.

Archive for the ‘Globalism / Imperialism’ Category

Ideological Evolutionary Theory (vs. Ideological Creationism)

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

People who believe that Jewish influence dictates the direction of society through the media have a most peculiar view if they believe that human behavior is genetically determined. If they believe in an ethnically based ideological determinism that dictates that Jews are just “acting as Jews because they are Jews” and non-Jewish Europeans are simply “acting as gullible Gentile Whites,” then they raise a contradiction to their own presumption of genetically inherited ideology when they focus on the environment (cable tv, the internet, newspapers). If people’s ideologies are more or less determined by how much Jewish blood they have, then how can Jews be influencing non-Jews? Are Jews natural leaders and Gentiles natural followers? If such a theory actually were true, the only solution to this problem would be genetic engineering! If the strength of genetic determinism cannot be mitigated, then why start a movement to convince people to change their viewpoints? If you believe that people can change their viewpoints, then should you not renounce your genetic determinism? If people can change their ideology voluntarily, then much of what white nationalists say is hogwash! The White Nationalists raise this own contradiction by pushing “Jew-genetic” determinism on one hand but raising the importance of the media environment on the other.

Obviously to argue that Jews control the thinking of non-Jews is to argue for a blank slate hypothesis in which white gentiles are programmable but blacks are subhuman and Jews act as a group. Notice that most people who “name the Jew” are information technology style nerds like Mike Conner who probably write computer programs and view White Gentiles as programmable beings.

Mike Connors’s “Name the Jew” Computer Program:

// below is programming code
// lol
string x_Jew = “follow me. I am the jew.”;
class white.ideology = x_Jew;

My response.
// x_Jew = strong and white.ideology = weak!

It would seem difficult to reconcile a belief in genetic determinism with a belief that the environment (which Jews allegedly control) sets the pace of society. However, it is insufficient to act offended when people push these theories. To combat the inconsistent babbling of the “name the Jew” crowd, it helps to both point out these inconsistencies and promote theories (instead of simply crying foul). One problem that I have had is that I have not promoted a theory to explain “why” we are in the situation we are in. A person who does not like me may think I am simply raising objections because I want to “defend the Jews.” The Basarab theory of ideological evolution will challenge this viewpoint and show that I have good and valid objections!

Evolution vs Creationism
Marxists who focus on dialectical materialism and class struggle are like evolutionists. They believe society evolves piece by piece and that the persuasive powers of the media are limited by the characteristics of the audience (contingent prejudices, assumptions, material conditions, market forces). In contrast, “right wingers” who blame the Jews are like creationists. They believe our society was just created by ideas that somehow the “blank slate” white Gentile European can absorb. These supposed “genetic determinists” believe that any ideology can be environmentally PUSHED on a “white gentile” society!

My viewpoint takes into account material conditions and argues that humans view the dissemination of propaganda through their own ideological lenses. People set goals to achieve outcomes and consider the material conditions, so while I reject hardcore genetic determinism of ideology, I do not believe an audience is a “blank slate” for a speaker either. According to my view, the media cannot just say anything it wants to and automatically transform society. My theory questions this, because society must move from “point a” to “point b” before it gets to “point c.” While I believe ideas and goals matter, goals and ideals cannot be utopian but must be materially based (and we can view humans as a resource for this purpose). An extreme economic determinist position argues that people’s ideologies are determined exclusively by their material conditions. This position is more extreme than Karl Marx’s position. Even Marx referred to ideology as important, but saw ideology as being tailored around real life conditions (dialectical materialism). Marx’s position has influenced my thinking because I believe it to be correct. The theory of the wns is more this : Jewish people have specific genetically-programmed interests. The Jews acted to push anti-racist ideas and push America into wars for Israel. They seized control of the media and disseminated their propaganda to achieve their outcome. The only material condition that matters to WNists is the amount of Jewish blood in MsNBC and Fox News!

My Rebuttal : Even if Jews control the media, they must operate within market forces. Let us pretend that Jews had an objective that everyone else vehemently opposed. In this scenario, Jews would still have have to compromise their arguments in a way to make them practical and achievable by building a consensus. To deny this fact is to argue that the rest of the society went along with the plan and questioned nothing. In that case society is to blame! To accept this is to argue that Gentile underlings and Jewish “masters” compromised! In that case, Gentiles are still to blame! Whether Gentiles simply lied down and let Jews control society or actively negotiated the outcome, the blame cannot be solely laid on Jews.

Regarding the media and its support for Israel : The media is controlled by corporations who need cash and see Israel as an ally. The same media works in a multi-racial and multi-regional American society (do not forget that I am Eastern Pennsylvania 100%)! Society is driven by an imperfect desire to secure its business position in an evolving market situation. The media cannot just say anything it wants to and automatically transform society. In summary, my theory (the Basarab theory of ideological evolution) postulates that this is not possible because of the reasons listed in this essay.

Nobody can reasonably believe that Jews operate external to the material conditions of society. Society was not a perfectly working computer program that got hacked by a Jewish virus, but instead a process of evolution of which Jews are an internal part affected by the same material conditions. I am arguing that even if Jews promoted the ideas, the material conditions are what allowed for the ideas to prevail.

Skills Shortage Article – InformationWeek

Monday, March 12th, 2012

http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/interviews/232601751

This is a very good article by Rob Preston of InformationWeek that validates important points that I am in agreement with. Basically, if the IT industry outsources everything to India and only hires Americans who have high experience, then where are the future workers going to come from? What happens in thirty years when no-one has experience?

He hit on points that I have hit on for years in private.

A False Dilemma

Monday, January 9th, 2012

Modern day posters on the internet often believe that there is a choice between two choices: Being a “neo-con” and being a Judeo-obsessive.

I am a race realist. That means I believe that race should be approached with logic, not political tact (ass kissing) or emotion. However, most Judeo-obsessives are not merely race realists; they are reactionary racists. They insist on labeling Jews as a foreign entity and they argue that America is politically correct and defensive of Israel because Jews control America. They then use the Jewish question to distract people from the class question (here and here).

They say that one has a choice; accept their viewpoints or you are a neo-con!

A neo-con, in my opinion, is a supporter of US imperialism. One does not have to support US imperialism to disagree with the so-called “wn” view on Jews. I believe the Caucasian race is a legitimate category biologically. It includes Jews, non-Jewish Europeans and in fact includes many western Asians as well (Arabs, Iranians, etc.). As far as Jews being genetically programmed into degeneracy, I do not believe that either. I consider myself White and I don’t consider Jews alien (plus race is not everything, I have Black and Asians comrades). Yet I still oppose the imperialistic policies of the US and Israeli Governments. I have written on this matter before.

Truth be told, Abraham Foxman (the “example” of Jewish hypocrisy) plays identity politics just as aggressively as David Duke does. The crazy wnists and the crazy zionist-imperialists reinforce each other with their paranoid stupidity and victim whoring. The wn clowns say “the Jews” control the world. The ADL lobbies to prevent White people from gaining information that they are entitled to, such as crimes committed by non-Whites and so forth. Yet even though the ADL is run by a hypocritical leader, I would never argue that Abraham Foxman is responsible for the White race’s predicament. The real problem is capitalism.

I am neither a neo-con nor a neo-nazi. I guess the dilemma put forth by both sides is a false dilemma. I am such a counter-example to this dilemma.

edit : Most people with a scientific socialist analysis, like Marx, reason that religion is reactionary and that each religion has specific reactionary characteristics, but as much as the supporters of US-Israeli imperialism would like to say so, being against Judaism is not the same thing as reactionary style Third Reich antisemitism. People of Jewish ancestry are my brothers. Judaism is only as real as peoples imaginations that either believe in it or believe “the Jews” control the world.

The Book and the Cover

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Liberal capitalists push the idea of individualism and condemn the idea of dividing people in a way that inhibits globalization. If “sexism,” “racism,” “nationalism” or other “isms” are bad for business, they are condemned.

Yet even though Corporate culture trumpets the merits of individualism, in my experience, Corporations still judge books by covers.

It’s not your skills or potential, it’s your experience.
It’s not your loyalty, it’s your work history.
It’s not your interview, it’s the results returned from your background check.
It’s not a good background check, it’s a google search.
It’s not you, it’s your network and who you know.
It’s not what you know, it’s how you look on paper.

You get my drift? I am sure you do.

Corporate culture pushes the idea of not judging the book by a cover when it is convenient. However during other periods of history, the controllers of economic activity (not necessarily Corporations) have used other propaganda to perpetuate institutions such as slavery to the extent it fits the given mode of production. Yet corporations do judge people by things that are very unrelated to their qualifications for the job. They just don’t do it for the same reason as a “racist” or “sexist.”

