.

Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Yesterday’s Bourgeoisie

Friday, May 11th, 2012

Some people may mistake people who take an arrogant view towards non-whites and conspiratorial view towards Jews as part of the proletariat. After all, the upper class since at least 1960 has clearly not desired their company. These people are arrested for denying the holocaust, demonized by the media and claim to care about the people instead of making money.

In actuality, these people used to be bourgeoisie and they were replaced. These are the ideologies of Yesterday’s bourgeoisie!

Arguing that these people represent the true working class socialist proletariat is like arguing that the Monarchy of Britain represents this!

Class Conflict and Identity Politics

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

I reached a huge milestone in my understanding of the world when I realized that issues of identity politics are simply used to advance material goals. This applies as much to liberal Americans who trumpet “freedom and demoracy” and use it to invade countries as it does to National Socialists and Zionists who hide behind identity politics as well in a more explicit fashion. It applied to Christopher Columbus when he invaded countries for “Christianity” but really wanted Gold (nod to Howard Zinn) and it applied to Muhammad as well who clearly invented the the Koran based on millennial outdated myths (the Torah and Gospels) to gain influence over the people of Mecca and Medina.

Historically, why was Slavery supported? To advance Southern agrarian economics!

Why was Slavery opposed? To support Yankee imperialist industrial economics!

Why did Hitler obsess over Jews? To create a false racial theory (“aryan” and “semite” are linguistic terms) so that he could explain the economic depression, send the Germans to war (military industrial complex) and take over Polish land and then argue that the Jews were responsible for the war because they were “controlling” (lol) America and Britain (Poland’s allies) and crashed the economy to begin with.

Why did Britain and America oppose Germany? Aside from self-defense (Pearl Harbor bombing, the proximity of Britain to Germany), the Americans and British wanted to advance capitalist imperialism in a way which was more eloquent than German Nazism. Pragmatically, this is why Israel became propped after 1948! A zig-zag by an opposing capitalist power to support Imperialism by using Jews as the useful idiots instead of using them as the scapegoat!

Why has the ruling class in America rejected racialism? First of all, labor (non-whites gained economic strength), but secondly the Cold War because the ruling class realized that if it did not drop its racialism, then non-whites would revoke their alliance to the bourgeois class and Marxism would appeal instead. Besides, there are a host of ideologies available that include non-Whites which could attract them if America continued to support racialist policies. Just as antisemitism caused Jews to side (temporarily) with the Soviets against the Tzar, racialism could cause non-Whites to abandon American politics. It’s interesting that as soon as Jews had an opportunity to join the bourgeois class, many of them abandoned proletarian politics and switched to Zionist-American politics! As scumbag “Prak Stal” wrote, “use the latter then kick it away” (I don’t plagiarize he only invents that).

Why is there mass immigration, outsourcing of jobs? Again, economics!

People who believe that “moral principles” guide racial policy are idiots. Internet “white race spokespeople” who speak of the “rights” of races to survive and liberals who speak of the “rights” of minorities are mistaken. Under capitalism nobody has any rights, but simply privileges which are granted based on both present and outdated material conditions but hidden behind bullshit ideology. The cold truth is that I will be more honest. Socialism does not believe the “bourgeiouse” has any rights! When you realize the sham of human rights activism, you realize that society is latent with racial double standards because of capitalism primarily, rather than Catholicism or organized Judaism (any resemblance is coincidential). “Human rights” are simply tools used to rally segments of population behind propaganda. The Media does not care about the truth when it under-reports Black Crime (I like thugs) and Judicial system does not see Black or White, it sees Green (dollar bill). “All men are created equal” did not always mean Black men but still emotionally this stirred many American revolutionaries against the British Imperialists. “Human rights” are a propaganda tool, whether used by American colonial Whites (but not Blacks) or used by a biased Media that makes stupid narratives around crime cases to make it appear as if “white supremacists” are frequently attacking Blacks when data shows otherwise.

Another comment. Have you ever seen Abraham Foxman’s salary? Norman Finkelstein (the most skilled writer on the Zionist question) explains the money politics behind victim whoring very well!

The people who I fought with on forums are idiotic morons who are living in a false world in which identity politics are legitimate instead of covers for material politics. They believe “The Jews” and Nazis actually were/are sincere in their identity politics and not simply using them to exploit the stupid. Hell, even Jim Giles made fun of the “white money movement” (note that Hunter Wallace is no longer part of it).

Mixture Between Jews and Gentiles in Europe

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

All these studies are old news but I am going to post them to paint a picture, starting with this one.

In Southern Europe during the Roman Empire, there was HIGH mixture between Jews and Gentiles, both Caucasian. This was not a rare thing, mind you Zionists and Neo-Nazis who both try to allege that Jews are a pure race.

That’s when the Jewish communities in Italy, the Balkans, and North Africa originated, from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from people who converted to Judaism during Hellenic times. During that period Jews proselytized with an effectiveness that would put today’s Mormons to shame: at the height of the Roman Empire, as the Roman historian Josephus chronicled, mass conversions produced 6 million practicing Jews, or 10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire. The conversions brought in DNA that had not been part of the original gene pool in the land of Abraham.

—snip—

Of the non-Jewish Europeans, northern Italians were most genetically similar to the Jews, followed by the Sardinians and French. The Druze, Bedouins, and Palestinians were closest to the Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian Jews.”

The article as well indicates support for the idea of the Mediterranean race (link to Coon). Basically, the entire area around the Mediterranean sea is linked by physical traits and ancestry. Europeans of the North are depigmented Mediterraneans, but the Mediterranean race also existed in the Middle East and North Africa. So if we accept this theory (and the theory is correct, Coon was and is right), Jews were “white” before they ever mixed with Italians. Both Jews and Italians had Mediterranean pigmentation and Caucasian bone features.

That is evidence of “a shared genetic history of related Middle Eastern and non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestors who chose different religious and tribal affiliations.”

Then in Eastern Europe, Ashkenazi Jews continued to mix (this does not apply to Sephardic Jews, but Sephardic Jews did mix with Italians). Not as much, but they did continue to mix. See This link

Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples from the northern Mediterranean region and even less from Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite Y-DNA haplogroups include Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European but the Ashkenazic variant comes from somewhere in Asia, probably Central Asia).

Here is another interesting link : http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm

Holocaust vs Holodomor

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

The difference between Stalin’s Starving of Ukrainians and Hitler’s murdering of Jews are notable. If we accept the consensus of mainstream historians, Stalin starved another nation while Hitler murdered his own people who were assimilated. Stalin cut off resources, Hitler individually selected every Jew for extermination. Jews were not members of another nation but German citizens who were then stripped of their citizenship not based on loyalty but based on ancestry. Ukranians were part of another geographical area within USSR but still independent. A different mode of operation and a different motivation are present here! Richard Kuklinski and Jeffrey Dahmer both killed people, but obviously under different circumstances. The analogy can relate here.

While both claimed many lives, the scapegoating Jews was done with a misleading purpose to distract the German people from class struggle. Hitler convinced a bunch of idiots that getting rid of Jews would solve Germany’s problem, almost like a religion. Getting rid of Jews was some sort of baptism that got rid of Germany’s original sin.

Jews were systematically targeted, powerless and guilty of nothing.

On the other hand, Stalin’s starving of Ukrainians was simply a matter of two different Governments fighting. The recognized regime of USSR and the unrecognized Ukrainian capitalist regime.

Stalin felt that too many civilians were sympathizing with the counter-revolutionary movement, so he starved civilians until he got his way. I acknowledge that there are obvious ethical questions here, but the scenarios differ. Killing civilians to maintain order is not the same thing as purposely removing citizens from society just to kill them. According to mainstream history, many innocent Ukrainians died. I am not denying that this may be the case.

Stalin starved another nation, Hitler murdered his own people who were assimilated.

(Note that the author of this article is 100% eastern European and has both Russian Jewish and Ukrainian blood.)

Why Holocaust Denial is Reactionary

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

Failing to acknowledge the holocaust as a source of class conflict, even if the antagonisms became misdirected towards the land of Palestine, is categorically unmarxist. If one denies the holocaust, nine times out of ten the goal is to claim that Jews are “making it up.” Not only is a source of class struggle suppressed (Jews were powerless during the event, even if they had wealth five years earlier), but a scapegoat is created. Jews then become blamed for something (and probably included into a bigger package, blamed for everything) instead of history unmasked.

Likewise, like Fidel Castro, it is necessary for the greater working class to realize this if the working class wants to maximize its ability to debate the ruling class. If you deny the holocaust, or apologize for the nazis, you aid the Israelis because any reasonable listener will (reasonably) assume that you have a Jewish fetish and that your opposition to Israel has no merit. But if you acknowledge the holocaust and then oppose Israel in theoretical terms, realizing the justified emotions involved by the survivors and sons/daughters of survivors, you clear yourself of that baggage and get the chance to debate against Israel instead of against Jews.

