Category Archives: Traitors

Trump Speech at West Palm Beach, Florida, October 13, 2016

It’s pretty ugly stuff, but this speech is getting a lot of writeup all over. Some on the Alt Right are saying that Trump has gone full populist here.

I would agree that he’s gone full rightwing populist, but I don’t think too much of rightwing populism because it’s always so incoherent. Plus rightwing populism seems like an oxymoron. The rightwing would seem to be opposed to populism by its very nature and vice versa. Hence, rightwing populism is always a bit phony and tends to scapegoat minorities, Jews, bankers, Gypsies, Communists or whoever is vulnerable and needs to be beaten up. In this way, they redirect working class rage at being screwed over by capitalism away from the capitalists and towards these handy targets. Needless to say, not dealing with the root of the problem or even identifying it for that matter doesn’t exactly help fix things.

That said, I do support Trump’s efforts to attack the “globalists,” although he means something different from that than I do. He’s against free trade and open borders, which is frankly the whole globalizing project right there. Let’s not forget the immiseration of states, nations and cultures and creating a Corporate-Elite Dictatorship to rule the whole world. Obviously this globalization project is failing badly, but so much is riding on it for corporations and elites that they keep pushing it anyway.

I also appreciate an America First policy as a general rule, which is what Trump proposes. I am an economic nationalist. He’s a bit of an isolationist, and that’s good. He wants to patch up relations with our designated enemies like North Korea and Russia and generally wants to stay out of foreign entanglements, military alliances and trade pacts. Of course I support him on all of these views. So you see we can make some sort of an alliance with these Trump folks however deplorable they are, and yes, most are pretty deplorable.

Others note that he seems to be naming the Jew in this ominous landmark speech. On the Left, he’s being accused of blaming Jews for the difficulties his campaign is experiencing.

He talks about how Hillary sits down in secret meetings with international bankers to plot the destruction of the country. Actually that is not far off. This is the part that seems to be naming the Jew.

Trump goes on and on about the Establishment, but what the Hell is this Establishment anyway. The Cathedral? Isn’t he a part of this very Establishment he is ranting against? He claims that this Establishment, whoch the Clintons are a part of, is also made up of the entire US press.

Does he mean the “invade the world – invite the world”, neoliberal economics + neoconservative foreign policy bipartisan Washington Beltway Consensus crowd? If so, why doesn’t he say so? Instead, the Establishment is apparently liberals, who run the government (Really?) and the media (What?). This is standard Republican nuttiness about how liberal Democrats are in charge of the levers of power in Washington in addition to owning all of the so-called “liberal media.” We on the Left don’t see any progressive people in charge of the state, and we don’t see any running the media either, so the whole “liberal media” thing has always been a sick joke to us.

In days past, this Establishment was also accused of being secret Communists who worked for a one world government via the UN which would wipe out all sovereignty and install One World Communism all over the globe. The people pushing this World Communism were a lot of the richest people on Earth, including the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Sure these people have lots of power and in fact constitute the Deep State (along with the Big Media), but they sure aren’t liberal or progressive. They’re hard rightwing on everything that matters, pushing neoliberalism at home and neoconservatism abroad. Economics for the rich and corporations at home and US imperialism abroad. How this is somehow liberal or progressive needs to be explained to me.

As you can see, the rightwing populist project is incoherent when it’s not flat out wrong. It’s associated with plenty of paranoia and conspiracy theory, which Trump is now mining well. Check out Richard Hofstader’s The Paranoid Style in American Politics, written back in the 1950’s, to learn more about this quintessentially paranoid American politics. The paranoia is particularly relevant on the populist Right, but it has taken over the mainstream Fox News Republican Party in the last two decades, and there are even some insane leftwing populist elements on the Left that are about as insane as those on the Right if not more so. “No One Died at Sandy Hook” – “The Moon Landing was Faked” – “911 Inside Job” and other conspiracy theories has long been popular with an insane leftwing populist element.

Trump denies all of the undoubtedly true charges of sexual abuse and general creepiness being leveled at him by what is now nearly a brigade of female accusers. They just keep flooding in. Trump says these are all lies made up by his evil liberal enemies. He goes on and on about the corrupt Clintons and the Clinton Crime Family, etc. and how this mysterious liberal elite is not only corrupt but also evil and vile. The language he uses to attack the media, the Clintons and the Establishment (whoever they are) is frightening.

