Category Archives: Race Relations

The Real Story of Zimbabwe: I Would Rather Starve on My Feet Than Feast on My Knees

RL: Reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe when the Blacks destroyed all the White farms and drove the farmers out of the country and then all the Blacks sat around and said, “Whoa! We ain’t gots no food! Someone please gibs us some food! We hungry!”

Jason Y: Yeah, but didn’t you say Zimbabwe was a justified state. Aren’t you a fan?

I wrote some long posts on what happened.

2,000 White farmers from the UK owned half of all the land and about all of the decent arable land. The crops were all grown for export, and most of the Blacks were starving and malnourished. The Blacks were forced onto marginal lands which they farmed. However, yields were poor, and most importantly, the land was eroding away due to its poor nature for farming. So this situation was not working out.

Mugabe came in and said we have to deal with this land situation. He offered to buy out the White farmers, and then the state was going to deal with the land with state farms, leasing it out to small Black farmers or whatever.

However, no matter how much money he offered, the UK kept saying they were going to pay and then never paid, and the negotiations went on forever. The truth was the UK never intended to allow the farmers to be bought out ever, and they wanted to drag this out until the end of time. The US was helping the UK in this disgusting racist charade. This went on for a long time, and nothing happened, and people started getting mad. The US and UK started slapping all these sanctions on Zimbabwe for no good reason, and the economy started going down the tubes.

Meanwhile, Mugabe’s base were the war veterans. There had been a revolutionary war that ousted the White racist regime, and Mugabe had led the war, so he was a revolutionary war hero. He was also a Black power guy along the lines of Mandela.

The war veterans wanted land, and Mugabe kept saying it was coming. But the US and UK kept putting more and more sanctions on. Mugabe kept telling them that if they did not let him buy out those farmers, he could not hold his supporters back forever, and at some point, they would just go grab the land themselves. Mugabe kept urging peace with his supporters.

Well, at some point the war veterans had enough and they invaded all of the White farms. Nothing much happened. The Whites mostly took off and only 8% of Whites were latifundista farm owners anyway. But if you include their families, maybe it was 1/3 of the Whites. There was no genocide of Whites. It was a very ugly situation, very aggressive and menacing and some violent stuff happened. But all the Whites left. Seven whole Whites were killed in the “White genocide.” Like 1 in every 3,500 Whites got killed. It’s said when anyone is killed, but there was no genocide.

The Blacks were fine at small farming, but they could not run big farms. So like complete idiots, they simply dismantled the White farms and took everything they could. So the farms were left nonoperational, stripped of equipment, and the Blacks could not run the farms. So now there were food problems.

Mugabe knew that the Blacks could not run those large farms, and he always wanted to do this in an orderly way. He saw the whole mess as catastrophic and stupid. But it was his supporters who raided the farms, so he felt that he had to cheer them on, which is what he did, though he didn’t really want to do that. The project was more to have the state take over the farms in some way because it was assumed that the state could figure out how to run them, or even hire the Whites back to run farms for the people.

The White farmers never got paid off. A lot of the Whites stayed, and nothing happened to them. Now a lot of the Whites are coming back because Mugabe says you can farm your own lands, but we own them now, and you have to lease the land from the state. I think you have to grow food for the people too. And I think a lot of the Blacks are small farmers now. The situation is fixing itself. The government is socialist and dedicated to helping the people, which is the main reason we in the West hate them.

Mugabe has not been nice to the opposition, but they are in bed with the US, UK and the West. Their project is neoliberalism. They lack majority support because nobody wants this crap, and the Opposition basically fronts for the US and the UK. Most people see them as traitors and carpetbaggers. Mugabe is still a patriotic hero. The opposition has maybe 30% support, and no matter how bad things got, people would still not support them. They stuck with Mugabe through thick and thin. Yes elections were not fair, but Mugabe would have won a fair election anyway. The Opposition offered nothing but surrender to the nation’s worst enemies, selling out the country to the same enemies, and frankly treason and being puppets for the hated West. Their economic project was privatization and selling the whole place off to Western money.

There was a big deal about Mugabe tearing down some neighborhoods where a lot of Opposition supporters lived. He called it Operation Tear Down Trash. It was not handled well. The West lied, went crazy and said that Mugabe was tearing down all the homes of the Opposition people, leaving them homeless. But this was not true. The operation was done in a mean way, but their homes were shantytowns, and Mugabe tore down their shantytowns and built a lot of much better, decent modern state housing. Then he invited the former residents, many Opposition people, to come live in the new houses.

People stuck with Mugabe all the way. The sanctions ruined the economy because they were locked out of the world banking system. This was all done for some racist bullshit that the UK wanted to let 2,000 White farmers continue to monopolize the land and create a system of gross injustice. The British acted very bad in this case, and their behavior was quite racist. We shamefully went along with them.

The US and UK media wrote the situation up in a disgusting racist way which basically said that the Blacks destroyed the White farms and were now hungry because niggers are so dumb they can’t even grow food and they need superior White people to even grow food for them so they don’t starve. Yep that’s how dumb niggers are. That was the actual subtext of the West’s reporting on this case, and the openly racist tone was disgusting for the supposedly nonracist Western media.

Anyway it’s not true that niggers are so stupid they can’t even grow food. Blacks have been growing food in Africa forever, and they even started plantation agriculture in East Africa 900 years ago. They also excelled at animal husbandry for thousands of years. Granted Blacks mostly ran small farms, but they were generally able to grow enough food to survive. How hard is it to grow food? The Papuans grow yams and raise pigs. It’s not real hard to do. You don’t have to be a genius to do it. Any human can do this.

However, Blacks never got good at running large modern farms which are run more like a good-sized business. You need higher education, accounting skills and a lot of others smart brain skills to run large farms. It’s almost like running a big factory, or harder.

There are still Whites in Zimbabwe. I watched a video recently of downtown Harare. Crowded parking lot, lot of Blacks but some Whites, everyone dressed nicely, nice cars. They went into a nice restaurant where there were Blacks and Whites both in there, and everything was cool. Apparently a number of Blacks have some money, and there are still moneyed Whites there. If you have some money, it does looks like a nice place to live. You go to downtown Harare on a weekday afternoon, and there are workers in office clothes eating lunch in the park. There’s a brand new fancy radiology center that Mugabe built. Most people are pretty chill and laid back.

You can go to the slums which are not great, but I would say that Harare has the least bad slums in all of Africa. The slums are state housing, and the state spends a lot of money on the people.

This just goes to show you that people would rather stand in misery than die on their knees in comfort. It was very bad under Mugabe due to sanctions, but he represented African pride and self-determination against the predatory West that was trying to screw them over.

It was like the Blacks not wanting to live under White rule in South Africa or the Palestinians not wanting to live under Israeli rule. People have pride, and idiots who think humans are only about money are wrong. Not all people are capitalist hogs who worship money. A lot of people will take poverty with pride over more stuff and living in indignity under people who think you are inferior. The West can’t seem to figure out that humans have pride and don’t want to be lorded over by those who act superior to them. You can’t even buy people off to live under supremacist rule as inferiors. The West doesn’t get it because our only value is money, and we can’t see how many humans will gladly trade money for pride and prefer poverty over being ruled by condescending supremacists.

80 Comments

Filed under Africa, Agricutlure, Blacks, Britain, East Africa, Economics, Europe, Livestock Production, Neoliberalism, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, USA, War, White Racism, Whites

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.

410 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.

156 Comments

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

Some Possible Policies for Improving the Black Problem in the US

Some Random Asshole: Robert, what James said her excellently represents the rational and fair view on race. Yeah, there are quite a few more feeble minded and uncivilized ones and really not that many smart ones among Blacks or Mexicans when compared to Whites or Asians, but there are exceptions everywhere. And even the fucked up ones are often not that bad and just need some guidance and welfare or something, even if they wont amount to much in life. Didn’t you think as much when you taught at Black schools?

The only thing is, you need to realize that we really just do not need to increase their numbers and its very important for us to stay majority White and Asian and stop certain groups from immigrating here. Its no offense to the other groups, they should be treated with respect and care…but at the same time, its ultimately disastrous to increase their numbers to the point where they become the majority. Its a fair balance, I think.

Treat them nice but do not bring in any more. Both ideas are crucial to the survival of civilized society.

You are new to the site, right? I have been arguing this fact for a long time now. I do not care too much about Mexicans, but Blacks definitely are a problem race. Now you ask me what I propose to do about that?

Honestly I am not sure if this is much that can be done!

Support Black politics. I love the Black Congressional Caucus. That’s one of my favorite groups in government. I love John Lewis. The legislation that the Blacks like and promote in Congress is reasonable, and support most all of it. Keep on doing that.

Keep on fighting real racism against Blacks because that just makes them even angrier, crazier and more hair-triggered than they already are.

I would even like to figure out why they are so damned violent and maybe give them a pill or something to lower their testosterone levels perhaps and calm them down. Liberals go start raving berserk when I say that. They scream, “Tuskegee! Tuskegee! Tuskegee! Tuskegee! Tuskegee!” I would make it voluntary of course. Say you are a Black man and you keep getting in trouble, keep acting violent, keep going to jail or prison, can’t control your temper or your impulses. Maybe you start figuring that your biology might be screwing up your life and you are getting tired of being a loser. Maybe some of these Blacks might take some pill we could make that caused them to lash out and screw up so much. What’s wrong with that? Why am I evil for saying that?

And of course, number one really, quit importing them, dammit. If you have a problem group of people, first of all, you quit bringing in even more of them and making the problem bigger.

However, I would allow anyone of any race with say a minimum 100 IQ to come to the US. I do not anticipate a big problem with this. If a 100 IQ Black or Hispanic wishes to come here, I do not see why we should not let him in.

76 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Asians, Blacks, Government, Hispanics, Immigration, Intelligence, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, Whites

Capitalism and Mass Immigration Have Destroyed the Economy

Capitalism and Mass Immigration Have Destroyed the Economy

By Magneto

The main reason the US economy has ground to an absolute halt over the past 15 years is because the capitalist class, the employers who hire people for jobs, are looking to pay people the least amount they can pay them and get away with it. Heaven forbid, if we didn’t have minimum wage laws, they would pay people even less than that. But you can’t live on a minimum wage.

As a freelancer I deal with this shit every day. I find people who expect me to work for less than minimum wage, and I always reply to them with a message that basically goes along the lines of “What the fuck is wrong with you?” In a system of capitalism, everyone simply wants to pay others the least amount they can pay them and get away with it. What happens is that the economy grinds to a halt because employees don’t have enough money to even survive and pay rent, what to speak of purchasing products, so the companies who are employing them also start to go slowly out of business since there is no one to buy their products except for the ultra-rich.

This has also led to the destruction of the middle class, which was basically the backbone of American society for so many decades. Then during the late 80’s and the early 90’s, you had politicians making it legal to outsource and ship jobs overseas. As a result, tens of millions of American jobs were shipped overseas so that the CEO of the company could make even more profit for himself. CEO’s decided that they would rather hire people in Mexico to do the same job that Americans do but pay them only 1 dollar per hour. Well, when enough corporations did that, and thus caused tens of millions of Americans to become unemployed, it obviously had the effect of destroying the economy. If you aren’t paying Americans a living wage, then who is going to buy your overpriced products?

This is what happens when you destroy a country’s sense of community. Instead of wanting to do what is best for your country and put your own countrymen first, instead you would rather just make as much money as possible by hiring people at the lowest possible wages. Any corporation that outsources it’s jobs and factories needs to be punished with massive import taxes. You want to build your products in Mexico? Fine, but you will pay a huge import tax as a result.

Some people are estimating that 40 percent of America’s workforce will consist of freelance labor by the year 2025. It will be impossible for such people to survive under today’s system of capitalism. What some European countries are beginning to do is to pay people a basic guaranteed income. Some people will object and say, “How can we afford to do that?” Well we can afford to spend trillions of dollars on war and building weapons, but we can’t afford to spend a few billion to guarantee that everyone has a minimum living wage? And that living wage will go right back into the economy because people will start spending money again.

Of course, all of this will have to be coupled with a strong sense of nationalism and community. Allowing unrestricted immigration will utterly destroy such a system because you’ll have people from 3rd World countries doing everything they can to invade America simply so they can also get “free shit”.

Let’s look at the example of Indians. Indians are an extremely cheap race of people and their businessmen are truly the embodiment of the capitalist employer class. As more and more Indians take over the US economy, they will destroy the economy even more. They will expect White Americans to work for slave wages – the same wages they would pay Indians back in India. As a Western person who has extensive experience with Indians, I can tell you that socialism would never work in an Indian society because Indians are perhaps the greediest and most selfish race of people on this planet.

So before a true system of socialism can be implemented, it requires that White Western countries develop a very strong sense of nationalism and community again. White nationalism is the main stepping block on the road to true socialism, but unfortunately during the past few decades it has become extremely politically incorrect to talk about nationalism, racism, etc. The light at the end of the tunnel is Generation Z, which is the generation of people born after the year 2000. I’ve spoken to many of them, and they are the most red-pilled generation to ever exist. They inherently understand concepts like race realism, anti-feminism, multiculturalism, etc.

Right now Generation Z is going through their typical teenage years and spend most of their time posting memes on 4chan and Instagram, playing Playstation 4 and video games, and just living the normal life of a teenager, and yet they are already so red-pilled. Imagine what will happen once they reach adulthood and face all of these issues? They will begin to implement solutions which appear to us as extremely radical. Generation Z thinks outside of the box, and they don’t give a fuck about Political Correctness. Therefore, even though the present generations have basically been completely ruined by capitalism, at least there is hope for the future.

If you have been offered a job that pays you LESS than minimum wage, then report the person offering that job to the US Department of Labor here.

111 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, East Indians, Economics, Immigration, Labor, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Asians, White Nationalism, Whites

Judith Mirville on the Perils of Braziliafication for the Jews

Very nice comment from Judith Mirville showing that if Jews are promoting Braziliafication in the hopes that it will be good for the Jews, they may be sorely mistaken.

That will prove to be an especially bad move: in a Brazilified society such as Brazil, the various cultures of that multiculturalism cannot agree together safe onto one point: the Jews are the main responsible for the present state of affairs, even people such as the Japanese of Belo Horizonte, the German of Porto Alegre, the Negroes from Bahia and the White Trash rednecks of the chaparral of Sertão can agree on that.

I am now practicing Portuguese, listening to various videos to study various local accents and slangs, and everybody is inveighing against Jews each one for their different reasons.

The Negroes accuse them of having organized the slave trade, which in the specific case of Northern Brazil was true. The rednecks of Sertão accuse them of having geared the whole musical culture of Brazil towards hedonistic and then gay values.

The well-to-do Portuguese of São Paulo accuse them of having subverted the monarchy to install a de facto British colonialism in the form of a Republic as well destroying the military regime which was the last rampart against the tide of Cultural Leftism everywhere in the intelligentsia. The Germans there are of a type that was never morally bullied into repentance for WWII.

And the Japanese, though not big haters of Jews, all want them to be put back into ghettos for practical reasons and accuse them of having organized the whole of Western colonialism in non-White countries and robbed Asia of its traditional technological superiority and intelligence by programming so many other Whites beyond their real innate capacity to feel inventive and superior.

It comes to no mystery that cultures in an multicultural environment tend identify with their most reactionary elements, and therefore are more inclined to look for a culprit or archetypal symbol of evil from without. And it turns out that in Brazil the most rabid antisemitic movements are decidedly multicultural chic, not White Power, especially since the traditional White racism of Brazil claimed that the core of the nation was made up of mythical Jewish ancestry.

The Extreme Left to Center Left culture that still refuses most the conspiracy-justified antisemitism is monocultural non-Catholic Portuguese (mildly anti-Black de facto, though praising mulatto women for their supernatural beauty but only in their own role of providers of sentimental entertainment), and they are the ones who communicate the least with other cultures in their own country and prefer to communicate with other White nations in the world (France for the culture, the Anglo-Saxon countries for business) than with their own co-nationals of different hues.

All great antisemitic bouts of the past started out in rather multicultural environments. Austria, for instance, used to be the most multicultural part of Europe, and further back in time, you can find Spain and Portugal, which at one time used to be the most diversified countries: in both cases, mythical antisemitism could develop unchecked for being the only political language common to so many diverse groups even though not the ideal one to that many individuals.

How do the Jews let that happen to the point of loving it as it may seem?

That is very simple: first, as you put it, their intelligence is grossly overrated. They are emotion-driven more than many others. It must also be known that Jewish identification with the intellectual superiority of openness of mind is a very recent and atypical thing in the course of history. That identification began only as a byproduct of the Enlightenment culture and only among Jews that wanted to get free of their traditional ghetto culture, which turned out into a majority at a certain point.

Before that point, intellectual curiosity was far more severely repressed in Jewish culture than in Christian culture, the rabbis had far more tolerance of and liking for magic: even the study of too much geography was deemed dangerous. The general morality among them used to be that one must as an individual make plans for the day, as a family for the week, and as a Jewish community for the year, but NEVER beyond, since all promises of the preceding years were to be overridden at each Rosh ha Shanna. What is good for Jewish prosperity this year only is the real good, the rest is goyish daydreaming.

Even if the consequences of what is done this year are evidently ultra-negative for your own descendants, such as destroying the environment or installing a future millennial totalitarian regime just to make sure your tiny few talents are employed and well-paid, that is none of your business as a Jew. You must think of those descendants as of imaginary non-Jewish beings.

When for instance you adopt Communism as a Jew, the important thing is to enjoy a higher life through it and also a good relationship with many non-Jews for a few years’ space at most. You must not inquire too seriously about the ultimate consequences of your ideological choice. It is a fashion among many others to have to dress your own brain and others as well as their bodies according to a taste that sells right now.

If it turns out that by so doing you will progressively install a Nazi-like regime first courting and then turning against you, so be it, que sera sera, that was God’s intention for you to bring it about. It is a culture based on the principle of pure prostitution and on the faith that such an attitude alone can bring about joyful survival to a group: they are actually not so racist towards strangers provided they share that very same mentality.

27 Comments

Filed under Americas, Anti-Semitism, Asians, Austria, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Brazil, Brazilians, Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, Europe, Europeans, History, Japanese, Jews, Judaism, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Mixed Race, Political Science, Portugal, Portuguese, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, South America, Spain, The Americas, White Racism, Whites

Why Jews Might Promote Braziliafication

Why do Jews who run for office ALWAYS do so on the Democratic ticket. I cannot think of a single exception.

I don’t debate Jews act in their own self-interests.

But I do not believe the complete annihilation of the white race and a dim-witted Mulatto population beget from mostly poor members of all races (Brazil’s poor are a composite of Indians and Blacks, more or less, with Mestizos and a few old Portuguese families ruling the roost) will put Jews in a better position.

To begin with, less consumers with less money because of a shrunken middle-class. Blacks don’t watch Seinfeld. Blacks do not watch Ron Jeremy. Etc. Etc. Whites do.

First of all, Jews don’t think. It is a major misconception that Jews think or are logical. They do not and are not. Jews are emotional thinkers with extremely emotional personalities driven by rage, hatred and fear. This is what drives most of their thinking. Jews basically don’t think things through to the end. They make an emotional judgment based on whatever they were thinking at the time and never think about the consequences.

Look at how the Jews blew up Iraq and Libya. Look at how the Jews are now blowing up Syria. Short term thinking. In the short term, it is worth it to destroy all of Israel’s enemies. Iraq and Libya were destroyed in order to destroy Israel’s enemies and for no other good reason. Syria is in the process of being destroyed for the same reason. The Jews tried to destroy Lebanon to get rid of their enemy, Hezbollah.

Jews are not good for much of anything but destroying countries, slaughtering millions of people and sowing mass terrorism and chaos. Apparently it is for these reasons that they have been put on this Earth. They don’t seem to have any agenda other than mass slaughter and destruction of their enemies. This goes back to the Jewish religion. The Jewish worldview is based on Purim. Destroying all those countries in the Middle East and killing millions of people was just an ongoing Purim holiday for the Jews.

As we can see, Jews do not think of consequences for their behavior because they think emotionally, and their dominant emotions are fear, hatred, rage and revenge. There have been many times in the past when the Jews pushed way too far in societies, and warnings went out that the Jews were about to provoke a pogrom. The Jews never heed any of these warnings. They just get furious and scream, “How dare you say Jews cause anti-Semitism!” and they just keep pushing and pushing until it all blows up in their faces, and there’s a pogrom.

But even then they see no role for themselves in the blowblack. It was simply caused by evil, irrational anti-Semites who are diabolical and act for no intelligible reason whatsoever. Believe it or not, this is how Jews think. The official Jewish line is that anti-Semitism is some mysterious, ether-like quality in humans that all Gentiles are afflicted with presumably from birth. There’s no reason for it. Gentiles just persecute and kill Jews for no reason except blind hatred. There’s never been 1% of a reason for any outbreak of anti-Semitism.

Jews actually think this. Almost all of them do.

Now I ask you, are such people capable of logic? Of rational thinking? Of worrying about the endgame? Of course not.

As far as Brazilification goes, ask you average Jew about it. He will get visibly angry, act like he is going to punch you in the face and call you racist. Almost all Jews will say there is nothing wrong with a Braziliafied US, and if you think it’s bad, you are racist.

Jews hate White Gentiles. Not all of them do, some don’t, and I have known them. But a lot of them do. Jews have made statements that said that they were cheering on the day when Whites become a minority in the US because then Jews would never have to worry about a White Supremacist regime ever coming to power here.

A lot of Jews hate us for what we did to them over the centuries. This last time was the worst of all, and the Holocaust has made most Jews half-nuts to this day. They’ll never forgive us for it. The real enemy to the Jew is the White Supremacists. They killed millions of Jews and nearly wiped them off the Earth.

Jews hate any nationalism among White Gentiles. Whenever White Gentiles go nationalist in any way, it’s not long before they go after the Jews because Jews are always the enemies of any White Gentile nationalists because they are considered to be not only not part of the nation but actively hostile to the interests of the blood and soil natives.

Jews prefer diverse countries because historically speaking, diverse countries are less likely to go after the Jews because people need to get together on a common basis to go after a common enemy in order to go after the Jews, and that’s hard to do in diverse country. Jews dislike White countries with one dominant nationality, culture, religion or sub-race because these are the type of White countries that go after the Jews.

Many have noted that Braziliafication would be bad for the Jews. You go find me one Jew anywhere who will agree with that statement. Also this implies that Jews think through the consequences of their emotionally based thinking, and that’s something they have never done historically and still do not do to this very day.

When you point out that Braziliafication will be bad for the Jews, I would answer yes, but most Jews won’t see it that way. Jews will see it only in terms of their short-term interests, which is reducing the White population to a minority so no White Supremacist regime can take power and creating a diverse society that will not go after the Jews.

Jews don’t do long-term thinking. They only think in terms of short-term emotionally driven solutions.

111 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anti-Semitism, Democrats, Iraq, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Lebanon, Libya, Middle East, Nationalism, North Africa, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, Sociology, Syria, US Politics, Whites

Glimpsing the Truth about Venezuela Amidst the Blizzard of Lies

Tulio: Venezuelan socialism was authoritarian and proto-communist. Scandinavian social democracy is not at all. I don’t think Chavez looked to Norway for inspiration but rather to Castro.

Keep in mind that nearly everything you read about Venezuela in the US Controlled Media unfree press is a lie. I have yet to see even one story written about that country that was not a lie from start to finish.

The last sentence is completely untrue.

Chavez himself said that Cubans have their way, and we have ours. Different systems for different countries. He never tried to copy the Cuban model. He was trying to do something completely different.

An Eternity of Lies from the Venezuelan Opposition

The first sentence is also completely untrue.

It was never even 1% authoritarian.

Venezuela has one of the freest presses on Earth, and all in all, it is one of the freest countries on the planet. I have read the Opposition press, and it is simply shocking. The Opposition media is so openly dishonest that frankly they probably ought to be shut down on that basis alone. They shameless lie in the wildest ways you could imagine every single day of the year. Their lies have provoked riots, arson and murder. Imagine Fox News during Obama except 5X worse, and that will give you some examples.

There were regular calls to assassinate Chavez and other government officials and nothing was ever done. Yes, the Opposition press regularly, almost daily, called for the murder of the President, and the government did not lift one finger against them.

All of the Opposition press participated in an illegal military coup. They should have been shut down on that basis alone. How can you allow an openly traitorous press?

The Opposition down there is so evil that they even fake exit polls in order to validate false charges of electoral fraud. Venezuela is the only on Earth where I have seen the actual faking of exit polls. Faking exit polls is a grievous crime against democracy because they were one of the few ways that we can tell if an election was honest or not.

Venezuela’s elections are said to be the freest on Earth. I agree. In the last election when the US and Opposition lied and said there was massive fraud, a recount was done. Fully 60% of the ballots were recounted under careful observation and there was not one single ballot in error. The Supreme Court then said, “Ok, 60% without one single error is good enough, no need to count the rest.” The Opposition then screamed fraud, and Obama Administration stomped their feet and screamed fraud also. Do you really think there was 1% chance of fraud in that election?

“Liberals” Hillary Clinton and John (Satan) Kerry led the charge in demanding new elections and demanding that the Chavistas share power with the Opposition. That’s like the Democrats lose an election, and they demand that the Republicans share power with them by filling half the Executive Branch with Democrats.

True, he replaced a lot of the army, but those people who were replaced had participated in a military coup. The army needs to support the regime.

Yes, he replaced most of the judiciary, but this has to be done everywhere in Latin America. An insanely corrupt elite judiciary is a major part of the problem down there, and every time they have a revolution,  one of the first things they do is a “judicial reform.” This means throwing out all of the corrupt judges of the elite and putting in some real judges. You know, people who believe in laws and stupid stuff like that.

Venezuela is vastly more democratic than the US has probably ever been. We have probably never had one day of democracy in this stupid country, and it’s getting much worse. This is because our class enemies who run this country do not believe in democracy. In fact, they have an extreme hatred of democracy.

Sins of the Organized Crime Gang Called “The Opposition”

All of the Opposition figures participated in the military coup and they all should have been put in prison if not shot on that basis alone. Instead they were all set free. All of the Opposition figures who are now in prison were guilty of extreme corruption and financial crimes or abuse of the judiciary. And almost 100% of them were guilty of participating in plots to assassinate the President. One of them ever raised an entire army of hundreds of men on her rural estate. Their purpose was to assassinate the President and seize power. Those few who were not guilty of money crimes or trying to kill the President are guilty of provoking violent riots in which ~40 people died. They were behind those riots all the way down to organizing them at the ground level and distributing guns and bombs to the rioters.

 

The Opposition gets away with murder down there and nothing is done. They rioted in their neighborhoods for years on end, and the police mostly stood there and watched them burn stuff down. Almost no country on Earth except pre-coup Ukraine has gone as easy on rioters as Venezuela has. Even with the latest riots, the police were very hands-off. Once again, they were probably more moderate in putting down those riots than any other police force on Earth. The regime knows that if they do anything heavy-handed at all, the US will scream “police brutality” and “civil rights abuses.”

Bolivarian Economics: China Is Vastly More Socialist than Venezuela

With the exception of oil, the whole economy is in the private sector. China is orders of magnitude more socialist than Venezuela.

All they did was create some social democracy. They built a lot of free to cheap housing, upgraded a lot of infrastructure, wired up the whole country for electricity, subsidized food prices for the poor, sold cheap household furnishings as My Happy Home stores. They created free public education and spent massively on educational facilities. They created free health care and spent hugely on medical care for the people. They promoted a lot of organizing and governing at the local level. They did a land reform by confiscating a lot of untilled land and turning it over to landless peasants to farm. They gave land titles to some local municipalities to grow their own food and run their own factories and enterprises. That’s more or less what China has done.

Chavez did great things for civil rights in Venezuela. Rights for Blacks, mestizos, mulattos and zambos were dramatically increased. Indian rights were expanded greatly, and they were given title to much of their land.

Women’s rights were also expanded dramatically, and the country even introduced civil rights for gays, which is hard to do in Latin America.

73% of the population still supports socialism and Bolivarianism.

The Chavistas massively improved lives in all ways for the poor, the lower middle class, the working classes, and in some ways for the middle classes though the latter do not realize this.

True there was a lot of talk about building socialism, but frankly the consensus on the Left is that they never got around to it. Bolivarianism was never Communist. It was always 100% democracy.

There was a lot of criticism on the Hard Left saying that all Venezuela had done was create a social democracy instead of going to socialism. Comparisons with Norway and Sweden were common.

In Latin America, Liberalism = Communism = Death

You must understand that if you even try to implement the mildest social democracy down in the Latin America, you are a Communist terrorist who must be shot dead. Anything even hinting at liberalism or Left is called Communism, and the attitude of the Right down there is “Kill all Communists.”

If you are in a labor union, you are a Communist because all labor unions are Communist. All human rights organizations are Communist. Everyone preaching Liberation Theology is a Communist. Most professors and students and public universities are considered to be Communists as are most public school teachers, especially because they have very militant unions. All peasant organizations are Communist. Really, every single grassroots popular organization down there is Communist.

PS The US supports this ideology 100%.

The Opposition’s History and Future Project

The Opposition never lifted one finger for the people. They ran that country for decades or really over a century and they did do one damn thing for the people the whole time. Before Chavez took power, 89% of the population lived in poverty in an oil rich nation. 91% of the population could afford only one meal per day. Malnutrition was rife. Health care was for fee for service and simply unavailable to people without the money to pay for it. Same with optometry, dentistry, the whole thing. Educational facilities were poor and falling apart because the elites in government all sent their kids to private schools, and paid no taxes, hence there was no money for public education.

here was no public housing. Sewage ran down the gutters of the streets on the hillside slums where most people lived. There was no clean water. Higher education was expensive and out of the reach of most of the people. In the rural areas most people were landless peasants and a tiny group of rentier rich owned almost all of the fertile land, much of which lay fallow. Death squads roamed the countryside and every year, they murdered ~50 peasants.

The system was profoundly racist, and if you were not White or mostly White, you stood little chance of making money or succeeding in politics. It was a Whites-only elite with no openings for non-Whites. In fact, much of the Opposition was openly racist. The Opposition openly called him “Mono” which means “monkey.” This is a reference to the fact that he is of mixed Indian, White and Black blood. Most of their fury over Chavez was because some guy who looked like the gardener or the maid was running the country and telling the White rich what to do.

I am surprised because the commenter is a Black man who apparently supports the viciously racist Venezuelan Opposition.

And you Americans are mystified at why countries go Left? Why in the Hell do you think?

The Opposition has no project. The project of the Opposition has always been to roll back all of Bolivarianism and take things back to the good old days described above. They have no other project because they cannot have another project. The Opposition are elites who support a project that is “everything for the elites, nothing for anybody else.”

24 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Asia, Black-White (Mulattos), Blacks, Bolivarianism, China, Democrats, Economics, Education, Fascism, Geopolitics, Government, Health, Journalism, Labor, Latin America, Latin American Right, Law, Left, Mestizos, Mixed Race, Nutrition, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, Whites, Zambos

Alt Left: Civil War? Bring It On!

Well, low level civil war in the present form of pre-civil war or civil strife anyway is just fine. It’s not ok to promote anything beyond that right now though.

Here.

A new article in Salon says that Trump has set off a civil war in America. As a supporter of the very similar Revolutionary movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s, which also erupted into a near civil war, the Alt Left supports this low- level civil war (civil strife) completely. Right now what is going on is like a pre-civil war or what is often referred to as civil strife. The civil war will pretty much only start if and when people start killing each other, and that’s not happening…yet. Hopefully it will not come to that because not only will the enemy start dying but we will too. That means you, me, our friends and loved ones. It’s generally better if civil strife does not move to a shooting civil war level barring extreme circumstances.

The only thing that is happening now is street fights between the Left and Right, similar to the Left vs. Right street thugs fighting in the streets in Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s. It also similar to civil strife that goes on in Latin America. Particularly in Chile, left vs. right street fighting is very common. The Right is fascist and supports Pinochet. The Left is almost Communist or socialist and supports Salvador Allende and his followers. A woman from Allende’s own party is now governing the country. The Left regularly stages what can only be called pro-Allende demos, which are regularly raided by fascists who support Pinochet. Similarly, fascists regularly stage what are more or less pro-Pinochet demos which are regularly invaded by leftists. Street fighting between the two is very common.

People do not realize it but rioting is very common in Latin America. Venezuela had regular riots, often led by university students, even before Chavez came to office. After Chavez came in, the Opposition staged regular riots and demos in their neighborhoods. After a while, the Chavista police just sat back and let the Opposition trash their neighborhoods. The Chavista police must have had one of the most hands-off approaches to rioters in the world.

In Chile once again, high school students are now staging regular demos which typically turn into riots. This is because in this wealthy country, the schools are literally falling apart. These riots have been happening about once every three weeks now. The Chilean Indians are a much discriminated against population and popular racism against Indians is at a very high level.

I had a friend in Chile whose father worked for Allende and considered himself a progressive guy. He was majoring in sociology and he planned to go to the Indian regions to do fieldwork. However, this anti-Indian racism was off the charts from an American point of view. He also had wildly classist views which would be shocking in the US. Obviously any country afflicted with crazy high levels of classism and racism along with some of the worst wealth inequality on Earth is a pretty shitty place. In a shitty country, you might as well demonstrate and riot all the time because that is exactly what shitty countries deserve. If they ever clean up their act and turn into decent countries, I think the rioters in general should knock it off.

Rioting should only be for protesting truly noxious systems, not, for instance, against Swedish social democracy. It’s a very civilized and decent system and there’s nothing to riot about. But rightwing shitholes can have all the riots in the world for all I care. They asked for it by being rightwing shitholes. If they don’t want riots all the time, all they have to do is create a decent country.

Needless to say, the Chilean Indians riot on a very frequent basis. And Indian riot is almost banal down there. That’s how common it is.

I was very close to the politics of Peru for a while there and I got regular updates of the situation on the ground. Even leaving aside the fact that there was an armed and very deadly insurgency going on, besides that, on the Left in general (which did not necessarily support the insurgency at all) there were regular strikes and demonstrations.

A lot of the strikes were by people like teachers and physicians. Teachers’ unions are very militant in Latin America, they go on strike all the time, have regular demonstrations and they even riot quite a bit. Schoolteachers rioting seems odd in a US context but down there, it’s just normal. There are also almost constant demonstrations against mining and really for all manner of leftwing causes. It’s quite common for these to turn into riots. Even setting aside the insurgency, Peru struck me as a place where leftwing riots were quite common.

I don’t know much about civil strife in the rest of the continent. I saw a recent video of young people mostly in their late teens to mid twenties who appeared to be actually demonstrating in favor of the FARC guerrillas and against death squad activity directed at civilian supporters of the guerrilla. I was surprised that the FARC had that much support. The demonstration was quite violent to say the least.

I believe demonstrations are very common in Brazil and if I am not mistaken, they regularly become riots also.

This low level civil war or civil strife is a good thing in the US right now. Bottom line is we deserve it. We are turning into a true rightwing shithole along Latin American lines, and shitty countries deserve all the riots that rioters can unleash against them. Don’t like the rioting? Fine, put in a halfway decent government. Unless and until that happens, I say let the riots go on.

All of the following are important:

  • Calling or writing to your Congresspeople.
  • Attending town hall meetings of Congresspeople.
  • New laws at the state level
  • Anti-Trump lawsuits by states
  • Anti=Trump lawsuits by individuals and aggrived parties, often being taken by the ACLU right now.
  • Appearances by Congresspeople at areas of controversy, such as Congresspeople who tried to get travelers released from airports
  • Journalists writing highly critical and rabble rousing articles
  • Openly defiant and angry press organs, even such staid venues as the New York Times. There’s nothing with the NYT calling Trump a liar on the front page.
  • Letters to the editor
  • Signing petitions
  • Refusing service to Trump supporters in the workplace
  • Ending as many friendships with Trump supporters as you can handle
  • Various organizations leading peaceful demonstrations of all sorts such as the women’s march. Those demos can get pretty loud and rowdy, but without overt violence, they are still peaceful
  • Blocking highways
  • Walkout strikes
  • Wildcat strikes
  • Boycotts
  • Shopping strikes

And also nonpeaceful protest would seem to be in order. If we are truly turning into a nightmarish Latin American style rightwing shithole, then this country deserves as many riots as rioters can stage. Shitholes deserve nothing less until they clean up their act and turn into decent countries.

Among forms of nonviolent protest:

  • Looting of noxious corporate venues, especially window smashing.
  • Bonfires
  • Fireworks
  • Smoke bombs
  • Rocks, bricks and police barricades at windows of some venues, the purpose being merely to break windows at the venue.
  • Vandalism, especially of corporate property. Window smashing is just fine.
  • Arson, particularly of corporate property but especially of the property of our class enemies, such as the limousine burnt on January 20.

Violence against people.

  • Generally not recommended at this point.

This is a very tricky area and I am wrestling a lot with this one. In wars, the civilian supporters of the insurgency or state are supposed to be left alone. They seldom are in wars anymore, but they are supposed to be. This is why the fire bombings in Germany and Japan were so wrong. Even if Germans were supporting Nazis, it was not ok to set their cities aflame with the sole purpose of incinerating as many civilians as possible. Something very similar but much worse happened in Japan.

Of course the purpose of the atom bombs was to slaughter as many civilians as possible in order to end a war. The argument is typically raised that it was worth it to murder 300,000 Japanese civilians in a couple of days to end the war and that alternatives would have been more costly. Even with a goal of ending a war and supposedly saving lives by ending a war prematurely, it’s awful hard to justify mass slaughter of civilians, even if they are supporting a noxious regime. Killing thousands of civilians even for this purpose seems wrong, not to mention 10,000’s. Killing 100,000’s of civilians even for some supposedly noble goal gets very hard to justify under virtually any circumstances.

So if civilian supporters even of armed insurgencies and noxious regimes are not to be killed or even harmed for that matter, how is it ok to beat up Trump supporters. Now granted, things are much worse in hot wars. If all Assad’s army and supporters were doing was punching out rebel supporters, I doubt if anyone would care. I doubt if many would be bothered by German patriots clocking Nazi supporters during the war, assuming they could even get away with it. Likewise in Japan. The main argument in all of these cases is that state are actually mass murdering civilian supporters of insurgencies and civilian supporters of enemy states during state to state war. The argument never gets down to the level of if it’s ok to punch out guerrilla supporters or people backing a state in wartime in a state to state war.

Nevertheless, attacks on Trump supporters leave me a bit queasy. It may come down to that at some point, but for now, political violence against Opposition civilians doesn’t rub me the right way. Of course the antifa will do it anyway, we don’t have to stamp our approval on it. And it’s a thin line that separates a right hook from a group beating stomping someone to death. Single punches can turn into fatal beat downs faster than you can think.

For right now, nonpeaceful tactics should be limited to property damage, particularly of noxious corporations. Destroying the property of class enemies such as limousines is certainly acceptable. Even arson is ok against their property and that of noxious corporations, especially if you clear out the civilians just stick to burning stuff, not other people. A lot of limousines deserve to be torched and a lot of banks are asking for it too.

But I am going to butt out of attacks on people of the opposition. And surely, attacks with guns, bombs and whatnot are completely out of line at least at this stage. Now it may come down to a 1970’s revolutionary scenario where as late as 1972, 1,900 bombs went off in the US. That’s six bombs a day. Very few of them killed or even hurt other people as they were often set off late at night or preceded with warnings. Nevertheless, once you step it up to setting off bombs, it’s a whole new ballgame. We aren’t there yet, so such activities are not acceptable at the least.

6 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Brazil, Chile, Conservatism, Economics, Education, Ethics, Fascism, Government, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Peru, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South America, US Politics, USA, Venezuela, War, World War 2

The Old “Arab Israelis Have It So Good” Argument

Malla: Well, I did some research on this and it seems the Mizrahi had a more realistic opinion about Arabs and non Whites in general, while the Ashkenazim (and maybe Sephardics), especially during the early days of Israel, had a more idealistic opinion of the Third World. But the Mizrahi themselves are non-Whites. If Arabs and non-Whites then so are Mizrahis because Mizrahis are just Arabs. Besides, many Ashkenazis came with socialistic ideas of kibbutz farming and hippieness, while the Mizrahi were more realistic.

Check this interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80NnYflDU8

Check out the Ashkenazi/Mizrahi couple at 6:52. So it seems more Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) are more right wing and support predatory violent behavior towards Arabs and Palestinians, while the Ashkenazis (Euro Jews) vote more left and are friendlier to Arabs (idealistic mindset). I do not know how the Sephardics and Ethiopians Jews vote.

Besides, Israel has a massive poverty rate, one of the highest in OECD countries. No wonder they get pissed by migrants from Africa taking way their jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSd0rgTc1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPuQwFX2J2A

But Israel has an overall high standard of living. Arabs in Israel, in spite of whatever racism they face, have a higher standard of living and social freedoms than most other Arab countries. Only Tunisia and Christian-dominated Lebanon come close in social freedom, and the Gulf states are the only ones who have more income among Arabs.

This is similar to the case in Rhodesia and South Africa where the Blacks had a higher standard of living than Blacks in the rest of the African continent. Or Singapore, where the Indians and Malays have a higher standard of living than Malaysia and definitely (much, much, much) higher standard of living than India thanks to the huge Chinese population. Singapore’s quality of life is comparable to other Chinese majority developed places like Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. One may ask that if Anglo-Celts and other Northern Euros never came to Australia would such an Australia (Australia full of only aborigines) be so developed as it is today or it would be more like Papua New Guinea.

It’s pretty bad to compare the surrounding Arabs with New Guineans and Aborigines. The whole Arab World is built up to Hell. They’re all modern countries over there. I have seen photos of Libya before the war, and it looks like Miami. I saw a recent photo of Casablanca, and it looked like LA. I have seen photos of the rest of the region, even war-torn Syria and Iraq, and they look like regular modern countries. There’s not a lot of difference between in the ordinary street scene between Amman, Beirut, Damascus or even Cairo and Tel Aviv. It all looks the same, like any modern built-up country.

There is none of the horrible poverty you see in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Latin America or Black Africa.

Arabs will not tolerate that sort of abject shantytown type poverty. They are basically socialist people who don’t care about money too much and believe that everyone should be well taken care of. Social safety nets are ordinary things in every Arab country. There’s no debate about this sort of thing. They are not individualists. They are collectivists. And they don’t think rich people are better than poor people. They are not particularly greedy, and they have a “We are all part of one village” mindset wherever they live.

Semi-feudalism came late to the Arab World via the Ottomans, and it never worked well. There were landed gentry and fellahin, or landless peasants. Nasser was the man who confiscated the land from the land barons and gave it to the landless peasants. If you went around the whole Arab World back then, even in say Yemen, there was a portrait of Nasser on every wall. Now in Western or Latin American culture, doing that is called Communism, and everyone hates it. But the Arabs love this sort of thing.

Baath nationalist parties came in in Syria and Iraq around 1960, a revolutionary socialist state arose in Libya in 1969, and another one was birthed in Algeria in 1964. Land was confiscated from feudal latifundiaists in all of these place and distributed to the peasants. The governments were all officially socialist, secularization was enforced even at gunpoint if it took that, huge safety nets were set up, and the state even got involved in quite a few of the larger industries and became a major employer. All of this was wildly popular all over the region.

US style radical individualism and Libertarian free market capitalism is totally anathema to all of those societies. For one thing, it goes against Islam, as Islam is a socialist religion. In feudal times, large Arab landowners enlisted the help of the local imams in interpreting parts of the Koran where it said, “Some are rich, and some are poor, and that’s all just fine” or something to that effect, but it never worked well. It ended up turning the local imams into hated figures like the priests of Catholic Church in the West and Latin America who always sided with the rich against the people.

So this whole idea that the Israeli Arabs have it good for having some extra money falls flat on Arab and even Arab Israeli ears. Standard of living is not number one on their list of the most important things in life.

If the Arabs are all so jealous of Israel, why are the non-oil Arabs are not jealous of the oil Arabs? Typical Jews to reduce everything down to money. Arabs don’t care that much about money. They don’t revolve their whole lives around money or sit around hating Jews for having more skyscrapers. That’s not important to your average Arab.

I have never in my life heard one Arab tell me they were jealous of Israel.

In Palestine, White European racist fascists invaded the region, started wars with everyone around them, and, being high IQ, produced a developed economy. So what? These jerks get brownie points because they are rich? I’m supposed to love them because they’re rich and hate those Arabs because they’re poor?

The commenter is an Indian, that’s why he thinks that way. We are socialists here; we don’t think like this. Actually I think the more money someone has, the worse of a person he tends to be, but that’s just me.

All of these arguments were used by the South Africans who practiced a very similar White settler-colonial project far after this stuff went out of style.

Arabs in Israel are not happy people. They’re angry, and they have no loyalty to the state at all. The Jewish fascists say the Arabs are traitors, and the Jews are actually correct on that score. Indeed they have no loyalty to the state and do not even see themselves as Israelis.

The similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa are striking. It’s notable that Israel was long one of South Africa’s strongest allies, and towards the end, it was one of their only allies. Arab Israelis are are institutionally treated as second class citizens in exactly the same way the Blacks were under apartheid. 

Were those Blacks happier on their South African Nigger Plantation because they had a higher standard of living? They were not, but this was the argument that was used to show that they were happy Negroes toiling away cheerfully in the sun for their beloved White slavemasters. Similarly, South Africa moved into the neighborhood and in a matter of time, like Israel, it was soon also embroiled in wars with most if not all of its neighbors. Similarly, South Africa, like Israel, had zero friends in the region.

Blacks in South Africa and Arabs in Israel don’t want money and stuff. White Gentiles and Jews only care about money, and they don’t care about humans, so they think everyone else feels that way too. But they don’t. People want to be free, even if being free means not having as much stuff. Stuff doesn’t make people happy. You can keep giving your slave the latest gadgetry in his slave quarters, but he’s still not a free man.

Same with South Africa. Hey look, these White European racist fascists came in here and built up the region and made a big economy because they have higher IQ’s! So what. I am supposed to like them more because they are rich and hate those Africans because they are poor? I realize this is Indian thinking, but we socialists do not think that way.

Arabs have more political rights in all of the Arab World. In the Arab World, they are not systematically discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity.

I would argue that those Arabs in Israel do not want all of those social freedoms. Freedom to do what?

And what social freedoms do they have there that they do not have in the rest of the region? How are the social freedoms of Arab Israeli Christians better than those of Arab Christians in Lebanon or Syria? Someone needs to clue me.

429 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Egypt, Europeans, Fascism, Government, History, India, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Lebanon, Libya, Malays, Malaysia, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Morocco, Nationalism, North Africa, Pacific, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, SE Asians, Settler-Colonialism, Singapore, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, South Asia, South Asians, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Whites