For the record, I do not believe Ahmadinejad intended to really deny the holocaust. I believe he was calling attention to the issue of Israel and Palestine and simply asking questions. But reactionaries, particularly “neo-nazis,” frequently do deny the holocaust outright in a manner much different from Ahmadinejad. They are of no use to us and should be condemned. While I do not believe Ahmadinejad falls into this category, I do believe Castro was correct to bring this issue to Ahmadinejad’s attention (Castro “called him out.”)

First Free Media Productions Track

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

The Song Stages has been put together. I did not add the skit yet but just the song.

Free Media Productions has invented a new genre. It is subversive Political rap. I would not call it gangster rap (ice-t), I would not call it horrorcore (insane clown posse), I would not call it party rap (vanilla ice), I would not call it rap metal (limp bizkit) or rap rock (kid rock) or comedy rap (Eminem).

click here to download

Congress – Least Productive Year

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

Despite the lagging employment recovery of the recession, Congress has been less productive this year than any other according to Laura Litvan. It is “free market” politics. The internal contradictions that plague capitalism in no doubt find parallels in the Government which sets the legislation and power structure to maintain those contradictions.

Congress is ending what may be its least productive year on record after government shutdown threats, the collapse of debt-reduction talks and little action to fix the worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression.

Just 62 bills were signed into law through November this year, meaning that 2011 may fall short of the 88 laws enacted in 1995, the lowest number since the Congressional Record began keeping an annual tally in 1947. In 1995, as in this year, a new House Republican majority fought a Democratic president’s agenda.

This year’s partisan battles brought the U.S. to the brink of a government shutdown four times, caused a two-week furlough of Federal Aviation Administration workers and led Standard & Poor’s to lower the nation’s credit rating after it said lawmakers didn’t do enough to reduce the federal deficit.

“It’s been one of the worst Congresses in modern history,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat. “We have failed to meet our minimum standards of competency and endangered America’s credit rating. We have failed to pass key legislation on time. And there is very little hope for improved behavior.”

Voter approval ratings for Congress are at record lows. Republicans, ranked lower than Democrats, insist both parties are to blame.

“People have a right to be frustrated and disappointed, so next year may be a good year for challengers,” said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican leader.

Risks to Economy

The inaction by Congress poses risks to the economy, said Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research Inc. in New York. While the unemployment rate hovered around 9 percent most of the year, he said Congress did little to stimulate job growth. Lawmakers also were unwilling to make deep budget cuts or raise taxes to rein in the deficit.

“Usually gridlock is seen as a good thing from the stock market’s perspective, but clearly the out-of-control federal deficit needs to be addressed and there is no political will to do it,” Yardeni said.

S&P, in its ratings downgrade, said the government is becoming “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” Even so, the government’s borrowing costs fell to record lows as Treasuries rallied.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell from 2.56 percent on Aug. 5 to below 1.72 percent on Sept. 22. The yield on the 10-year note was 1.84 percent at 2:35 p.m. New York time today.

Voters Critical

The public is less sanguine. Seventy-six percent of registered voters in a Nov. 28-Dec. 1 Gallup Poll said most members of Congress don’t deserve to be re-elected, the highest percentage in the 19 years Gallup has asked that question.

A Dec. 7-11 Pew Research Center poll found 40 percent of adults blame Republican leaders for a “do-nothing” Congress, while 23 percent blame Democrats.

“It’s more likely that Republicans will be hit harder than Democrats,” said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

In a year dominated by budget clashes, Congress passed a few significant measures.

Congress approved free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The South Korea deal was the biggest since 1993’s North American Free-Trade Agreement.

Patent Overhaul

Congress overhauled the patent system, long sought by companies such as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) and Microsoft Corp (MSFT), and extended the USA Patriot Act until 2015, providing law enforcement continued power to track suspected terrorists.

Such output pales compared with 2010, when Congress approved a health-care overhaul, the biggest rewrite of Wall Street rules since the Great Depression, a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia and ended a ban against openly gay men and women serving in the military.

This year’s trade and patent bills, while important, are sideshows in the broader economic context, said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

“Those are not insignificant things, but none of them get to the meat of the economic crisis,” Baker said.

Most of President Barack Obama’s $447 billion job-creation agenda was opposed by Republicans and some Democrats who rejected his proposed new spending and tax increases on the wealthy to help pay for it.

Tax Credits

Congress approved tax credits for companies that hire unemployed veterans and canceled a requirement that federal, state and local governments begin withholding 3 percent of payments to contractors in 2013. This week, lawmakers are working to extend a payroll-tax cut for workers through 2012.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said a “fundamental divide” with Obama and a Democrat- controlled Senate stymied House Republicans, who sought to repeal the president’s health-care overhaul and create a Medicare voucher system.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio heralded a shift toward cutting the size of government after Republicans forced $38.5 billion in budget cuts this year and Congress agreed in August to reduce deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.

Social Security ‘Conversation’

“For the first time in my 21 years here there has been a serious conversation about dealing with the entitlement programs” such as Social Security and Medicare, Boehner said at a Dec. 14 breakfast sponsored by Politico.com, a political news web site. “We are talking about real change,” he said, adding that he wasn’t surprised the public has a low opinion of Congress.

Democratic leaders see it differently. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters today it was a “year of missed opportunities and made-up crises.”

The nation has “been engrossed in a year of manufactured crises, with multiple threats of a government shutdown and an increase of uncertainty for business and in our markets as a result of the debt ceiling being held hostage,” said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Independent analysts say that on the matter that dominated — deficit reduction — the results are murky.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the $38.5 billion in spending cuts in this year’s budget, agreed in April to avert a government shutdown, cuts the deficit by just $352 million this year, with most savings coming later. Some money cut from programs wouldn’t have been spent anyway, so it wouldn’t do as much to curb a $1.3 trillion deficit, the CBO said.

Automatic Spending Cuts

The debt-reduction measure adopted in August relies on automatic spending cuts for about half of its $2.4 trillion in savings over a decade. A congressional supercommittee’s inability to agree on at least $1.2 trillion in cuts kicks the debate over specifics into next year. To achieve the rest of the deficit reduction, lawmakers must stick with annual caps on spending for a decade.

Based on experience, Congress won’t stick with the deficit- reduction deal for more than a few years, said Stan Collender, managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington and a former House and Senate budget committee aide.

“Budget deals are always modified, seemingly in seconds after they’re enacted,” he said.

Reading Pennsylvania and Socialism

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Cited below, by the inclusion of relevant content in picture format, is a very old book about Pennsylvania history. What is very interesting is that much of the existing infrastructure in Pennsylvania today is a result of what was set up earlier. It was good to find that the Pennsylvania of Yesterday is very much recognizable when compared to the Pennsylvania of today.

Reading Pennsylvania was founded by English but inhabited by Germans between Lancaster, Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia. When reading the section on Reading (no pun intended) Pennsylvania, I learned that this Pennsylvania Dutch town actually had what was described in the book as a Socialist administration and a history of Union activity and strikes. I also learned that during the original American revolution, the population of Reading was quite revolutionary against the British imperialists. This is interesting, because the people of Reading rejected the mainstream economy and society for revolutionary change, just like the Amish outside of Lancaster City have. However, Reading moved away from capitalism in a Socialist direction, whereas Lancaster Amish purposely insulated their own community from finance capitalism and modernism in a separatist religious direction. Still, it is interesting to be aware of the historical ability of the region to arrange society instead of simply riding the course of history passively. No one can doubt Philadelphia’s own role in bringing about the original American revolution.

While Pennsylvania may have trampled over Southern Revolutionaries, Pennsylvanians have proven themselves capable of revolutionary thought and action. Yet in my opinion what existed in Reading Pa was not true socialism, but capitalism administrated by people with socialist ideologies. The system was still capitalist, but the people who ran the system were socialists. This would most likely be comparable to Mensheviks if any parallel could be drawn to Russia, but drawing a parallel is always an oversimplification of history. Considering the material conditions of America as a whole, Pennsylvania as a state and Reading as a city, that may have been the most ideal arrangement at the time.

By my colloquial knowledge of the region, I know that Reading has a history of being an important manufacturing city with outlets (and is now being outsourced). The included content below alludes to this. Perhaps something about the economy brings about class antagonisms and something about the culture caused people to fight for populist change on behalf of those antagonisms.

Included below is the material which I referenced.

Technocracy and Communism

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

Through my current understanding of theory, Technocracy is the only way to achieve Communism and a high standard of living at the same time. Pol Pot (brother number one) skipped the socialist phase and went straight to Communism. He did achieve Communism, but the standard of living was not very high.