Trump’s people are already saying that the corrupt Establishment press is faking almost all the polls and that Trump is actually ahead by a couple of points, using a fake Rasmussen (Republican whore) poll to make that point. Well they can go on believing that.

But I am worried. Surely he’s going to lose, and then what? The language he uses against his enemies is incendiary stuff. Their whole line – the press is smearing us, the polls are rigged, the vote will be stolen by mass voter fraud, the Establishment which is doing all of these things is corrupt and evil – seems intended to push his supporters to their limits and then some. I’m worried that we will see more violence and unrest before this Ugly Campaign is over with.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Democrats, Economics, Journalism, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Sociology, The Jewish Conspiracy To Subject Humankind, Traitors, US Politics

Open Borders, Free Trade, Globalization, and the End of Democracy

From Ian Welsh‘s fantastic site. Check it out if you never have. He’s just about Alternative Left himself I believe.

Ever get tired of reading media lies all the time? Well then, come on over to Beyond Highbrow, where our motto is “We will never lie to you.” And if you want a dose of honesty as anti-venom for the lies you are force-fed every day, just read the piece below. Everything you will in that piece is 100% true. There is not a single false sentence in there. Read it and digest it.

Bottom line is you can either have open borders, free trade and globalization or you can have democracy, but you can’t have both. In other words, open borders, free trade and globalization will always be voted down by any sane populace and any attempt to implement these projects will involve not only massive amounts of lying and propaganda and but also probably some sort of authoritarian, anti-democratic or even dictatorial rule.

Sort of like what Milton Friedman said about how the masses will never vote for his radical Libertarian neoliberal ultra-laissez faire project, hence the need to for a dictatorship to impose Friedmanism. This is why Friedman loved Pinochet so much. Friedman freely admitted that a dicatorship was necessary to implement his own project, as no self-aware population would ever vote for it. If you have ever wondered why the US is always overthrowing democratic governments and fomenting rightwing military and legislative coups to overthrow anti-neoliberal governments, there’s your answer. We’ve always loved rightwing dictatorships. Anyone knows rightwing dictatorships are great for business. None of that messy democracy stuff to fool around with.

I like this guy. He’s really got a way with words.

My problem with the EU’s Four Freedoms and the Euro project, as with NAFTA and its successor treaties, now being debated, is that they enshrine the democratic deficit at the core of the legal order of the nations party to the relevant agreements.

One may argue over the details of the legislative procedures by which all of the agreements were adopted, ratified, whatever – and the respective statuses of different agreements and mechanisms – but it seems intuitively obvious to me that, had proponents of these treaties openly discussed both what they entailed as a matter of law and what was likely to ensue, practically, upon their implementation, public disapproval would have been overwhelming.

Such agreements have always been sold to the public as reforms that will bring about a state of comity between nations, increase general prosperity, and basically result in every child having both a puppy and a pony. The realities of hot, speculative capital flows, regulatory arbitrage in some areas, convergence in others, mass immigration, the destruction of whole sectors of national economies, and the resultant marginalization of whole classes – even generations, in some societies – were not only not mentioned, even as possible consequences, but denied, either openly or implicitly.

To make matters still worse, when folks began to voice their objections to the new regime and its consequences for their lives, they were first dismissed as rubes and bigots (and sometimes, they were), and eventually informed that their objections were misplaced because the immiseration of one section of the population, by the destruction of its employment, had made possible X% gains in well-being for Y millions in countries A-G, thus returning through the back door the very “zero-sum”, some will have to sacrifice argument that was explicitly rejected by the initial apologetic for the reforms. So, in the end, it is Who? Whom? Just as the critics alleged in the early 90s, say.

In fine, the reason for the rancor and distrust is not merely that there is bigotry rife within the masses of mankind, but that whole swathes of the populace were betrayed, rooked, and then mocked and degraded for the amusement of those who did they betraying and rooking.

If one extends the benefit of the doubt to the constructors of the European project, and of NAFTA, etc., and assumes that they were all enlightened social democrats of the most impeccable convictions and intentions (which is, of course, far too generous by several orders of magnitude), it still remains that what they proposed was a multi-step process, with immense possibilities for slippage as one negotiated each transition.

There never was a guarantee that, when the reforms were implemented, and whole communities and economic sectors were obliterated, the political system would bestir itself to redress the dislocations in precisely the correct manner. There are always too many contingencies in politics for that, even granting the best of intentions.

However, the projects of globalization have always had a clear class valence: they are clearly in the interests of the elites and the professional classes who simultaneously serve elite interests and operations and aspire to ascend to the elite plane in the social hierarchy.

Once one accounts for objective class interests in the unfolding of political ‘reform’ movements, it becomes rather difficult to assume as possible, to say nothing of probable, that the classes benefiting from the reforms will, having increased their wealth and power precisely by disempowering and immiserating the working classes, will immediately turn round and say, “Well, boys, now we have free trade and freedom of capital movement, what do say we tax ourselves a lot more to provide for the sort of social democracy that will cushion the lives of the workers?” The entire logic of the projects is the gradual attenuation of social democracy.

And thus, the democratic deficit. It’s not that one could have expected the advocates of these policies to be honest with their electorates, admitting to them that most of them would suffer stagnant or declining living standards, all so that the professional classes could grab larger shares of a larger pie. No, it’s that the very proposal of such reforms, absent any binding mechanism to build social democracy concurrently with them, was a case of the elite hiving itself off from the rest of society, no longer professing to represent the people and their interests, at best implicitly claiming an identity of their class interests with the national/continental/international interest, and in practice governing strictly in their own interests.

As the US could not – and still cannot, really – claim the mantle of democracy while maintaining Jim Crow, so the neoliberal elite cannot claim that mantle while deliberately, knowingly marginalizing and rubbishing large swathes of the societies they (mis)rule. Unless, of course, democracy is nothing more than the bare formalism of the ritual plebiscite, one of the formal freedoms of bourgeois society.

In closing, since I have droned on a bit, I am dubious that integration can proceed beyond any horizon, wholly without limit – to take but one of the issues raised by the populist discontentments. The most tolerant and generous societies we’ve yet known, in Northern Europe, are now experiencing some of the same discontents that we witness in France, Germany, and the UK.

While the ideational structures and symbols that transcend discrete tribes can mediate a common culture to diverse groups, or mediate multiple cultures to each other, it is not obvious that this process can or will continue indefinitely, either temporally or in terms of effectuating the union of cultures and tribes. There are always potential sources of friction and resistance. In fact, I’m not certain that wholly open labor/migration flows could ever be managed save by a combination of undemocratic policy-making and illiberal tutelary policies. People can be more tolerant than they are, this is certain. I don’t believe that large groups will ever be as tolerant as neoliberalism requires that they be.


Filed under Britain, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, France, Geopolitics, Germany, Government, Immigration, Journalism, Labor, Left, Libertarianism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Sociology, Traitors

Excerpts from $Hilary Clinton$’s $Wall Street Speeches$

On Friday, Wikileaks began releasing leaked emails from $Hillary Clinton’s$ presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. One mail in particular stands out.

In a message dated January 25th, 2016, under the subject line “HRC Paid Speeches,” Podesta is a report detailing what $Hillary$ said in her paid $Wall Street speeches$. Bernie Sanders had been demanding that $Hillary$ release the transcripts of her $Wall Street speeches$. She was paid a mere $225,000 per $speech$ to tell the bankers what they wanted to hear. Hillary refused to release the speeches during the primaries and she hasn’t released them since. This is not shocking when you read the things she told these banksters. But we don’t have to worry about that now as Wikileaks is doing the job for us.

  • $Hillary Clinton$: “I’m kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class, “because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy.” [$Hillary Clinton$ remarks at (((Goldman)))-Black Rock, 2/4/14] In other words, I have no idea what the price of milk is since my servants purchase that for me. Supermarkets are beneath my lofty status. Just call me Mrs. 1%.
  • $Clinton$: “But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.” [$Clinton$ speech for National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13] In other words, tell the banksters the truth and lie to the people.
  • $Clinton$ said that the blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened.” [(((Goldman Sachs))) AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] In other words, I’m so sorry that we went after you poor banksters so hard. That was so wrong.
  • $Clinton$ said financial reform “really has to come from the industry itself.” [$Clinton$ remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14] In other words, support voluntary regulations and bankster self-regulation, i.e. no regulation of banksters.
  • Speaking about the importance of proper regulation, $Clinton$ said, “The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.” [(((Goldman Sachs))) AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13] In other words, banksters need to regulate themselves, i.e no regulation of banksters.
  • $Clinton$: as senator, “I represented and worked with” so many on Wall Street and “did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper” [$Hillary Clinton’s$ remarks at Robbins (((Geller))) Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14] In other words, I’m here to help you make a killing ripping off the American people and blowing up the US and even world economy. 
  • $Clinton$ supports cuts to Social Security: “Simpson-Bowles… put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It’s a three-part formula… and they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don’t believe that you’re going to be able to move the other side.” [$Clinton$ speech for Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13] In other words, I support neoliberalism, fiscal conservatism and the class war of the 1% against everybody else.
  • In a speech given to a group of Brazilian bankers on May 16th, 2013, $Hillary Clinton$ claimed, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” In other words, Open borders and NAFTA Uber Alles all across the Hemisphere. If it’s good for the rich, it’ll be good for everybody! No really. The Open Borders and free trade Globalist crowd are my kind of people. Nation-states are passe.

The last position completely goes against her position opposes the TPP and shows where the heart of this free trade globalist Open Borders elitist is at.


Filed under Democrats, Economics, Government, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Politics, Traitors, US Politics

Proposal for an Old Left

I am not proposing this myself but instead I am linking to and copying this over from Lord Keynes’ site, 21st Century Social Democracy.

I like Lord Keynes and his page, but I am wondering how his Old Left is different from my Alt Left or Ryan England’s Alt Left. We already know it’s different from Rabbit’s Alt Left.

I am thinking that maybe the Old Left is more concerned with economics and less worried about Cultural Left stuff. I am also thinking that perhaps the Old Left is not as conservative on the Cultural Left than mine and Ryan’s Alt Left. And of course, the Old Left doesn’t seem to want to touch race realism with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension. Not that I blame them.

I don’t identify as Alt Left myself, but this Alt Left Facebook Page seems quite interesting, and free from some of the strange stuff I have seen on the Alt Left:

Alternative Left.

I think there is now a sensible Alt Left that has managed to divorce itself from the more extreme original movement.

It would be nice to have some Old Left (which can also be called the “Realist Left”) Facebook pages or social media forums too.

I am now tempted to try and set up an Old Left Facebook page or something like this.

As I have said before, my prediction is that many Millennials will abandon their SJW cults and Regressive Left nonsense in the coming years, but they will need some new left-wing politics to fall back on.

Lots of sensible Alt Left and Old Left points of view should be available for these people when the time comes so that they are not lost to the Right or Far Right.

So what is the Old Left/Realist Left political program? I would still distance an Old Left position from the sensible Alt Left, but there would probably be a lot of overlap, despite differences. E.g., in some respects, some Alt Left people seem to be much more hostile to the Cultural Left and socially conservative than even I am, for example. But respectful debate should be the order of the day here, not mutual hostility.

An Old Left politics I propose is as follows:

(1) The Old Left is vehemently anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization. It completely rejects neoclassical economics. An Old Left/Realist Left politics supports full employment, Keynesian macroeconomic policies and management of our economies, a high-wage economy, an industrial policy, managed trade in the national interest, a humane welfare state, perhaps even a return to some nationalized industries (this can be a legitimate topic for debate), an end to offshoring of our manufacturing and service jobs to the Third World, and an end to neoliberal vandalism and the sale of our national assets to foreigners.

An Old Left would support Left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT, not Marxism or feeble and intellectually flawed Neoclassical Keynesianism.

(2) An Old Left/Real Left also vehemently rejects Libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism as poisonous and toxic ideologies.

(3) At the same time, the Old Left/Real Left politics vehemently rejects Cultural Leftism: this includes French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism and all their ridiculous and pernicious ideas such as truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, and divisive and extreme Identity Politics.

Of course, reasonable and sensible civil, legal and equity women’s rights and gay rights are fine, but not Cultural Leftist Identity Politics or endless cults of victimology.

In particular, the Old Left should be critical of Third Wave Feminism. End the witch-hunting which inevitably accompanies Cultural Leftism. Abandon the extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, because it is simply not true: e.g., there are only two natural genders in genetically normal human beings, male and female, and discouraging encouraging this type of thing is neither healthy nor desirable. End the bizarre Cultural Leftist conspiracy theories that blame all our problems on the capitalist, white-male patriarchy and universal “institutional racism.”

(4) The Old Left should defend free speech and freedom of expression from Cultural Leftist and Politically Correct witch hunts, restrictions and hate speech laws. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech.

(5) The Old Left would be anti-imperialist and largely non-interventionist on foreign policy but not isolationist. Anyone proposing any intervention in the Third World would require a brutally strong burden of proof, and anything proposed must be legal under international law.

(6) An Old Left politics should be strongly pro-nuclear family and be able to address the serious issue of social breakdown, divorce, and single-parent families with humane policies free from right-wing viciousness or free market economics.

(7) An Old Left politics will end Open Borders and mass immigration and end the bizarre cult of “diversity,” which seems to think that multiculturalism is some great good in and of itself (which it most certainly is not). The Old Left recognizes that most people have a normal and natural wish to preserve their nations as homelands for their national culture and their people. Low-level immigration and reasonable refugee quotas are fine as long as minorities actually do remain a minority of the population and people who wish to stay assimilate and do not bring hostile and incompatible cultures.

(8) An Old Left politics will oppose regressive and illiberal Islamism and Islamization of our societies, promote the strong assimilation of immigrants who are here in the West, and abandon failed multiculturalism.

(9) An Old Left politics should be comfortable with healthy and sensible forms of cultural and civil nationalism.

But at the same time there is room for disagreement and open debate on individual issues and also on issues I have not mentioned instead of the intolerant witch hunting that characterizes the modern Left.

However, there do need to be core principles, as follows:

(1) Rejection of neoliberalism, globalization, neoclassical economics, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and all ideological free market capitalism. Support for left heterodox Post Keynesian economics and MMT.

(2) Rejection of the extreme aspects of cultural leftism, namely, French Poststructuralism, Postmodernism, truth relativism, cultural relativism, moral relativism, SJWism, the cult of diversity, and divisive and extreme identity politics.

(3) rejection of open borders and mass immigration.

If you don’t reject these things, you ain’t Old Left or Alt Left. This is not the movement for you.


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Gender Studies, Government, Immigration, Imperialism, Islam, Law, Left, Libertarianism, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Sane Pro-Woman, Traitors

Robert Stark Interviews Bay Area Guy about the Bay Area and the Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism


Robert Stark talks to Bay Area-based blogger  Bay Area Guy of Occident Invicta.

Topics include:

Robert Stark’s recent trip to San Francisco where he met up with Bay Area Guy at Union Square.
The Bay Area as a microcosm of American Society and how it combines both the best and worst of what America has to offer.
How the Bay Area represents American capitalism at its fullest.
How SF Is the second most unequal major city in America.
How despite it’s wealth and gentrification, SF has preserved much of the historic character of the City.
How the Bay Area has done a better job at wilderness conservation than Southern California.
The Racial Dynamics of the Bay Area..
San Francisco and The Bay Area’s Progressive Paradox.
How Diversity Destroys Economic Justice.
How the elites are Social Darwinists who pose as progressive humanitarians.
Andy Nowicki’s article The Patrick Bateman Right.
His thoughts on Donald Trump and why he’s supporting Bernie Sanders for President.
How the political ideal would be to combine the best aspects of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader.
His article The Pitfalls of American Exceptionalism.
How the Left uses the language of American Exceptionalism to justify open borders and Cultural Leftism.
How America is exceptional at obesity, anti-intellectualism, and income income inequality.
How The U.S. has the world’s highest incarceration rate.
Mark Ames’ Going Postal.

Leave a comment

Filed under California, Capitalism, Corrections, Crime, Economics, Environmentalism, Labor, Law enforcement, Left, Libertarianism, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Traitors, US Politics, USA, West

New Interview with Me Up

Warning! This interview is definitely NSFW! A lot of discussion of explicit sex acts in this interview, so be warned!


Robert Stark Interviews Robert Lindsay About the Alternative Left, Immigration & Cultural Leftist Insanity

Topics include:

Topics include:
Proposal for an Alternative Left
Robert Lindsay as the Left Wing of the Alternative Right
Why it’s hard to be politically homeless in American politics
How the Establishment Left is a fusion of neoliberal capitalism and cultural leftism
Why Robert Lindsay rejects the term “Cultural Marxism”
The Alternative Left’s stance on immigration, trade, the environment, and social issues.
The corporate push for open borders and the Mainstream Left’s collusion
The Progressive Case for Reducing Immigration
Progressive UC Davis Prof Endorses Trump Immigration Plan
Donald Trump’s stances on immigration and trade
When It Comes To Sex, Nothing Is Too Perverted for the Cultural Left
How society has become more degenerate in general while at the same time becoming puritanical about certain issues


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Environmentalism, Immigration, Left, Liberalism, Lunatics, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Sex, Traitors, US Politics

The Arab League: Den of Treason

From an Al-Manar, the news organ of Hezbollah in Lebanon (Hezbollah is one of my favorite guerrilla armies) about the Arab League getting together to form its own army to combat “extremism” in the region, most of it funded by Arab League members themselves:

Arab Army: Controlled By CIA-ISRAEL-NATO

Dyke Davis | USA

It was the Arab League who:

  • Kept quiet during 60 years of ethnic cleansing of Palestinian homes and culture.
  • Was silent on the Zionist wars on Lebanon.
  • Stayed silent during the occupation and destruction of Iraq.
  • That, along with Saudi money, sent organ-eaters to attack Syria.

This list of Arab League worthlessness will be dangerous to Arab and Muslim modernization and global integration if this false-flag army is allowed to become a brand.

Exactly. Almost all of the Sunni state in the Arab League are utterly worthless. They are all pawns of the US, and they often work hand in hand with their best friends in Israel. The only real resistance in the region is from the Shia. Name one productive thing the Sunnis are doing liberation-wise in the Arab World? Nothing. The truth of the matter is that the Arab Sunnis would rather suck up to the US and kill Shia than liberate Palestine. The liberation of Palestine is the number goal of the resistance in the Arab World. That the Sunnis have completely abandoned this goal in the name of massacring their fellow Muslims and setting off terrorist bombs is most depressing.


Filed under Arabs, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestine, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion, Shiism, Sunnism, Syria, Traitors, USA, War

“USreal”: How Israel Controls America

Jason Y writes:

It all boils down to having a base. The US needs a massive base in the middle east, and Israel is it. I could be wrong, though. Any ideas out there?

This is the Leftist theory that Israel is “our aircraft carrier in the Middle East.” In other words, Israel is a US colony.The “Israeli aircraft carrier” argument is very popular on the US Left, no matter how crazy it is. They have adopted this argument because they do not want to tell the truth – which is that the Jewish Lobby controls the US in some ways and the US is an Israeli colony, not the other way around. They consider those arguments to be anti-Semitic, and the US Left doesn’t do anti-Semitism. So they come up with the “base in the Middle East” argument in order not to sound like Jew-haters.

Yet the fact is that Israel controls the US, not the other way around. They say jump and we say how high. It is completely irrational because the alliance with Israel doesn’t give us any benefits. Anyway, we don’t even have any bases in the region. The bases are all in the Gulf.

Israel is a liability, not an asset. It makes no sense for us to have an “Israeli base” in the Middle East. All that “base” has done is infuriate Arabs and Muslims and embroiled us in war and war along with provoking terror attacks against us, including 911.

One of the major reasons for the 911 attacks was US support for Israel.

Our alliance with Israel was the reason for The War on the Iraqi People (WOTIP) in 2003 and it was related to the Afghan War because Al Qaeda set up camp in Afghanistan and used it to plot 911 which was provoked by our support for Israel.

After the WOTIP, Saddam, an enemy of Israel, was captured and killed by US proxies. See, we even kill Israel’s enemies for it. We overthrow the governments that are enemies of Israel, and we kill the anti-Israel leaders. We work for Israel, not the other way around.

The US entered Lebanon in 1982 and quickly got embroiled in that mess. 343 US soldiers were killed in a truck bomb attack, the US Embassy was car bombed, and Hezbollah was created. Hezbollah was created by the US intervening in Lebanon in support of Israel’s invasion.

The only reason we are bombing Syria now and arming the stupid Syrian rebels is because Assad is said to be an enemy of the US. Why? Because he is an enemy of Israel.

Iran has nothing to do with US national security. Our entire beef with Iran is wrapped up in our support for Israel. If we didn’t support Israel, we could have good relations with Iran now.

Libya was an enemy of Israel, so the government was overthrown and Israel’s enemy Ghaddafi was killed.

This all boils down to the strength of the Jewish Lobby in the US. Furthermore, apparently large numbers of Americans support Israel. Any politician who goes against Israel often finds himself destroyed by Jews in our heavily Jewish media. Congressmen who went against Israel have been defeated by the Lobby. The Jewish Lobby is like the NRA. Everyone is afraid of them. Also Jews give 60% of the money that the Democratic Party gets and 30% of the money that the Republican Party gets. If the Democrats go against Israel, the Jews will cut off the money, and the party will be screwed.

Furthermore there is excellent evidence that the Israelis have completely penetrated every important branch of the US government with their spies. A former US military officer told me, “We got totally penetrated as early as the early 1980’s  and we have remained penetrated ever since.” Apparently Israeli control of the US state is so extreme that no attempts can be made to root out the Israeli spies. If you try to go after the Israeli spies rooted all through our government, your political career is over. It’s a career killer.

Many of the Jews in the US government are traitors to America with dual loyalty issues. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the US. Their job is to get us to fight Israel’s wars for them. Israel also have quite a few Gentile allies. Many Gentiles in the Deep State are strongly allied to Israel. The Pentagon has a deep relationship with the Israeli military. If you are against Israel, your career in the US government will end and your membership in the Deep State will be revoked. All members of the Deep State must support Israel. It is a requirement.


Filed under Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Democrats, Government, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Lebanon, Left, Libya, Middle East, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Syria, Terrorism, Traitors, US Politics, US War in Afghanistan, USA, War

Traitors, Race, National and Otherwise

Jason writes:

That article of yours seems to imply betraying White people is the way to go (as most Whites are supporting reactionary politics). I don’t understand. No offense to Robert, but needing clarification.

Voting progressive is not betraying the Whites because Whites are not a persecuted class in the US, so it is not possible to betray them. I do not think voting for either party, Democrats or Republicans, is supporting or opposing the Whites because neither party is attacking White people. There is no need to support the Whites in the US as no one is oppressing, harming or discriminating against us unjustly.

  1. What I mean about supporting your people is:
  2. Oppose those who try to harm your people.
  3. Oppose those who discriminate against and persecute your people unjustly
  4. Defend the homeland against the foreign enemy invaders.

However, if one’s people or nation is objectively wrong or behaving unjustly, it is right and proper to betray your own land and people.

One should always oppose persecutions on your people. Those Blacks who support Jim Crow restrictions at the voting booth to the keep the niggers from voting are simply race traitors. By being Republicans, they are race traitors because they support a party that disenfranchises their people.

In the Indian Wars, the Indians were being persecuted by the White imperialist invaders. The  invaders had many Indian scouts who were fighting with enemy against the Indian people. That was some very serious treason.

In WW2 in the Ukraine, there were two types of Jews. One type was called Karaim and the other were called Krymchak. The Nazis came in and with their Ukrainian pals killed some Jews. Then they figured out that there were two types of Jews here, and the Karaim were saying that they were not really Jewish. So the Nazis called in some actual university anthropologists to determine who was Jewish and who was not. They studied the issue for a bit and then decided that the Karaim were not truly Jewish because they practice a different form of Judaism but the Krymchak were.

Some of the Karaim actually helped the Nazis round up Krymchaks for the slaughter. That is the utmost in treason.

The Palestinians are being badly persecuted. For various reasons, some Palestinians are spies and informers for Israel, even during wartime. Those are pretty bad traitors.

When your country is wrong or your people are wrong, you need to go against them. In fact, in these cases, it is noble to be a turncoat and fight for the enemy. I do not think it would be treason for a German or a Jap to support the Allies during WW2. The Germans and Japs were not being persecuted. They were persecuting others.

However, I will respect any man who fights to defend his homeland and his people from the foreign invaders. So I had a lot of sympathy for those Iraqis that fought us in the early days of the last Gulf War. Even the initial resistance was probably right and proper for a number of years as it was trying to drive the American foreign enemy invaders out of their homeland. I would even respect a Nazi who fought on German soil to defend the Homeland against the Allies or the Soviets. Really it is never really wrong to defend your homeland against the enemy invaders. I would not mind the ones who surrendered either. I think both options were noble.

There really is no way to be a White race traitor in the US, despite the blatherings of White nationalist idiots. The only way to be a White race traitor today is to go to South Africa and cheer on or assist the oppression of Whites there. White are simply not a persecuted race in the US.

But sometimes I think that these Whites ally with non-Whites and go on and on about how Whites are the worst race on Earth are pretty near race traitors. There are some Whites like that. We have had them on the blog here. Whites are not the worst race on Earth and to say we are is to state a vicious lie. It is pretty much treason against your people.


Filed under Arabs, Blacks, Democrats, European, History, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Jews, Palestinians, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Traitors, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, War, Whites, World War 2

Race Traitors, Black, White and Jewish

James Schipper writes:

Dear Robert

I agree that the Republicans are bad for most blacks, but certainly not for all because there are also rich blacks. Blacks have as much right to vote according to their class interest as whites do. A black millionaire who votes for the Reps because he wants to pay lower taxes is no more a traitor to his race than a white millionaire who does the same. The Reps are also bad for the majority of whites.

We should not confuse class with race. As a plutocratic entity, the Reps favor all the wealthy, black white, brown, red or yellow, and are an economic threat to all those American who aren’t rich regardless of their race. Poor whites who vote for the Reps because they think that it is good for their race are deluding themselves. The Reps don’t practice racial politics but class politics.

Suppose that we have a company with 5 owners and 95 employees. The owners are all white, and 60 of the employees are white. The owners don’t care much about their employees, whatever their race may be. Now there is an attempt to unionize the workers. A majority of the white employees refuses to join the union because they identify more with the white owners than the non-white employees. That’s how we should see the role of race in the US. It enables the Reps to exploit race in order to practice class politics.

Black Race Traitors

Correct, but at this point, the Republicans are objectively attacking the Black race in the US via Jim Crow era laws designed to keep them from voting. Also huge numbers of Blacks are being targeted by being removed from the voting rolls for no reason. In addition, early voting days and hours are being shorted all in an attempt to keep Black people from voting.

The Republicans have a program called Crosscheck that tracks suspected voter fraud cases. The whole thing is phony as there is probably not even one fraudulent voter among the 7 million. Specifically, these are people who are suspected of voting in two different states under the same name. Of course nobody does that as it is hard enough to get them to vote in one state much less two. A very large percentage of that 7 million are Black, apparently deliberately targeted. Another large number as Asians and Hispanics.

If you are a Black person who for any reason is supporting the efforts of the Republican Party to keep your race from voting, then you are an out and out race traitor and a traitor to your people. I don’t like traitors very much.

White Race Traitors

I actually do believe that White race traitors do exist, but 99% of White people who are accused of this by White nationalists are innocent of the charge. However, let us look at South Africa, where the new government has come in and now there is obvious, visible and open racial discrimination against White people. Maybe it is payback, who knows? But any White South African who supports that Black South African project to discriminate against White people is objectively a race traitor and a traitor to his people.

There is a rather humorous case a while back of a Black man who wanted to join the local chapter of the KKK. Of course they turned him down as the KKK does not allow Black members. When asked why he wanted to join, he said, “I don’t like niggers either.” This is worth a chuckle, but still it is obvious that any Black man who would even attempt to join the KKK is an enemy of his people.

Jewish Race Traitors

I hate to use the word self-hater since they idiotic Jews call any Jew who criticizes their glorious tribe a self-hater, but there are some Jews who are such extreme over the top anti-Semites that I must say that they are traitors to their own people.

There is nothing admirable about being a traitor to your own kind. I have no respect for it at all. Everyone should support their own kind.


Filed under Blacks, Civil Rights, Government, Jews, Law, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Republicans, Traitors, US Politics, Whites