In fact, corporations are willing to sometimes fill quotas by ethnicity simply for political / public relations reasons. That may not be racism against Blacks, but it is still racial.

Power Dynamics

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

I had an interesting conversation on facebook. Because I do not want individuals who engaged in this conversation to experience any harassment, I have cut out the last names and the full name of a person who is not a political activist of any sort. But I posted the conversation.

Power Dynamic Conversation

This conversation marks a significant realization. It explains why “we” are protesting the 1% as the 99%. It explains why employers like to blame their employees. It explains why Governments go to war but Soldiers die.

Read it and reflect on it.

The people who get screwed over are the ones UNDERNEATH those in power. That is why we must assert ourselves. Your mistake is our problem.

The other issue is that we have a system of Government that is not addressing this and rectifying it. It is maintaining the power dynamic(s).

A battle we can win

Sunday, October 9th, 2011

Let us describe the way that social media background checks would be governed if the Government worked the way it should on behalf of the populace. If the Government really wanted to allow rights to its individual citizens, instead of allowing corporations to penalize people for free speech because corporations directly fund the capitalist and imperialistic Government, then some of the rights of corporations would be smaller. In exchange for a true right to free speech, employers would have to lose some of their rights to make hiring decisions off of political ideology or off the job legal conduct. What the bourgeois class loses, the middle and proletariat classes gain.

Instead all we hear about is “free markets,” the “rights” of employers and “democracy.” But below is a reasonable moderate social media policy. While many goals that the working class are shooting for are a bit out of reach, I do believe we can reach this goal. We can make it illegal for employers to penalize employees and potential employees based on off the job conduct that is legal and not directly impacting on business operations. I do believe the fear of being out of work in a bad economy causes a large amount of people to stay silent who otherwise would correctly fight harder for change.

When discussing social media, blogs and employment background checks, one of the trite arguments made by apologists for the bourgeois class is “if you make it public, then we can judge you on it.” In legal issues, the standard proof of criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I believe a similar standard should be required of employers who assess employees not on their performance but on their lives outside of work. The standard must be that it must be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a Jury that the conduct is directly causally related to a legitimate and proven loss of business (loss of customers, loss of employees) for such behavior to be retaliated against.

For example, if John Doe posts about his hatred of midgets and you find it on his facebook, your business should not be able to retaliate against John Doe by firing, not promoting or treating him differently simply because YOU are offended. Instead, John Doe’s right to free speech should be prioritized over your “right” to retaliate against him. Sure, you have the right to disagree with John Doe and say “hey, that is offensive, I disagree” but that should be the end of it.

John Doe has the right to say he does not like midgets or the Government of Iowa. A business should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt by a Jury, that John Doe making his “tweet” about midgets is costing the company employees or customers. Correlation is not causation. Now it is true, he did “put it there” and it is “public,” but if it is not directly tied to a business issue, retaliation should not be an option. You being offended about John Doe’s tweet should be an insufficient cause for termination, lack of promotion or consideration of the behavior.

We must find a strategy to lobby for such change in legislation, so that the American people can be truly empowered to speak up for their own interests instead of for the interests of the small minority who profit the most from doing in the private sector what the Government does not do in the public sector. Let us face it, until we develop labor solidarity, we will never have any rights.

It is entirely legitimate to make jokes, to speak informally when addressing friends, to post a picture, to make political opinions, to listen to music others do not like, to write music, to have a life. Until the government sets an example by criminalizing the retaliation against free speech in the private sector by employers against employees and potential employees, there are no rights in the “land of the free” (the land of imperialistic warfare, cosmopolitan greed, rootlessness, racial self-hatred and politicized religion).

Karl Dix of the Revolutionary Communist Party

Monday, July 4th, 2011

A good spokesman for the most effective activist revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist party.


Members of all races should be Communists and “race realists” at the same time. He argues that the current order is not good for Blacks or for “the majority of the people.”

Competition and Socialism

Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity.
- Deng Xiaoping

People who are aware of the history of USSR and perhaps Maoist China may come under the impression that the definition of socialism is a command economy. The definition of socialism is actually the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and not specifically a command economy. The definition of Communism is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and this may imply some degree of commanding but nothing is explicitly defined as planning. Bailing out major banks as Obama did is a form of planning but it is not a form of socialism. The idea of socialism is that the working class truly “owns” the means of production and that no “human right” gives a particular business leader ultimate authority to use the means in a way that contravenes the interests of the working class or the country.

Those who consider themselves to be fans of Stalin may believe that Stalinist economics are a tenant of socialism. No, Stalinist economics are an adaption to the material conditions at the time. It is a fact that in Marx’s hierarchy, feudalism is considered less progressive than capitalism. Stalin applied a Marxist “pro-worker” leadership to feudal conditions. He had to take what was not industrialized and industrialize it. This does not change the fact that capitalism is more progressive than feudalism. Being a Marxist is not solely being against capitalism.

Socialism implemented in a capitalist country would contain characteristics of capitalism. Socialism created in a feudal economy would have to develop those forces. The key is that under socialism the market is not seen as sovereign but controlled. The Chinese economy works such that market forces exist, but communist party members also manage corporations. It is pragmatic in that the profit motive is allowable except when it violates the interests of workers, in which case the Government steps in.

When competition provides something that is good for society, it can be utilized. In fact sometimes capitalists do away with competition through monopolization. The essential difference between socialism and capitalism is “who is in charge.” Are the business leaders in charge or is the revolutionary party in charge? The difference is not that one plans and the other competes. A business leader can succeed, but a revolutionary party leader will determine how this success should be used to benefit the working class and country.

U.S. debt to exceed size of economy (Chicago Tribune)

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

The link
The country which wants to spread “freedom and capitalism” cannot manage its own finances!

A recent Treasury report noted that national debt will exceed the size of the economy this year — a first since World War II. A year ago, the Treasury had estimated that notorious record wouldn’t be hit until 2014.

Now the expectation is that total debt to GDP will top 102 percet this year, up from the earlier estimate of 96.4 percent.

Why the change?

Two factors are likely the biggest cause.

First, the White House’s 2011 GDP estimate is $219 billion lower today than it was a year ago. So debt as percentage of a lower number will always look higher.

Second, the debt grew larger because of a tax cut deal brokered by President Obama and Republicans last December. That deal will add an estimated $858 billion to the deficits over a decade — $410 billion of it in 2011 alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The tax cut package extended all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for another two years, enacted a one-year Social Security tax holiday and reduced the estate tax.

Democrats and Republicans disagree on a lot, but both sides have indicated a desire to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent for at least the majority of Americans — a costly proposition.

And the GOP publicly says it will not consider tax increases as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling.

Republican Dave Camp, the lead tax writer in the House, said Monday that the latest Treasury numbers are a clear indication “why any increase in the debt limit must be paired with significant spending reductions and real entitlement reforms.“

But while Republicans criticize Obama for spending too much, in fact tax cuts would drive most of the debt under Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, according to CBO.

That’s why deficit hawks on the left and the right advocate letting the tax cuts expire or paying for any further extension. Better yet, replace them with something superior, said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who noted that this month marks the 10-year anniversary of the 2001 cuts.

“Given that our current tax code is so crummy and our fiscal situation so dire, on this 10-year anniversary, a perfect gift would be a plan to reform the tax code and bring down our debt,“ MacGuineas said.

At this point, the debt is so big, whether it is just below or just above GDP isn’t really a huge distinction.

After examining data from dozens of countries over two centuries, economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart found that when a nation’s gross debt reaches 90 percent of its economy, it often loses about one percentage point of growth a year.

States, Nations and Classes

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

A state has a class nature. A state is tied to a mode of production. When Communist revolutions occur, most often the state is replaced with a new state. This difference between a proletarian and bourgeois state was discussed in the previous article.

A nation however does not have a class nature. Stalin actually defined a nation very well. Stalin also pointed out that nations became relevant during the demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism. Stalin, however, seemed to be struck by the impression that nations came into existence because of the mode of production, whereas I argue that nations always existed and just happened to realize it. Yes, nations were marked out with the demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism, but this was just a matter of consciousness. The logical partitions of humanity already exited and then these logical partitions just became aware of themselves. Of course perfection does not exist, but this is the general rule.

Capitalism has many problems, but one good thing that happened as a result of capitalism was that nations were realized that were relatively logical in their arrangements. This is the difference between the development towards larger communities, which turned feudal societies into nations in the past and the globalization that is occurring today. The threat of high technology did not exist to push globalization to the point of assembling humanity in a way that it should not be assembled.

In crude terms, a Japanese nation makes sense. Canada-Mexico-US as a nation does not make sense. How thankful we should be that high technology did not exist at this crucial point of history, as to pervert and distort the coming to fruition of national identities! But now this high technology exists and now capitalist seek to assemble humanity in an illogical way.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor