Category Archives: Open Borders

Just Got a Lifetime Ban from Daily Kos

Daily Kos is Ground Zero for the Base of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party’s Base is more leftwing than the party itself in the same way that the Republican Base is more rightwing than the party itself. Party Bases tend to be like that. The Base of the Democratic Party would best be called the Left Wing of the Democratic Party. Now granted, there are some decent people on there. There are actually a fair number of Marxists and socialists hanging out in the Democratic Party Base.  After all, they have nowhere else to go. But this is a quite small percentage of the Base.

I have been banned for life from Daily Kos, and honestly it is a blessing because I absolutely despise most Democratic Party liberal types. The problem with them is that there’s nothing liberal about them. In any sane system, they would be something like what used to be called a Liberal Republican. They just flat out suck!

Their foreign policy is horrific. Almost all liberal Democrats are ((neocon)) fanatics. The whole left wing of the Democratic Party is completely overrun with a ((certain type of people)). As usual, they destroy that wing of the party as a result. They love Israel! The Democratic Party can’t get enough of wonderful Israel. Wonderful Israel is the greatest country on Earth.

Almost 100% of them support the war against the Syrian people we are waging with our Al Qaeda and ISIS allies. They hate Russia! They love the Ukrainian Nazis! Yeah, I know, makes no sense. They love Israel and they also love Al Qaeda, ISIS and real actual Nazis in the Ukraine. But that’s the exact geopolitics of (((certain people))) in the US, and as (((these people))) control this wing of the party, (((their))) values become everyone’s values. The love NATO! They hate North Korea, and some of them want to attack North Korea! They love US imperialism! They love the Pentagon! They love the CIA! They love the FBI!

Everyone on Kos loved this maniac named “Mad Dog” Maddis, the new general heading  up the Pentagon under Trump. Personally, I think he’s psycho, and he’s just another War Pig. Actually he’s worse than your ordinary War Pig. He’s a particularly belligerent type of militarist War Pig. A very frightening man.

And of course that whole wing of the party has been taken over by some time now by the most insane of the SJW’s.

They love free trade agreements! I would say 85% of Kossacks love the TPP, all because their hero Hitlery was pushing it. Kossacks suck! They love globalization!

They are all for Open Borders and Amnesty! As a matter of fact, I believe it has been a bannable offense on there for some time now to oppose illegal immigration.

I will say though that there are now some anti-Israel and anti-Zionist types on there. There are a few who support Syria and even some who support Russia. These might be 20% of Kossacks. However, Israel has become such a divisive hot button issue that I believe all discussion of the Israel-Palestinian Question has been banned. It’s nice to see that the Israel-Palestine Question has become incendiary at all in the Democratic Base though. Things are slowly changing.

There was actually a huge Bernie Sanders movement on Daily Kos, and there was a near civil war between Killary and Sanders supporters on there. Mods were continually having to wade in and sort out wild shouting matches and near virtual fistfights on the site. I did enjoy seeing the emergence of a Bernie wing. The one redeeming feature of the Base right now is this Bernie wing. Hope springs eternal!

On most economic type issues, Kossacks are generally very good. Of course they’re correct that this current crop of Republicans is worse than cancer. I agree. In fact, these Kossacks are the closest thing to “my people” anywhere on the Web. Which is partly why the ban was so painful.

OK, now for the ban story.

A Kossack wrote a typical article on there about one of the many false flags the (((US))) and Al Qaeda have been staging in Syria. This one was one of the many fake chemical weapons false flags. Unbelievably, there have been ~40-50 chemical weapons false flag attacks in Syria so far. The (((US government))) helped to propagandize every single one of them, and we were apparently directly involved in others.

I know that the DIA was directly involved in the famous Fake Sarin Gas Attack in Ghouta in the Damascus suburbs a few years ago. As has been the case in a number of these attacks, not only did Assad not shoot any Sarin or any other chemical weapons that day, even more bizarrely than that is the fact there was no Sarin of chemical weapons attack by anyone, Syria or the rebels, in Ghouta that day. The Fake Sarin Attack was like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and all sorts of staged false flag bullshit the US engages in.

This was an attack that, incredibly, never even happened! We are talking about an event that never even occurred! Isn’t that incredible? The recent “Sarin” attack in Khan Sheikoun was similar. Once again, not only did Assad not shoot Sarin or any other chemical weapons (he has none to shoot), but the rebels didn’t either. Once again we are talking about an attack that never even happened. What happened instead, as in Ghouta, was a fake staged phony attack which was meant to portray the real one.

Anyway, this (((good goy))) on ((Kos)) was going on about the evil Assad, how he launches chemical weapons on his people and how we need to send our close allies ISIS and Al Qaeda in to finish him off. The usual Zionist jerkoff on (((Kos))). The place is swarming with Zionists. They are practically crawling all of the walls and even up on the ceiling of the place.

So I posted a comment where I said something like:

“What’s the name of your hometown? Tel Aviv?”

Basically questioning his loyalty to America and suggesting that he was guilty of dual loyalty.

Well, the other (((Kossacks))) absolutely flipped out and called in some (((moderators))). I was immediately labeled a Republican Trump-supporting troll. The (((commenters))) were beside themselves about my “outrageous, bizarre and appallingly anti-Semitic remark.” On the contrary, I was quite proud of that remark. Hey, if you are running interference for Israel, we have a right to check you out to make sure you do not have dual loyalty as so many of those types do.

So now I have a lifetime ban at ((Daily Kos)) for “anti-Semitism.”

Fuck ((Daily Kos)). Fuck the ((Democratic Party)). Fuck ((liberal Democrats)).

11 Comments

Filed under Anti-Zionism, Asia, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Illegal, Immigration, Imperialism, Israel, Israel-Palestine Conflict, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Middle East, NE Asia, Neoconservatism, North Korea, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Socialism, Syria, Traitors, Ukraine, US Politics, War, Zionism

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.

17 Comments

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.

37 Comments

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.

7 Comments

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.

8 Comments

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

Here.

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!

Here.

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

12 Comments

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

“Illegals Turning Our Towns into Cesspools”

From here.

This is an article from a rightwing blog. All of the commenters are also rightwingers. But you don’t need to be a rightwinger to figure out that illegal aliens and their offspring ruin towns and cities. That is obvious to any Californian.

The problem with attacking illegals is that the Hispanics and the rest of the liberals always say, “You are not attacking illegals! You are really attacking Hispanics!”

This is a most interesting question that needs to be addressed head-on. Is it true that the illegals are only a problem in that they are Hispanics, and when we say illegals are no good, we are really saying that Hispanics are no good? It is quite an accusation, and I have to think deeply about whether or not it is true. The truth is that Hispanic legal immigrants have not caused a lot of problems in the US.

If you live in California, you can rapidly figure out that the problem is the illegals and not the legal Hispanics. Why is that? Because the illegals are particularly low quality immigrants. These are the peasants, the working class and the lumpen proletariat of Mexico. Say what you want about them, but they are basically pretty low quality people. Maybe they are just fine for Mexico; after all, folks like this form the backbone of Mexican society. Then again, Mexican society is pretty much of a mess, and it is these folks who have arguably created that mess. But it is not our responsibility to attack or fix Mexican society. That is an issue for the Mexicans themselves.

The problem is that the base of Mexican society simply does not provide high quality immigrants for the USA, a 1st World Country. The base of Mexico will simply tend to create Mexico in its dregs version, and that is exactly what they do.

Even if the 1st generation of illegals are pretty much hardworking folks, their children are another matter altogether. It is common knowledge here in California that the gangsters are the children of the illegals and not the illegals themselves. This is pretty much true, and I can attest to that firsthand as I got to know a number of gangbangers who live around me. In fact, for a while, a lot of them were hanging out over here.

Illegals and their descendants will tend to trash a town once they get to a majority. Going from a White town to a majority illegals + anchor babies town is, all other things aside, a downgrade. It is not as much of a downgrade as going from a White town to a ghetto Black town, but it is still a noticeable downgrade. I live in such a city now, and while it is relatively safe, there is a certain amount of petty theft, and I have had some items ripped off. The grand total over 5 years comes to ~$360. That is about $70/year. It’s pretty much nickel and dime stuff, but it is still annoying. This is not a ruined of unlivable city so much as a downgraded one.

Another lie is that the illegals come from all over and not just Mexico. Actually, ~85% of illegals come from Mexico and many of the rest come from Central America. The illegal alien problem is a problem of illegal, low quality Mesoamerican immigrants. There are some other nationalities that contribute some illegals, but they don’t add up to a large number and in general they are not causing significant problems, so they are not important.

A very large number of Mexicans and Mexican Americans here in California support the illegal aliens. So the illegal issue is really all about Mexican nationalism. It’s all about the La Raza, the race, the people. White people can’t be ethnocentric, but when Mexicans do it, it’s the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Mexican ethnocentrism is no less atavistic or reactionary than any other kind of ethnocentrism.

We really need to get clear on what the Mexicans and Mexican Americans want. What they want is an open border with Mexico for Mexicans to cross in as large of numbers as they wish. That’s what this whole illegal alien argument is all about. Mexicans don’t care about immigrants from any other country; they only care about La Raza.

The current outrage of an amnesty bill in Congress will legalize 11 million illegal aliens. However, with family reunification, it will eventually bring in 30 million more Mexicans very quickly. The vast majority of those 30 million will be low quality immigrants, the lower classes of Mexico. They will come up here and degrade and debase our communities the same as the ones before.

The argument is that we will legalize these 11 million (or 30 million) and then we will seal the border and not let any new ones in. But that’s not how it works here. We have done amnesties before. After each amnesty, they say they are going to seal the border. They never do it. It’s probably not even sealable anyway. Illegals will pour across the border into the foreseeable future. But we won’t let any new ones in! This won’t work either. The demands of the Mexican Lobby in the US are that once an illegal makes it across the border, he’s home free and we have no right to detain him and repatriate him.

The Mexican Lobby has the following demands:

  1. Legalize all illegals and let them bring relatives in.
  2. Do not seal the border, in fact, don’t even police it at all.
  3. Do not repatriate any new illegals who come across.

The problem is that after we legalize the 11 million, since we won’t seal the border (can’t be done) and we won’t detain or return many new illegals because the Mexicans throw a screaming fit whenever we do, very quickly, a huge new pool of millions of new illegals will build up in the US. Soon this pool will swell and there will be demands for another amnesty. This will keep going on into the foreseeable future in sort of an endless repetition.

The troubling issue is that both parties are now apparently captive to the Mexican Lobby in the US (the so-called Hispanic vote). Once you are a prisoner of the Mexican Lobby, you are committed to the three steps above. Eventually we will end up being a northern version of Mexico, with all of its attendant problems.

The following headline and news extract for the Selma (California) Enterprise appeared on this week’s edition of my old hometown paper. Note all of the little neighboring cities are also suffering from the explosive crime rate.

Selma’s Crime Rate Highest in County

By Doug Hoagland
dhoagland@selmaenterprise.com

Of all the cities in Fresno County, Selma ranked first in crime during 2010. At least that’s what one measuring stick used by the FBI shows. Citizens, city council members and police in Selma have been talking for months about a rise in crime. Some might see the FBI statistics as confirmation of an alarming trend in the city. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report — which comes out every year — shows that Selma had the highest crime rate per 100,000 population in 2010. Fresno was second, Kerman was third, Sanger was fourth and Parlier was fifth — rounding out the Top Five.

The list then goes: Mendota, Kingsburg, Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Reedley, Fowler and Huron. Figures were not available for Orange Cove and San Joaquin.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

When one reads the rest of the crime report article, the Selma Chief of Police is asked to cite the cause for the crime rate. He responds: “I really don’t know”.

“I really don’t know”…..that response says so much about how California has capitulated to a degree of political correctness, derived from the realization that illegal immigrant invaders have saturated the entire state of California…..to the extent that is now impossible for a public official to utter the truth about the causative factors for soaring crime rates throughout the state. This state of denial is compounded by the need for public officials to continue coddling Hispanics “legalized through past amnesties” who support the illegal invasion as some misguided effort to boost Hispanic political power.

This, despite the fact that they are all fowling the cesspool in which they live. Most of the white and black contingent of “legal” residents are now cowards; too fearful to speak out less they offend a Hispanic acquaintance. Fair enough: let them dwell in the squalor of illegal infestation. They have earned it. They have become so blinded to it that they don’t realize that a high quality of life exists elsewhere. Being cowards, they have adopted the practice of looking the other way at the graffiti, the gang activity, the soaring crime, the degradation of their children’s schools.

Three decades ago, before past amnesties opened the flood gates to illegal criminals, all of the farming communities mentioned in this report were thriving small towns with low crime rates and an extremely pleasing quality of life. Now, every single one of these once fine little towns are cesspools of crime, infested with drug smugglers, anchor baby welfare trolls, where decent people can no longer walk the streets at night. According to the latest census report Selma is, like most of California’s invaded cities, 78 percent Hispanic….and likely half of them illegal.

Also cited in this same report is the tragic fact that the local jails are so full these criminals must be turned out early to make way for the next fresh batch of arrestees. The Chief of Police lamented the fact that the “criminal early out” program allows the newly released criminals to go out and commit more crime.

During my entire 22-year Air Force career I always dreamed of retiring to my sedate and peaceful little town where I grew up. Then I came home, took a look around, saw the gangsters and the prolific graffiti that graces every street in town and decided to dwell elsewhere.

California is now a lost cause. It’s citizens have neither the will nor the backbone to drive the illegals out. For those of you who feel your town is immune from the ravages of illegal immigration, think again.

Illegals are spreading across the U.S. in unprecedented numbers now. You have a chance to stop it before you are infested.

The choice is yours. Write your Senators and Congressman and the President and tell them you oppose illegal immigration in any form. Stand strong against it…or be prepared to live in a cesspool.

84 Comments

Filed under Americas, California, Conservatism, Crime, Culture, Government, Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Latin America, Law, Law enforcement, Left, Liberalism, Mexicans, Mexico, Open Borders, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Traitors, US Politics, USA, Useless Western Left, West

Mexicans Belong in Mexico

The illegal ones, anyway.

The legal resident alien green card holders can stay. The Mexican-Americans obviously can stay. Is that radical, arrogant or racist? Fine, call me names. Scream and yell.

Let’s look at some other arguments:

Argentinians belong in Argentina. Haitians belong in Haiti. Russians belong in Russia. Chinese belong in China. Indians belong in India. The illegal ones, anyway. If they want to jump through the hoops and become resident aliens and from there citizens, all the power to them. It may take 15 years.

Presidente Jorge Boosh wants to give illegals one day to automagically turn into some kind of Z-card legal citizens. What a slap in the face to all the green card holders, legal immigrants and others who spent so much money, filled out so many forms, and waited so long to secure their dream.

Why would anyone do it the legal way ever again when they can just go illegal and do it on the easy and cheap?

Suppose we had 12 million Argentines, or Chileans, or Indonesians, or Costa Ricans, or Uruguayans, or Dominicans, or Albanians, or Egyptians, or Angolans, or Bangladeshis, or Nepalis, or Laotians, or New Guineans, all illegals, invading our shores? Would it make any difference? Regardless of their plights, they belong in their own countries.

If their reactionary, nightmare, third world rat holes suck, well, then, they need to make revolution there, hopefully peaceful revolution. In some cases, maybe with the gun. That’s the Leftist in me talking.

Name one Communist country that insanely opened its borders to anyone who wanted to invade in order to crush the working class of their own land. There never was one. Marxist rulers were not stupid. They defended their borders and their workers.

Why do their lunatic acolytes believe in the insanity of “open borders”, with its massive security risks and attendant ruination of the American working class?

“But people are so desperate in Mexico”…Wa wa wa. Yes! People are desperate, starving and living in horrible conditions the world over. Why single out Mexicans? If desperate Mexicans get a free get out of jail pass to invade America, why not open up our borders to the miserable of the entire Third World, many of whom are far worse off than the average Mexican?

“But the Mexicans have children!” Hell, everyone has children. All over the world, people have kids. No kidding! So everyone who has kids, and I guess is desperate too, gets to invade America and drive our wages into the gutter forever. Surveys show that about 1/2 to 1/3 of the population would come to the US if they had the chance. That is 2-3 billion human beings.

This is what the lunatic Left and cheap labor Right in the open borders Lobby wants. Can you imagine? After that 2 billion man march on America occurs, America will be Calcutta writ large. And we can sign the death warrant on our republic, too.

The vast majority of nations in the world do not allow visiting or residing Americans, or anyone else I guess, to work, as long as you are living in or visiting the country. Why? They are leaving those positions open for their own people. The Open Borders loons would say that virtually every country on Earth, then, is racist, for not letting foreigners work in the land.

Even if that is racist (let is play games for a moment) is that really such a bad thing? And if the vast majority of nations are viciously racist, does the word mean anything anymore?

Many nations make it quite hard to become a citizen. The Arab World is notorious for this. The Koreans and Japanese have decided that the future residents of their land should be overwhelmingly Koreans and Japanese. And they are not the only ones. This is very common the world over.

Where is the Open Borders crowd? Why are they not screaming at the Arabs, Koreans and Japanese for being horrible racists? How dare these nations exercise sovereignty over the question of citizenship in their lands!

After all, the only way to be nonracist is to open your borders to any army of invaders that wants to invade, to grant the invaders citizenship on demand when they arrogantly demand it, and to let them steal every job they can from your citizens. Now that we know hat it takes to be a “racist” and a “nonracist”, “racism” is starting to look like sanity, eh? (Being sarcastic here).

6 Comments

Filed under Hispanics, Illegal, Immigration, Left, Legal, Marxism, Mexicans, Open Borders, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Traitors

Is the Anti-Illegal Immigrant Movement Racist?

Repost from the old site.

It’s actually a trick question. Some of members of the anti-immigration movement are racists. Racists always join any movement critical of immigration. So what? This entire argument rests on a fallacious assumption. That the presence of one group in a movement means that all of the other members of the movement share the feelings of that one group.

It’s a well-known logical fallacy called guilt by association. It’s very important to become aware of all of the logical fallacies out there, because people are always using these BS arguments to try to convince you of this or that. Fact is, if you change your mind due to a logical fallacy, you are being fooled. If you do so knowingly, you are a fool. If you use logical fallacies in your arguments, you are either ignorant or a knowing liar.

“Guilt by association” is widely used and manages to convince hundreds of millions of fools of this or that every year the world over.

Yet, just because I associate with someone, or anyone, does not mean that I share any, all or some of their views.

Some of the kids in my apartment complex I associate with claim to be Hispanic gang members. A Black guy I know here wears a stocking over his head, gangster-style. One of the Chicano guys I was drinking with at the bar the other night looked like he just got out of prison and had a shirt on with an apparent gang logo.

I’m also friends with a guy who is a White Supremacist racist, with the usual Nazi sympathies. He pretty much refuses to speak with anyone who is not White, especially Blacks and Browns. I don’t agree with him, but I’m not going to dissociate with him.

I have friends who are rightwing Republicans and others who are leftwing Democrats and a few who are Communists.

To say that I agree with all of these people would be impossible, as they all hold contradictory views.

Militant Jews are some of the world’s leading experts in devious argumentation, including logical fallacy, lawyerese, sophistry, prevarication and basically the art of verbal BS. I guess that is why there are so many Jewish lawyers? I learned this while doing combat with them in the Mideast groups on Usenet. One of the Jews’ favorite tactics was guilt by association.

If one voiced any sympathy for any Palestinian or Arab group, some obscure terroristic or anti-Semitic incident done by that group was dredged up and you were immediately associated with it and accused of homicidal anti-Semitism. There were also fascist White Supremacists in those groups, and a lot of us were cordial with them. Why not? The Jews were smashing us right and left, so why make more enemies?

The Jews deviously used our cordiality with these bad guys as prima facie evidence that we agreed with Nazism, and therefore were Nazis. As usual, no amount of our protestations of innocence were accepted. I wonder whether these Jews believed their fallacies or if they were deliberately lying about us.

The tactics that these Jews used were, of course, not particular to Jews, but Jews do seem to do this better than anyone else. That’s not necessarily a slam. There is an art to verbal sparring, even the blatantly dishonest kind. After all, sleazy politics makes the world go round, the sleaziest pol wins the cake, and “attorney” is the name of a well-paid profession.

I have seen other groups use these same tactics. Logical fallacies are favorites of other nationalists, not just Jewish nationalists. Turkish nationalists are getting pretty good at aping their Jewish cohorts. Arab nationalists, who mostly hate Jews, act a lot like them in these regards.

After a while, you realize that all nationalists and ultranationalists are speaking the same language, even though most of them hate each others’ guts.

Logical fallacies are also commonly used by conservatives, especially the more hardline types, and I have seen them used by some Marxists. If we call ultranationalism and the Far Left and Right species of fanaticism, we can start to see sleazy argumentation and reliance on logical fallacy as simply markers of general fanaticism and emotional argumentation, and, frankly, the argument of the man who lacks one.

Which leads us to the anti-illegal immigration movement. The fact is, a large majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration, often ferociously so. Surveys show that 75-80% of Americans are against illegal immigration, and they seem more and more angry about it.

In other words, opposing illegal immigration is normal, reasonable American politics. It’s not fanatical or racist or anything like that, unless one wants to make the crazy claim that 80% of Americans are raving racists.

This gives the lie to the open borders crazies’ notion that the anti-illegal immigration movement represents only a small “anti-immigrant” minority. According to them, the rest of us are supposedly open borders nuts like them.

The issue is complicated by polling questions and the actual views of Americans. Polls show that up to 65% or so of Americans support some sort of “path to citizenship” for the 12-20 million illegals already here.

On the other hand, Americans in these same polls think it is important to lock down the border.

The open borders loons want a completely open border, not just in the South but apparently everywhere. In their insane plan, every single “immigrant”, or now, “migrant” (the words keep changing as they become stigmatized) who strolls across the border gets automatic US citizenship, apparently without any background checks or anything unpleasant like that.

Surely only a small minority of Americans favor such an insane program. The open borders liars conflate Americans’ cynicism about the possibility of deporting 20 million illegals (hence some sort of “legalize them” solution) with implied support for illegal immigrants and open borders, ignoring the nation’s fervent desire to lock down the Southern border as much as possible.

Sure the movement has racists in it, but any rational person knows that the vast majority of those opposing illegal immigration are not profoundly racist people, and if one is opposed to illegal immigration, one is keeping company with 75-80% of the population, including, surely, sadly, but inevitably, some nasty racists.

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Illegal, Immigration, Nationalism, Open Borders, Political Science, Racism, Reposts From The Old Site, Traitors