sorry ladies, but you made your bed and now you have to lie in it. How many tens of millions of White men’s lives have been destroyed by White women in divorce? How many hundreds of thousands of White men have been driven to suicide after having their kids kidnapped by their ex-wives in divorce court and denied custody or visitation rights? And where was the White female outcry about this? There was none. White women have effectively stated that they could care less if the divorce system is so unfair to men that it drives men to suicide.
White women have raped tens of millions of White men in divorce court but now expect White men to feel an obligation to “save them” from the invading barbarian hordes who rape them? I don’t think so.
To make matters even worse, if a White male dares to even verbally protest against the anti-male feminist legal system, he is a “misogynist”. That’s like saying Jews who verbally protest against Nazis murdering them are being “racist against Nazis”. This is how badly feminism has infected the West. If a man so much as dares to suggest that men should be treated like human beings with human rights, he is a misogynist. As a result, tens of millions of younger men have become alienated from society, and this has led to the rise of ultra-conservative politicians beginning to win elections.
There is also somewhat of a generational divide in terms of this issue. Baby Boomer and Generation X men, basically any man over the age of 40, did not grow up in a man-hating feminist society. Women were still somewhat feminine and good during the youth of the Boomers and Gen Xers. But Millennial men and Generation Z men have grown up from birth in an anti-male feminist society, and that is why the majority of younger men are anti-feminist. Older men simply can’t comprehend this because they didn’t grow up in such a society.
The message that younger men have gotten from society and women in general is very clear- you hate us and don’t need us. Therefore do not be surprised when men do not come to the defense of women when women are in very real trouble.

96 Comments

Filed under Britain, Conservatism, Crime, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Guest Posts, Law, Man World, Pakistanis, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, South Asians, Whites

“Are Brown Women the Answer for White Men?” by Magneto

Are Brown Women the Answer for White Men?

by Magneto

You don’t have to be a sociologist to figure out that feminism has hit White women the hardest. Feminism has influenced and affected all races of women, of course. But it seems that White women have become the most toxic women on the planet due to it. Is there some racial or cultural reason for this? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this and here are some of my ideas.

White women have never been an oppressed race of women. Throughout history, White women have been the most privileged and spoiled race of women on earth. White women were treated like queens and never had to do manual labor outdoors in the hot sun like Black slave women or Brown women working in hot kitchens to cook meals for their families. White women never even had to learn to cook because they would just hire a Brown woman to do the cooking for them.

So you have this category of extremely privileged women who have developed a massive ego superiority complex over hundreds of years, and then you brainwash them with the idea that they are oppressed? Of course they will swallow such nonsense. It’s like a spoiled child. If you tell a spoiled child that they are a victim and are suffering from oppression, the spoiled child will believe you. Not because they are oppressed, but because they have become such extremely selfish people due to years of being spoiled.

Therefore the root cause seems to be selfishness. I think it’s safe to say that White women are the most selfish race of women on this planet. Of course there are some rare exceptions, but for the most part, do you see White women sacrificing their own happiness to serve their families the way that Brown and Black women do? Can you imagine a White woman voluntarily staying home to lovingly raise her children the same way that Brown women do?

Nope. White women are brainwashed that they need to live and experience the world and they can settle down later on in life. So while Brown and Black women are at home raising children and taking care of their families, White women are travelling all over the world and getting pumped and dumped like trashy whores.

I remember that I briefly dated a Mexican woman after I had just had a pretty bad experience with a White American woman. I was talking to the Mexican girl and telling her about the White girl, and the Mexican girl said, “She sounds like a very selfish person”. It really hit me at that point how different White women and Brown women are. Looking at that sexy Mexican girl with her dark brown skin, dark eyes, and black hair, I felt so attracted to and connected with her. I had never really had that kind of connection with a White woman, ever.

To summarize what I am trying to express in an overly simplistic way. If you marry a White woman, expect to get treated like shit by her, and there is a very real possibility she will divorce you, kidnap your kids from you, destroy you financially and emotionally in divorce, and then use the kids and custody as a weapon of extortion against you to try to literally drive you to suicide. White women are the embodiment of extreme selfishness. Now, on the other hand, if you marry a Brown or Black woman? You can expect to come home every day to a loving wife who will treat you with respect, who will lovingly raise your children, and who will be supportive of you and be a partner with you instead of a competitor.

White women have simply lost the ability to be good wives and mothers. I sometimes doubt if White women were ever good wives and mothers at any time in human history or if they have always been such extremely selfish creatures. Brown women are natural and are the embodiment of feminine grace and beauty. I think many White men realize all of this on a subconscious level, and that is why so many White guys marry Asian or Brown women.

White women are truly the Achilles heel of the White race. The Western world is in a state of total collapse right now, and it is directly the result of White women’s selfish life choices. I would advise all sane White males to turn towards Brown, Asian, or Black women and live a peaceful and happy life with them. Leave trashy White women behind and let them get pumped and dumped by White Trash trailer park garbage. Already it is happening. White men who are married to Asian, Brown, or Black women make $10K more dollars per year on average than White men who are married to White women. So that’s just more proof that if you’re a White male and want to have a successful life, the best option for you is to marry an Asian, Brown, or Black woman. Marrying a White woman is the quickest way to financial and emotional ruin.

74 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Feminism, Gender Studies, Guest Posts, Hispanics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Social Problems, Sociology, Whites, Women

Why the Cultural Left Lies So Much

One of the many idiocies of the Cultural Left is that it hates so many traditional beliefs that human groups have. It hates them because these bits of traditional wisdom are typically not PC. The Cultural Left has an odd way of diving the truth.

Their exegesis goes like this:

If a statement is not PC, it is false.

If a statement is PC, it is true.

Wow! That’s quite an impressive philosophical view of the Truth they have there. Plato must be rolling in his grave!

So in a sense, the Cultural Left is waging war. One of the principle wars they are waging is a war against Normality. The Cultural Left hates the very idea that any human behavior is normal. If you say you are a normal person, the Cultural Left hates you. The only way to be accepted by them is to be a pervert, deviant or weirdo. Normal people are evil because they are insult to the freaks we all must become.

The other war that the Cultural Left wages is against Truth. The Cultural Left defines truth as PC. Falsehood means not PC. This stupid belief system is why the various Identity Politics Cultural Left groups lie so much. These IP groups just end up being propaganda vehicles for whatever group they are agitating on behalf of:

Gay Identity Politics is just propaganda for gays.

Feminism is simply propaganda for women.

Transsexual Politics is simply propaganda for trannies.

Modern antiracism is simply propaganda against racist beliefs since  the truth about Race violates many tenets of Antiracism, hence the need for propaganda to turn Truth into Lies and Lies into Truth.

Ethnic nationalism, all of it, is just propaganda for that particular ethnic group.

Islamic IP is simply Islamic propaganda.

Nationalism (the oldest form of IP, as IP is simply tribalism) is simply propaganda for that particular country.

Immigrant IP is just propaganda for immigrants.

Fat IP is propaganda for landwhales.

Looksist IP is propaganda for fuglies.

And on and on. Propaganda of course is based on lies. That’s pretty much the definition of it. Because the various IP forms are simply propaganda vehicles for the groups in question, the Cultural Left ends up lying continuously. Any blemished truths about the group must be denied. Anything positive about the group, if anything, must be exaggerated to the point of absurdity. You can’t have a belief system that says what’s good for my guys is Truth and what’s bad for my guys is Falsehood. If you do, every other statement out of your mouth is going to be a lie designed to protect and promote your group.

5 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Cultural Marxists, Ethnic Nationalism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Immigration, Islam, Left, Nationalism, Political Science, Racism, Scum, Sex, Sociology