The definition of Communism is “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Basically, the definition of Communism in layman’s terms is “anything you need will be provided for you.” Josef Stalin’s Command economy was not “Communism,” but building infrastructure quickly. This is a form of technocracy, but Communism would require a more advanced form of technocracy. In layman’s terms, in order to achieve “anything you need, you can have,” we would have to improve society by a quantum leap. We would need to see changes that were as radical as the personal computer, the car and the industrial revolution. Major improvements.

I now link you to an old thread on politicsforum in which I contributed. I argued that technocracy was distinct from Communism, but my position has been changed. In my opinion, the technological improvements that technocracy aims to discover would essentially produce Communism. If our technology was really that good, then wage slavery would be abolished. Industry would be superior and the technology to monitor it via the government (no “private” industry) would improve.

Marx did not argue that Communism directly arises out of class struggle the way that he argued Socialism does. Lenin argued that socialists need centralized professional revolutionaries, but that the class antagonisms are already there. Lenin argued that Communism could not be achieved under the current material conditions.

But I believe a socialist and technocratic regime would stand the best change at creating the material conditions necessary to achieve Communism. Class struggle must be aggravated first to achieve socialism, which is defined as “dictatorship of the working class.” Then the dictatorship can organize around technocratic lines. The search for new technology would become one of the most important duties of every citizen and of society as whole. Then once the material conditions exist to achieve “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” then something like Communism could be built. At that point, the standard of living would be so good that there would be virtually no threat of capitalist restoration. The perfect technocracy would eliminate scarcity altogether, and pave the way for something like Communism.

But, a regime could also just skip the socialist stage like pol pot and build a form of Communism that has a lower standard of living, then build up from there. Both methods eventually achieve Communism, but the Leninist method uses socialism to transition while the khmer rouge method simply starts out with a low quality of life and a system that is not fully functional. This may have been necessary in Cambodia, because Pol Pot faced many threats of invasion from Americans, Vietnamese and capitalist Cambodians. When he walked his people out to the countryside, he had to build from scratch. Socialism must follow capitalism, but Pol Pot did not have capitalism, so he could not have achieved socialism and instead went straight to Communism, with a low standard of living.

American History – A Race Realist Perspective

Sunday, August 14th, 2011

I believe in racial differences and refer to my scientific view of race as “race realism.” That means I study issues that are racial and ethnic the same way I would study anything else, avoid political correctness, do not feel guilty about my identity and do not believe “we are all the same.”

I also look down upon most other so-called racialists. I view them as a collection of people who want to be part of a country club, “drama whores” looking for attention, people with very limited knowledge, people who adopt the slogans of old ideologies without really understanding them and opportunists who exploit the situation. For each category, I could name examples that fit, but decline to do so here.

I often refer to them as “skinheads.” They are people who simply want to be a part of something and find a sense of community through posting on racist forums and perhaps attending “white nationalist” conferences. They are not approaching the issue from the same “piece the puzzle together” mentality that I am.

Both the race realists and the skinheads / white nationalists can see that early in American history, racialism was more acceptable while currently Whites jump out of their way to appear less racist than other Whites, even accusing each other of racism when there is none. Skinheads and race realists attribute a different cause to this change in attitude. Race realists if they truly are realists, like Marx understand the dialectical nature of history and the opportunistic nature of capitalism, politics and most capitalist politicians. Skinheads believe the founding fathers acted only out of principle, and that currently politicians only recently started to act opportunistically because Jews in the Media injected “bad ideology” into society. They do not understand that the media is not the cause of society, but an effect of society. People with a scientific socialist viewpoint do understand this.

Simply put, the founding fathers never really cared about race even though their legislation included it. It was the politics of convenience. Because European immigrants were culturally clashing and fighting with Indians and enslaving Negroes, it was convenient to appeal to white identity. Now that the mode of production has changed, the bourgeois class finds it convenient to condemn racialism. In both situations, the real motive is not belief but opportunism. Racialism helped maintain slavery which profited the people who had economic power, so it was maintained. Racialism now argues against immigration, which lowers the wages of workers, so it is opposed by the people with power who pay the workers. (Note that there are many reasons to argue against immigration other than race).

Skinheads cannot see that politicians are simply opportunists. They believe that the founding fathers somehow meant it more when they supported racialism than current American leaders do when they oppose it. The level of sincerity is the same. “The Jews” did not fake people out.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor