The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Carl Horowitz Archive
The Corporation and Radicalism–A Bad Partnership
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
GoolagImage

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

(The following is based on a speech presented by Carl Horowitz at the most recent annual meeting of the H.L. Mencken Club, Baltimore, Maryland, November 3-4, 2017. It was orginally posted at NLPC.org )

Why are corporations, especially those that provide information technology, promoting radical politics? It’s a question one increasingly hears these days. And it’s a necessary question. For it is a fact: The corporation as an institution, partly out of self-interest and partly out of conviction, is allying itself with the hard Left. And the consequences could be devastating for our nation.

Now when I speak of “radicalism,” I’m not referring to the tradition of businessmen using the State to achieve and maintain market advantage. Monopoly in this country is a more than a century-old tradition, and it is anything but radical. Nor am I referring to the more recent tradition of corporations paying radical accusers a “diversity tax” in hopes of shooing them away. That’s capitulation, not commitment. No, what I’m referring to is the arms-length alliance between corporations and far-Left activists to subvert deeply ingrained human loyalties, especially those related to national identity. Most corporate executives today see America’s future as post-national, not national.

The two factions differ by motive. Businessmen act out of material self-interest. They want to hire people from abroad at much lower wages and benefits than most people here would accept. And they want to sell in untapped markets. Radicals, by contrast, act out of emotional self-interest. They crave total multiculturalism in one nation.

Where these camps converge is the belief that national identity is outdated and must be replaced by an elaborate system of global coordination. A nation ought to have no right to define itself in terms of race, language or collective memory. In the world of information technology, in fact, business and radicalism now mean almost the same thing. America, in this view, has an obligation to accommodate the crush of people from abroad wanting in. We cannot discriminate. We shouldn’t even ask about their motives. America is a global sanctuary, a coast-to-coast UN General Assembly.

Mass immigration is a global way of saying “diversity.” And that refers not to a diversity of opinion, but to a diversity of demography holding identical opinions. Some have likened this to a cultural equivalent of Marxism, hence the common term “cultural Marxism.” Whatever one’s preferred term, it is now the coin of the realm in the world of big business. Examples:

PepsiCo. Ex-CEO Steven Reinemund remarked about a decade ago: “It’s easier to recruit diverse talent than it is to create an inclusive culture. The challenge comes with creating an environment in which every associate – regardless of ethnicity, gender orientation, gender or physical ability – feels valued and wants to be part of our growth.” His successor, Indra Nooyi (right) feels the same way.

Comcast. Several years ago, the company greeted attendees at the annual convention of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network this way: “We live and breathe innovation every day. By embracing diversity of thought, philosophy and experience, we have become the nation’s leading provider of entertainment, information and communication products and services. By embracing diversity of communities, we have become an employer and a provider of choice. Our diversity is our strength…Comcast proudly supports the National Action Network.”

eBay. The company website declares: “Diversity and inclusion at eBay goes well beyond a moral necessity – it’s the foundation of our business model and absolutely critical to our ability to thrive in an increasingly competitive global landscape.”

I could extract similar statements from literally thousands of companies. In today’s environment, a corporate executive cannot keep his job unless he advances and enforces this party line.

One corporation, the worldwide online lodging service, Airbnb, is going that extra mile. Back in late January, one day after President Trump issued an executive order barring entry into the U.S. from seven terrorist-occupied or terrorist-sponsoring nations for up to 90 days pending executive review (i.e., the “Muslim ban”), Airbnb co-founder and CEO Brian Chesky, current net worth roughly $4 billion, announced that his company would provide free shelter to anyone adversely affected by the order. Apparently, Chesky wasn’t adversely affected by Title 8, Section 1324 of the U.S. Code, which states that facilitating illegal immigration is punishable by up to five years in prison.

Airbnb’s resistance to “intolerance” isn’t limited to presidential executive orders. Only days after his announcement, the company on short notice produced and aired a 30-second Super Bowl TV spot depicting a diverse group of people with the accompanying text: “We believe no matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love or who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept.”

The company also has committed itself to donating $4 million over four years to the International Rescue Committee, a New York City-based refugee relief fund headed by prominent British Labour politician David Miliband.

The goal here is monopoly. But it is more than simply a monopoly over a particular market. It is a monopoly over public opinion. And right now, the opinion that matters most is that President Donald Trump, and the people who support him, don’t fit into America’s future.

Consider these recent developments:

Discover Financial Services and its competitor Visa each have ended its merchant agreements with selected “hate organizations,” based on lists provided by “concerned organizations.”

Campbell Soup CEO Denise Morrison denounced President Trump’s statement criticizing the Right and Left for the recent violence in Charlottesville on grounds that only the Right had done wrong. She said: “Racism and murder are unequivocally reprehensible and are not morally equivalent to anything else that happened in Charlottesville.”

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, following President Trump’s “Muslim ban,” issued this companywide memo: “(W)e will neither stand by, nor stand silent, as the uncertainty around the new administration’s actions grow with each passing day. There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business.”

Facebook chairman-CEO Mark Zuckerberg, a vocal supporter of the sanctuary movement, unveiled a manifesto outlining plans to retool his company as a global issues advocate. He asked: “Are we building the world we want?”

So how did we get here? Why are some of our fastest-growing, largest and best-managed enterprises leading campaigns to dissolve America’s historical identity – and often the personal reputations of those who affirm it? Aren’t they acting against their own interests? Well…no.

It is here where we come to a rather pernicious idea commonly known as cultural Marxism.

The truth is I’ve never liked the term “cultural Marxism.” Karl Marx himself wrote very little about culture beyond his pre-Communist Manifesto, “Young Hegelian” phase. To the extent culture mattered, it was subordinate to class struggle. I thus use “cultural Marxism” out of convenience, not conviction.

Marxism is based on a core assumption: the irreconcilability of labor and capital. Everything flows from that.

As Marx saw it, the central fact of modern history is the evolution of two rival social classes: those who sell labor (workers, or the “proletariat”) and those who buy labor (industrial capitalists, or the “bourgeoisie”). Large landowners, as remnants of feudalism, are not a major factor. The capitalist-worker relationship, by nature, is exploitative. Capitalists, in their pursuit of profit, pays them poverty-level wages. As a consequence, workers become alienated from work, family and society.

At first, workers can’t explain their situation. But with proper proselytizing, everything comes into focus. The proletariat acquires a class consciousness and becomes rebellious. Capitalists, with the State supplying the muscle, respond with repression. The conflict replicates itself worldwide and becomes more volatile over time. This is capitalism in its “late” stage. Eventually, capitalism collapses under the weight of its contradictions and revolution arrives. The outcome is historically preordained: Labor wins, capital loses. Private property is overthrown and a better world is born.

Well, we all know how that worked out. Even regimes that are formally Communist, such as the People’s Republic of China, know better than to abolish private property.

In modern societies, Marxists have gone off the original script in three ways:

First, Marxists accept law and policy as a means of revolution. They are more than willing to pursue “bourgeois parliamentary reforms” of the sort Marx disdained. Marxists are willing to build socialism in such areas of material well-being as pensions, health care and housing.

Second, they recognize that capitalists can evolve into natural allies and not simply allies of convenience in which they donate the rope from which they later will hang. In time, capitalists may absorb the lessons of their critics to the point where capitalism evolves into socialism.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Marxists have shifted their primary focus from class to race and sex. Mind you, they haven’t given up on class struggle. But their most passionate identifications are with “people of color,” women and various gender-bender sexual minorities. These are the new proletariat. Especially helpful are hybrid categories such as “women of color” and “Latino workers.”

The importance of race cannot be underestimated. Beginning in the 1960s, white people, here and in Europe, began to reject their identity. This was especially significant because the main source of dissemination of this view, higher education, experienced dramatic increases in enrollment. The idea that whites owe a gargantuan debt to “people of color” became absorbed into our frame of reference. So did the idea that in their primal and violent behavior, nonwhites are more “authentic” than whites. This view got its unofficial launch – at least among whites – in 1957 with the publication of Norman Mailer’s essay, “The White Negro.”

While the influence of the Frankfurt School of Marxism can’t be ignored here, I find it vastly overstated. The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. Urtexts include Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time, Malcolm X’s Autobiography and Richard Hamilton & Stokely Carmichael’s Black Power. Over the next several years, as the Black Panthers turned up the heat, Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, Bobby Seale’s Seize the Time and Huey Newton’s Revolutionary Suicide became must-reads. Recent additions to the canon have been Derrick Bell’s Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, and Cornel West’ s Race Matters.

The newest and most potent symbol of this rebuke of all things white is Ta-Nehisi Coates, winner in 2015 of a five-year, $625,000 MacArthur Foundation “genius grant.” His father, William Paul Coates, by the way, is a former Black Panther who founded a Baltimore-based publishing house called Black Classic Press. Truly, Ta-Nehisi was “to the manor born.”

The rise of such authors could not have happened without the support of pliant and guilt-ridden benefactors. The best explanation for this prostration remains Pascal Bruckner’ s now-classic 1983 book, The Tears of the White Man: Compassion as Contempt. Observing his fellow Frenchmen, the author concluded that white swooning over the Third World, at bottom, is groveling, reflexive self-abasement.

This racial masochism today is not just a trend; it’s a virtual default setting. More than ever, the violence, poverty and illiteracy endemic to Third World cultures, especially that of blacks in America, cannot be criticized. And since class struggle and racial struggle are of a piece, eliminating inequality across nations requires linking capitalism and whiteness in the minds of audiences.

Liberal guilt, in fact, may be the key to understanding why the “color-blind” Civil Rights Act of 1964 morphed into racial quotas within several years despite assurances from its backers that it wouldn’t. The year 1964 also saw the first of several “long hot summers” that rocked our cities. Lawmakers, policymakers, academics, journalists and civil rights leaders desperately searched for ways to head off more rioting.

Eventually, corporations joined this coalition. It proved to be a smart proposition for themselves – and a bad one for the country.

Understand this about corporations. They are neither inherently Leftist nor inherently Rightist. They are inherently profit-seeking. They will undertake a strategy or project only if they see profit in it. Accordingly, they will avoid a strategy or project if they anticipate losing money from it. Starting in earnest during the Seventies, and accelerating since, companies have redefined their mission to “have it both ways”: mollify their inquisitors and please their shareholders. CEOs and other corporate officials see racially-based redistribution of wealth and power not just as sound philanthropy, but as sound business strategy.

In this mission, profit depends on two related principles: 1) Corporate Social Responsibility; and 2) globalism.

Corporate Social Responsibility. This is the principle that a corporation is answerable not just to people connected to the company, but to the broader society – i.e., stakeholders – seemingly affected by company decisions.

In this view, companies must address stakeholder concerns. Business isn’t just about delivering value to employees, shareholders and customers. It’s also about promoting the general welfare. Corporations should partner with sovereign governments, supranational governments (e.g., the European Union, the United Nations) and nongovernmental organizations.

Globalism. In this view, nation-states are irrelevant to multinational corporations. To maximize competitiveness, we must recognize the connectedness of people the world over, and abandon protectionism and other obstacles to market efficiency.

This principle flowered in the Nineties, aided by several influential books. The Twilight of Sovereignty was one such book. The author, Walter Wriston, chairman emeritus of Citibank, called for transforming corporations into semi-autonomous global entities. The old managerial class, he argued, is a dinosaur and should give way to a “global conversation.”

Likewise, Kenichi Ohmae, a senior partner with McKinsey & Co., argued in The Borderless World and The End of the Nation State that nation-states, unable to control events, are on their way out. As economies are global, governance must reflect that. Nations should cede most of their sovereignty to pro-market supranational entities. Ohmae argued in The Borderless World that the main goal of the U.S./Europe/Japan sovereign triad should be “ensuring the free flow of information, money, goods, and services as well as the free migration of people and corporations. Traditional governments will have to establish a new single framework of global governance.”

On the surface, this has nothing to do with Marxism. Yet indirectly, it has facilitated its advance. Since nations no longer matter, it follows that borders no longer matter either. And as unrestricted cross-national movement of labor is crucial for industry competitiveness, support for the free market goes hand in hand with elimination of immigration restrictions, most of all as they relate to people from Third World countries, where the cost of labor is cheapest.

Related to this, corporations see great value in working with nonprofit groups to root out anti-immigrant “hate.” And they’re getting out their checkbooks. This past summer, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, a company with a market cap of $800 billion, informed employees that Apple would be donating $1 million to the Southern Poverty Law Center and providing a 2-to-1 match for all employee contributions. And JPMorgan Chase announced plans to donate $500,000 to the SPLC to promote its “tracking, exposing and fighting hate groups and other extremist organizations.”

Corporations also are forming anti-Trump coalitions.

  • Example: This February, after Seattle federal judge,had invalidated President Trump’s “Muslim ban,” top officials from Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, Reddit, Twitter, Uber and dozens of other information technology firms submitted an amicus brief to an appeals court in support of the lower court ruling. Even before that ruling, our friend Tim Cook had stated: “Apple would not exist without immigrants let alone thrive and innovate the way we do.”
  • Example: At the start of this September, executives of nearly 400 companies – including Amazon, Apple, Crate & Barrel, Facebook, General Motors, Marriott, Microsoft and Starbucks – announced their signed opposition to President Trump overturning President Obama’s 2012 order creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The petition, circulated by FWD.us, a lobbying group co-founded by Mark Zuckerberg, claimed our economy would severely suffer if DACA’s roughly 800,000 beneficiaries returned home. “These young people represent the future of our country and our economy,” Zuckerberg wrote.

The outsized role of Google in the Obama administration should dispel any illusions about corporate radicalism being “libertarian.” Consider that Google lobbyists visited the White House on at least 427 occasions. Consider as well that more than 250 persons either left Google for a position with the federal government or vice versa and that 53 of those transitions were White House-related. In addition, Google used the White House Office of Science and Technology as though it were a company back office, and in ways that skirted federal employee ethics rules. The Google-Obama pipeline also helped ward off a possible Federal Trade Commission antitrust suit.

Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google’s holding company, Alphabet Inc., travels in lofty political circles. On election night last year , he was at Hillary Clinton headquarters wearing a “Staff” badge. Schmidt, whose Forbes magazine-listed net worth now exceeds $13 billion, initiated a policy allowing Google to combine user browsing data from third-party websites with individual Google search and email data. Hacked emails by top Clinton campaign adviser John Podesta virtually confirm Schmidt’s motivations. One email from Schmidt to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills read: “Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them.”

All this sounds like spying on behalf of the government. That movie of several months ago, The Circle, may be more prophetic than many realize.

For the record, Schmidt has donated roughly $2 million to four organizations opposed to President Trump’s immigration policies.

Difficult as it is to resist the temptation, it’s important not to panic or get cynical – at least for now. In all fairness, business still does many terrific things that we take for granted, certainly a lot more often than socialism. And not every businessman has joined the multicultural ride.

That said, capitalism may be planting the seeds of its demise. This is not a new observation among partisans. Seventy-five years ago, Austrian-born Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote a book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, in which he argued that capitalism is unsustainable. Unlike Marx, he did not welcome this. But he feared it would come to pass. In brief, Schumpeter argued that the monopoly-seeking tendencies inherent in capitalism would alienate the general population. But rather than resort to revolution, voters would elect anti-capitalists to office who in turn would transform their economies into social democracies.

Now the ability of a society to resolve its problems through the market shouldn’t be underestimated. That said, corporations have altered their mission in ways that are exacting a heavy price. Corporate officials should focus on what they do best – create profits and raise living standards – and stop being paymasters and pitchmen for global salvation.

So how do we encourage corporations to move back to their basic role? One approach is to buy voting shares of stock and introduce proxy resolutions at annual shareholder meetings. Most resolutions do not pass, something I know all too well from experience. But over the long run, they can initiate change. Talking about a taboo subject in front of a couple thousand shareholders really can get a debate going.

Another approach is to sue companies that inhibit free speech. Example: The alternative social media network, Gab, this September filed an antitrust suit against Google for banning Gab from the Google Store. Gab, you see, openly promotes free speech. And Google sees that as promoting violence and hate. Google had allowed Gab in its app stores until August, days after Google fired an engineer, James Damore, who had circulated a memo criticizing the company’s “diversity” programs. Apple already had banned Gab in 2016. Gab needs to win this one.

I am far less enthusiastic, however, about organized boycotts. Generally, they don’t succeed. And more to the point, they shouldn’t. They thrive on factual misrepresentation, panic-peddling, character assassination and guilt by association. “The Left does it too” is not an argument.

Meanwhile, resentment against capitalism is surging once again. Anti-business authors such as Naomi Klein, Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman and Alfie Kohn are virtual superstars. And anti-business politicians such as Bernie Sanders (U.S.), Jeremy Corbyn (U.K.) and Jean-Luc Melanchon (France) are enjoying large and growing audiences.

Young adults, here and elsewhere, are the prime audience. Consider the following survey data: 1) a Harvard poll last year revealed that millennial adults supported capitalism over socialism by a mere 42 percent to 33 percent; 2) a 2015 Gallup poll indicated that 70 percent of millennials would consider voting for a socialist presidential candidate; and 3) a survey released in October 2016 by the Victims of Communism Memorial found that only 55 percent of millennial respondents (born 1982-2002) believed that Communism is, or ever was, a problem (80 percent of the baby boomers and 91 percent of the elderly felt this way).

Ironic, isn’t it? Corporations are going all out to impress or join the Left, and this is the thanks they get.

I now briefly will sum up.

Corporations are not parties, philanthropies or think tanks. Yet by taking on such roles, they are working against their own interests and those of their nations. Even more frightening is the looming prospect of corporations drawing closer with “deep state” operatives, street radicals and organized gangsters to form a global ruling coalition. It sounds like dystopian fiction. And it could become dystopian fact.

Frankly, we should be worrying less about the end of the corporation than about the end of our nation.

Carl F. Horowitz [Email him] is project director for National Legal and Policy Center, a Falls Church, Va.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in American public life. He has a Ph.D. in urban planning and public policy, and has taught in the urban and regional planning program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 42 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. AMERICA FIRST THANKSGIVING CALL IN SPECIAL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-corporation-and-radicalism-a-bad-partnership/#comment-2090043
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. AirBnB, like Uber et al, is a company that built its fortunes by operating outside the laws that constrained its more conventional competition… why should we be surprised that immigration law doesn’t matter one whit to them?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. utu says:

    Mind you, they haven’t given up on class struggle.

    Really? Have you seen any class struggle recently that would be detrimental to the top class? Marxists are the tools of neoliberal capitalist world order. They are perfectly happy with the system as long as it gives them a chance to join the top class.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Marxists are the tools of neoliberal capitalist world order. They are perfectly happy with the system as long as it gives them a chance to join the top class."
     
    This matches the actual behaviour of communist elites when they are in power. The career Marxists simply use 'leftist' politics with the usual combination of fake ideology and greed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Heros says:

    “While the influence of the Frankfurt School of Marxism can’t be ignored here, I find it vastly overstated. The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. “

    Reading Horowitz is like reading gatestone institute articles. They can be very convincing, but the always miss the target because Jews are seeped in willful blindness. It starts with the dual passports and allegiances. How in any sane world should dual citizen neocons be allowed to steer foreign policy? But then it continues with the never ending kvetching about “anti-semitism” which is used to stifle any discussion that becomes uncomfortable for them, like how the October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat and a succeeding genocide of millions of Christians. Why should the US be forced to pay $3b on Oct. 1 of every fiscal year to Israel? What about the murder of the Czar by a gang of Ashkenazi? Or the Liberty or the King David Hotel? What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide? What about their bullying and extortion of governments and individuals to prevent BDS?

    I could go on and on, but the point I am making is that Jews know this, but outwardly they are ignorant, at least when writing for the benefit of stupid goyim. Among themselves the truth is often alluded to in public, and that is why reading the Jewish press is so important. Eventually they will try to prevent goyim from accessing it, probably by claiming its all a lie just as with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    This jewish facade of plausible deniability has to be maintained at all costs, and this is why we always hear how jews are so persecuted, why every city is forced to have a holocaust museum and why every few years another holocaust or nazi-genocide movie comes out. It is all about jews maintaining this Potemkin lie and pretending its true.

    Which brings me to one of their biggest lies: That Jews are semitic, that they are white and that they are not white, all simultaneously. If every component of US culture was forced to track the number jews receiving benefit alongside the number of “whites” and other races, then the country would really learn what true racism and patriarchy is. That is why this is just another part of the massive jew lie that they all pretend not to see.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @biz

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?
     
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing "genocide?" This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat
     
    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait...

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Ay, PF, awesome, rad! I like it, here in the wee hours, for some reason I couldn’t sleep, but you know, I’m a old f*rt and I don’t do skype, just like I don’t FB, but maybe tomorrow I’ll see a granddaughter or two, and they do all that stuff. Don’t worry about a slow start, opening nights can be like that and then Boom!

    Well done! Strong!

    – grandpa

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Malla says:

    I have always considered Capitalism and Communism as false oppositions to each other. People in power use whichever of the two is useful for a particular situation, place and time to attain certain long term aims. The future of the world is moving towards Corporate Communism where the worst of capitalism and communism are blended to rule over and exploit the masses. This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it’s earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population. The same with China recently. Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together. This also explains why big corporations still hire their workforce from Western Universities which are hot beds of leftist propaganda. On one level, it never makes any sense. But when you see the bigger picture, it makes sense.
    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.

    Cultural Marxism (probably) emerged much later then economic Marxism of Karl Marx. It was a solution to a pressing problem of why Western populations were resistant to Communism. The problem was narrowed down to traditional Western civilization, the White race and to some extent traditional Christianity. Cultural Marxism is a ‘slow boil the frog’ method unlike the shock method unleashed on Russia and China. It also uses the tactic of communists and communism infusing in every part of a country’s institutions like blood capillaries around muscles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @renfro

    '' Corporate Communism where the worst of capitalism and communism are blended to rule over and exploit the masses.''
     
    Exactly.
    , @jacques sheete

    People in power use whichever of the two is useful for a particular situation, place and time to attain certain long term aims.
     
    You nailed it. They use whatever works for them at the time and they are not beyond flip flopping repeatedly. Opportunistic parasites, all of them.

    Anyone who thinks differently is entirely deluded.
    , @jacques sheete
    I'm glad you're commenting.

    This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it’s earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population.
     
    It also explains why the Nazis were demonized and crushed. The Nazis were not only anti-Red, but figured out ways to circumvent the international bankers and instituted a relative worker's paradise. That had to have been a huge threat to the ruling classes of Britain and the USA.

    Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together.
     
    True. Each supports and benefits from the other.

    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.
     
    Bingo. It goes for all the "threats" they identify for us. It also explains why the "threats" never go away, and why they keep adding new ones.The ruling classes are the biggest threats to the rest of us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. m___ says:

    A “Chomsky” amass of evidencies, a drunk display of conclusions. This is what should be called the bend of intellectuals, what an agenda, it hangs out on all sides. Sully, irrelevant, cheatacious in it’s intend. And yet, “let’s fall for it”?

    Read More
    • Agree: LauraMR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. I now briefly will sum up.

    Would that that have occurred about 3000 words prior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. wayfarer says:

    “The mind of one free thinker can possess a million ideas. A million fanatics can have their minds, possessed by a single idea .” – unknown

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Excellent post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Malla says:
    @wayfarer
    “The mind of one free thinker can possess a million ideas. A million fanatics can have their minds, possessed by a single idea .” – unknown

    https://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/blog/302776/AloneOnRock.jpg

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/07/03/nyregion/03data_600.jpg

    Excellent post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. fnn says:

    While the influence of the Frankfurt School of Marxism can’t be ignored here, I find it vastly overstated. The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. Urtexts include Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, James Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time, Malcolm X’s Autobiography and Richard Hamilton & Stokely Carmichael’s Black Power. Over the next several years, as the Black Panthers turned up the heat, Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, Bobby Seale’s Seize the Time and Huey Newton’s Revolutionary Suicide became must-reads. Recent additions to the canon have been Derrick Bell’s Faces at the Bottom of the Well, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, and Cornel West’ s Race Matters.,

    Arguably, none of the above books by black authors would have become influential had it not been for the intellectual framework created in the postwar period by the Frankfurt School “study,”The Authoritarian Personality:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007815.html

    Paul Gottfried writes:
    You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the postwar reconstruction of German “civic culture’ and the work was deeply admired by SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly.

    Christopher Lash’s True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the mainstream liberal support for The Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s. Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno’s ideas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. America, that shining city upon a hill (Matthew 5:14), has forsaken its own blood and soil (Luke 14.26, Matthew 19:27-30), and fully implemented the International Jew’s globalist vision (Matthew 28:19) of Communist Freaqualism (Acts 4:32, Galatians 3:28), including acceptance of rapefugees (Matthew 25:35-36), placing blacks in leadership (Acts 13:1), condemning normal male behavior (Mark 9:47), and promoting male castration (Matthew 19.11-12) in favor of a androgynous utopia (Matthew 22:30).

    John Gray once noted that liberal humanist values are a “hollowed-out version of a theistic myth,” but as I’ve shown from the Christian Holy Book , they’re actually Judeo-Christianity on sterioids.

    “The liberal belief in the free and sacred nature of each individual is a direct legacy of the traditional Christian belief in the free and eternal souls. Without recourse to eternal souls and a Creator God, it becomes embarrassingly difficult for liberals to explain what is so special about individual Sapiens…The idea that all humans are equal is a revamped version of the monotheist conviction that all souls are equal before God.” p. 231

    Yuval Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (Harper Collins, 2015)

    Again, I’ll point out that liberal humanist Freakqualism is not a “direct legacy” of Christianity, but an intensification.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. I was born in Europe. Except for a few years in the 1960s, I have lived all my life in Europe. I have never come across anybody in Europe “rejecting their identity”. Quite the contrary indeed! European national identities are alive and well, and thriving in the European Union. The article itself is the usual VDare anti-EU propaganda and the article linked to (by Pat Buchanan) doesn’t support the author’s argument. I don’t really see why Americans are getting so steamed up about Marxism. Nobody has taken Marxism seriously since the collapse of the communist dictatorships 25 years ago. And, of course, I’m always amused at the way the people who shout “America First” keep telling us Europeans how to run our countries!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Pay attention:

    "Young adults, here and elsewhere, are the prime audience. Consider the following survey data: 1) a Harvard poll last year revealed that millennial adults supported capitalism over socialism by a mere 42 percent to 33 percent; 2) a 2015 Gallup poll indicated that 70 percent of millennials would consider voting for a socialist presidential candidate; and 3) a survey released in October 2016 by the Victims of Communism Memorial found that only 55 percent of millennial respondents (born 1982-2002) believed that Communism is, or ever was, a problem (80 percent of the baby boomers and 91 percent of the elderly felt this way)."
    , @patsy
    Michael get your self a copy of the book titled The Milner Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu.
    You can goolag it first but its worth a read for all Europeans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. JackOH says:

    Mr. Horowitz makes good points, but many of us here have made similar observations along the same path to understanding the world around us. Corporations have a whatever-it-takes ethos, and if they can make money by hanging on to eternal verities, they’ll hang on to them, and if they can calculate that dumping eternal verities will serve them, they’ll do that. Happy Thanksgiving Day all, and thanks to Ron for hosting this site, and many good commenters for illuminating our America a bit..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. OMG this article is all over the map.

    Companies do what is politically expedient because the people who govern them make a rational choice to decide to the bottom line – or any short-term definition thereof – as opposed to standing up to the mob.

    Period. End of story.

    Imagine you are a minimum wage employee in the neighborhood laundromat and you’re 16 and naive and you notice the kindly owner/manager pays protection money to the mob. In all other facets he is a kindly man, a good person, a good manager, a good businessperson. You wonder why he doesn’t call the police, make a report to the FBI, call on politicians, or stand up to the mob himself.

    Of course he can do any of those things. He chooses not to.

    Why does he choose not to?

    Well, duh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. The Insidious Agenda of the Globalist Corporations

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. This is an OK article in some respects, but I spotted one glaring contradiction. Early on, the author/speaker points out that multinational corporations promote ‘diversity’ in order to weaken national identities, precisely because increasing immigration and off-shoring while decreasing tariffs is good for their bottom line:

    The two factions differ by motive. Businessmen act out of material self-interest. They want to hire people from abroad at much lower wages and benefits than most people here would accept.

    As far as it goes, this statement is correct and quite perceptive. The multinats have absolutely nothing against Marxism, so long as it is cultural Marxism rather than economic Marxism. But then, towards the end of the article/speech, comes a total non-sequitor:

    Corporations are not parties, philanthropies or think tanks. Yet by taking on such roles, they are working against their own interests and those of their nations.

    Well, which is it? Are the multinats acting in their own interests, or not? I say yes. Horowitz, on the other hand, seems confused.

    A few other minor points:

    The goal here is monopoly. But it is more than simply a monopoly over a particular market. It is a monopoly over public opinion.

    Ultimately, they want a monopoly over the whole world.

    Mind you, they haven’t given up on class struggle.

    Yes they have. The ruling class won. Now they will go about creating fake ‘identities’ (like LGBTXYZ) and playing them off against one another in order to keep the lower classes busy.

    The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. Urtexts include Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth …

    Fannon was actually not from the US.

    The outsized role of Google in the Obama administration should dispel any illusions about corporate radicalism being “libertarian.”

    Why shouldn’t Goolag report to the government? After all, they were effectively founded by the CIA: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

    INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    "Are the multinats acting in their own interests, or not? I say yes. Horowitz, on the other hand, seems confused."
     
    Horowitz is confused because he is trying to square a circle: protect a nation state and culture, and yet try to defend corporations as the best way to run the economy. He is looking to bring back the golden 'corporate era', let's say WWII to late 90's. The problem is that the internal logic of corporate business is to seek the lowest possible labor - that cannot be changed. Once it became possible with new technologies the 'loyal' corporation era had to end. So Horowitz is confused, interesting to listen to, but ultimately not able to have a coherent picture of reality.

    And that's the way the Goolagists like it. We are more screwed than ever before. The best strategy is to find a quiet place that is not fully 'globalized' yet, and wait it out.
    , @renfro
    ''Corporations are not parties, philanthropies or think tanks. Yet by taking on such roles, they are working against their own interests and those of their nations.''>>>>>


    There is a reason cannibals are extinct. They ate all their neighbors and so eventually lost their food source.

    People who run corporation aren't necessarily smart. They go for short term growth and profit and stock price increases thinking they will always come up with new and more plans to keep it going.
    A complaint classless consumer base works for awhile but they depend on that consumer base--the population-- growing also. The bigger the consumer base the more demand. But that consumer base must have money/jobs to purchase their products. More demand does not necessarily translate into bigger profits as it means more production and cost which they try to over come with price increases. With out a corresponding increase in/money/job wages in the consumer base they hit the 'diminishing returns' plateau.

    In short they ate their customer base.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. biz says:
    @Heros

    "While the influence of the Frankfurt School of Marxism can’t be ignored here, I find it vastly overstated. The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. "
     
    Reading Horowitz is like reading gatestone institute articles. They can be very convincing, but the always miss the target because Jews are seeped in willful blindness. It starts with the dual passports and allegiances. How in any sane world should dual citizen neocons be allowed to steer foreign policy? But then it continues with the never ending kvetching about "anti-semitism" which is used to stifle any discussion that becomes uncomfortable for them, like how the October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d'etat and a succeeding genocide of millions of Christians. Why should the US be forced to pay $3b on Oct. 1 of every fiscal year to Israel? What about the murder of the Czar by a gang of Ashkenazi? Or the Liberty or the King David Hotel? What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide? What about their bullying and extortion of governments and individuals to prevent BDS?

    I could go on and on, but the point I am making is that Jews know this, but outwardly they are ignorant, at least when writing for the benefit of stupid goyim. Among themselves the truth is often alluded to in public, and that is why reading the Jewish press is so important. Eventually they will try to prevent goyim from accessing it, probably by claiming its all a lie just as with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    This jewish facade of plausible deniability has to be maintained at all costs, and this is why we always hear how jews are so persecuted, why every city is forced to have a holocaust museum and why every few years another holocaust or nazi-genocide movie comes out. It is all about jews maintaining this Potemkin lie and pretending its true.

    Which brings me to one of their biggest lies: That Jews are semitic, that they are white and that they are not white, all simultaneously. If every component of US culture was forced to track the number jews receiving benefit alongside the number of "whites" and other races, then the country would really learn what true racism and patriarchy is. That is why this is just another part of the massive jew lie that they all pretend not to see.

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?

    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing “genocide?” This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat

    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait…

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing “genocide?” This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    Zero in 1940? Wasn't that part of the world designated as Palestine when Brits took over after WWI?

    It's true that Zionists didn't wipe out Palestinians like Nazis killed many Jews.

    But suppose a different group did to Jews in Israel what Jews did to Palestinians.
    Suppose Iranians emigrate to Israel in huge numbers without the approval of Jews in Israel. Suppose Iranians in Israel call on UN to divide Israel in half and declare half as New Iran. Suppose Jews rise up and wage war, and suppose 'New Iranians' win and drive out most Jews from the remaining Israel. Suppose Jews are pushed into a corner of the nation and made to live under Occupation.

    It would clearly not be genocide in the Nazi or Khmer Rouge sense.
    But wouldn't Jews around the world call it 'genocide' on account that Jewish nationhood, Jewish culture, and Jewish identity have been violated and smashed?
    , @renfro

    ''How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950,
     
    I am no longer amazed at the ignorance and stupidity of the Israel supporters. 'Real' history is the greatest enemy of the Jews.


    First Census of Palestine
    J. B. Barron, ed. (1923). Palestine: Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922. Government of Palestine. http://www.klinebooks.com/cgi-bin/kline/35716.html

    The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922. The division into religious groups was:

    590,390 Muslims
    83,694 Jews
    73,024 Christians,
    7,028 Druze
    808 Sikhs
    265 Bahais
    156 Metawalis
    163 Samaritans.

    Second census of Palestine
    E.Mills, British Mandate Census of Palestine 1931, Population of villages, towns and administrative areas”
    Official report on the 1931 Census of Palestine, which was the second census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine. It was carried out on 18 November 1931 under the direction of Major E. Mills. The first census had been conducted in 1922. Following the 1931 census, no further census was conducted in Palestine by the British administration.
    The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces) - an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4% due to Jewish immigration into Palestine while less than 3% of Muslims were born outside of Palestine.

    The population was divided by religion as follows:
    759,717 Muslims,
    174,610 Jews,
    91,398 Christians,
    9,148 Druzes,
    350 Bahais,
    182 Samaritans,
    and 421 "no religion".

    A special problem was posed by the nomadic Bedouin of the south, who were reluctant to cooperate. Estimates of each tribe were made by officers of the district administration according to local observation. The total of 759,717 Muslims included 66,553 persons enumerated by this method.

    (Other Surveys)

    # According to a Survey of Palestine prepared in December 1945 there were :

    1,076,780 Muslims (58% of the total population),
    608,230 Jews (33%),
    145,060 Christians (9%). (4)

    # In the mid-19th century, the area corresponding to Palestine had about 340,000 people, of whom 300,000 or 88 per cent were Muslims or Druze, 27,000 of 8 per cent Christian, and 13,000 or 4 per cent Jews.

    , @jacques sheete

    This is the least successful genocide in world history.
     
    Oh, get over it. For one thing it isn't over yet. In fact it's ongoing and super sadistic as well as totally unnecessary.

    Do you even know the meaning of the word, "genocide," or are you using one that's convenient for you, or what?

    “Perhaps if we don’t give them enough water they won’t have a choice, because the orchards will yellow and wither.”

    That is what Israeli Prime Minster Levi Eshkol said in 1967 about Gaza, as revealed in newly declassified documents from the time. Ofer Aderet of Haaretz reported about this today.
    ...
    As is widely known, the standard UN definition of Genocide includes “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

    These newly declassified documents reveal that the genocidal policy was indeed there already in 1967. This is important, because it sheds light on later policies, such as Israel’s siege of Gaza, which is part of an ‘incremental genocide,’ as historian Ilan Pappe has been calling it since 2006, and it puts the notion of a “huge concentration camp”, the term Haaretz journalist Amira Hass has used for Gaza, in historical perspective.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/11/liberal-contemplating-genocide/
     
    , @jacques sheete

    This is the least successful genocide in world history.

     

    Since you're playing fast and loose with numbers and concepts, explain this as a "successful" genocide.:

    Jewish Population of the World:

    1945 11,000,000
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world

     

    , @Hank Rearden
    Is it okay if I get my boring anti-Israel agitprop about the history of the October Revolution being a Jewish coup d’etat straight from the Jerusalem Post?

    “I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish
    Jerusalem Post
    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150
     
    ✡ Shalom, comrade. ☭
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Beckow says:
    @utu
    Mind you, they haven’t given up on class struggle.

    Really? Have you seen any class struggle recently that would be detrimental to the top class? Marxists are the tools of neoliberal capitalist world order. They are perfectly happy with the system as long as it gives them a chance to join the top class.

    “Marxists are the tools of neoliberal capitalist world order. They are perfectly happy with the system as long as it gives them a chance to join the top class.”

    This matches the actual behaviour of communist elites when they are in power. The career Marxists simply use ‘leftist’ politics with the usual combination of fake ideology and greed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. joe webb says:

    an interesting article but the conclusion that capitalism is abolishing itself is not convincing..

    The alt-right is abolishing itself, at least in the USA, what with Richard Spencer and the likes of Jack “the Ripper..Donovan.

    Without a credible alternative to socialist thinking, and the Cult of Racial Equality, the millennials start thinking socialism, mindlessly, but understandably given the economics of today with lousy wages etc.

    The European Right is doing it right while White Nationalism, USA is self-destructing. This is a disaster. The Bannon Breitbart factor will compensate, but..it would be nice to have realistic folks on the racial right get it right.

    You may have seen Spencer’s , time to party, it’s 1933. Heil Spencer.

    Here is a link to Nick Griffin’s new internet book on the craziness of WN, USA.

    http://altrightnotright.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Alt-Right-Not-Right-Online.pdf

    Nick Griffin of British National Party fame.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Wally says: • Website
    @Michael Kenny
    I was born in Europe. Except for a few years in the 1960s, I have lived all my life in Europe. I have never come across anybody in Europe “rejecting their identity”. Quite the contrary indeed! European national identities are alive and well, and thriving in the European Union. The article itself is the usual VDare anti-EU propaganda and the article linked to (by Pat Buchanan) doesn’t support the author’s argument. I don’t really see why Americans are getting so steamed up about Marxism. Nobody has taken Marxism seriously since the collapse of the communist dictatorships 25 years ago. And, of course, I’m always amused at the way the people who shout “America First” keep telling us Europeans how to run our countries!

    Pay attention:

    “Young adults, here and elsewhere, are the prime audience. Consider the following survey data: 1) a Harvard poll last year revealed that millennial adults supported capitalism over socialism by a mere 42 percent to 33 percent; 2) a 2015 Gallup poll indicated that 70 percent of millennials would consider voting for a socialist presidential candidate; and 3) a survey released in October 2016 by the Victims of Communism Memorial found that only 55 percent of millennial respondents (born 1982-2002) believed that Communism is, or ever was, a problem (80 percent of the baby boomers and 91 percent of the elderly felt this way).”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @biz

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?
     
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing "genocide?" This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat
     
    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait...

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.

    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing “genocide?” This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    Zero in 1940? Wasn’t that part of the world designated as Palestine when Brits took over after WWI?

    It’s true that Zionists didn’t wipe out Palestinians like Nazis killed many Jews.

    But suppose a different group did to Jews in Israel what Jews did to Palestinians.
    Suppose Iranians emigrate to Israel in huge numbers without the approval of Jews in Israel. Suppose Iranians in Israel call on UN to divide Israel in half and declare half as New Iran. Suppose Jews rise up and wage war, and suppose ‘New Iranians’ win and drive out most Jews from the remaining Israel. Suppose Jews are pushed into a corner of the nation and made to live under Occupation.

    It would clearly not be genocide in the Nazi or Khmer Rouge sense.
    But wouldn’t Jews around the world call it ‘genocide’ on account that Jewish nationhood, Jewish culture, and Jewish identity have been violated and smashed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "It’s true that Zionists didn’t wipe out Palestinians like Nazis killed many Jews. "

    No proof, Zionist rubbish.

    www.codoh.com

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. This article is a good primer on what is wrong with World Affairs.

    https://altright.com/2017/11/21/my-fellow-jews-we-need-to-talk/

    To talk of ‘left’ and ‘right’ misses the point. What we have is less dialectics of left and right as the ‘trialectics’ of ‘left’ and ‘right’ both being manipulated by a third force that chooses to remain invisible. And this power is essentially though not entirely Jewish.

    Consider the trajectory of mainstream politics in America over several past decades. It wasn’t a true right vs left struggle but Jews owning and using both to serve the Third Power that was Zionist-Globalist. Rahm Emanuel claims to be ‘leftist’ but he served in the IDF to enforce Zionist control over Palestinians. David Brooks excoriates Trumpian nationalism but he sent his son to serve in IDF to be just like Rahm Emanuel. Those who cling to real power know tribal blood counts more than ideological ink.

    After all, both Liberal Elites and Neo-Conservatives have been totally pro-Israel and favored Jews over Palestinians. Why such pro-nationalist Zionist zeal on Middle East issues? And why does just about every Congressman sign the AIPAC pledge to Israel? If nationalism and ethno-centricism are ‘rightist’ and if ALL GLOBALIST ELITES are ‘leftist’(anti-nationalist), then why are most elites in business so pro-Israel? Why don’t they denounce the tribal influence of AIPAC? Where do you see elites in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Big Oil siding with helpless Palestinians against powerful ethno-nationalist and imperialist Zionists? And if Google and Twitter are really into equality and for the underdog, why did they get ADL to monitor ‘hatred’? ADL is a totally pro-Zionist organization that supports defaming whites and supports Israeli occupation of West Bank. It also never mentions Nakba or that Israel was created by massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. It never criticizes the Zionist-controlled US Wars for Israel on the Muslim World that hatefully destroyed millions of lives.
    If Google and Twitter are truly ‘leftist’, shouldn’t they hire BDS to monitor Zionist supremacist hatred and chauvinism? Shouldn’t Paypal and such services deny service to ADL or any such group that supports the ongoing Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Shouldn’t Paypal and other such services deny services to members of CIA and Pentagon who’ve been engaged in murderous US neo-imperialism that destroyed many nations and peoples with bombs, invasions, aid to terrorists(especially in Syria), and sanctions?

    This is a curious kind of ‘leftism’ that is so jingoist(US is an exceptional nation), ‘racist’(Zionists uber Palestinians and Jews uber gentiles), supremacist(black men deserve to colonize white wombs since white men are inferior cuck dorks), and replacist-genocidal(white people should lose their own homelands to waves of foreign colonizers), and of course, totally hypocritical. Diversity via coercive inclusion and demographic imperialism for every nation EXCEPT Israel that, despite its closed walls and Jewish-Only policy, is showered with $4 billion a year and is allowed to spy on and operate in America as a ‘patriotic’ lobby when it’s all about pushing the Jewish supremacist agenda.

    So, it’s not about dialectics of left and right. It’s about the ‘trialectics’ of Jewish globalist supremacists controlling and manipulating ‘left’ and ‘right’ to serve their own interests. If indeed these corporations are really into ‘leftism’, why do they go along with the anti-BDS program? Jewish oligarchs and their agents are using money and threats to force all US states and all politicians to violate freedom of speech by criminalizing BDS. Imagine white ultra-rightists in the US in the 80s using their influence to criminalize any boycott or sanction of South Africa that then practiced Apartheid. The Left would have blown a fuse and gone crazy. But there seems to be mostly silence about the criminalization of BDS. There are some murmurs and complaints in some corners of the Left, but there is no mass concerted effort to call attention to this as a violation of First Amendment and Moral action.
    So, we live in a nation where cities can ban Chick Fil-A for supporting Real Marriage, but companies and individuals will be destroyed if they even think of boycotting Zionist Occupation of West Bank and its apartheid policies.

    So much for ‘leftism’.

    American Power can be boiled down to Jewish Supremacism and White Cuck Collaborators. And Asian sychophants and token blacks. But all the decisions are made by Jews and their favorite proxies, the homos. Asians may increasingly hold higher positions, but they have no agency or will. They just follow the White Cuck-collaborators who obey Jews and homos. That is the hierarchy of US power, and it masquerades as ‘leftist’ to mask the ethno-monopoly and ethno-supremacism of Jewish globalists.

    The fact is Jews can destroy anyone with their control of high tech, Wall Street, and media. Via high-tech, they can rig who is platformed and who is deplatformed. Through Wall Street, they can decide who is funded and who is de-funded. Through media, they can decide who is anointed and who is excommunicated. Just by having ADL or SPLC smear an individual or company as ‘racist’, ‘antisemitic’, or ‘homophobic’, the Power can bring down anyone. Those are the talismanic words with the power to make or break careers.

    If US corporations are truly leftist, why didn’t they denounce US imperialism in the Middle East? Starbucks cares about those Muslim refugees? Why didn’t its Jewish owners denounce Obama and Hillary for reducing Muslims into refugees with destruction of Libya and by aiding terrorists in Syria? Surely, the Starbuck guys are smart and well-informed. They must know what really happened in the Middle East and North Africa. So, why do they define their ‘progressivism’ in terms of ‘caring about Muslim refugees’ instead of denouncing US imperialism that reduced Muslims to refugee status? They are Zionists, and they support the ethno-supremacist policy of pushing Wars for Israel and globalist bankers.

    And that Campbell Soup bitch is really appalled by ‘murder’ and ‘racism’? There was only one evil side at Charlottesville? But what murder? The fat whore Heather died of a heart-attack, and James Fields panicked after being attacked. Also, BLM is a hate-filled black movement. And what does Campbell Soup have to say about Zionist occupation of West Bank or Zionist-supremacist Wars for Israel that murdered 100,000s of people in the Middle East? Or, Clinton’s sanctions on Iraq that killed many children?
    She is just a lowlife skank whore. She may be sincere in spouting such BS since she prolly attended some elite college with PC indoctrination, but even that isn’t the real reason. After all, if she is really really anti-nationalist and ‘anti-racist’, her policy should be to cut all ties between Campbell and Israel that still illegally occupies West Bank. The reason why she condemned the white patriots at Charlottesville is because White Emancipation and White National Liberation means whites no longer serving Jewish ethno-supremacist globalist imperialism. She is a white-whore-cuck shill who serves Jewish supremacism by smearing white liberation as ‘white supremacism’. In fact, it is Alt Right that is anti-imperialist by being anti-war and by supporting the national rights of all nations. Globalists corrupt nationalist sentiments all over the world by opening the West to the Rest. Tempted by easier material life in the West, formerly nationalist non-whites abandon their own nations and come to the West to become ‘Americans’, ‘Canadians’, or ‘Englishmen’. Thus, Jews kill two birds with one stone. White national sovereignty is destroyed but so is that of non-whites who, instead of guarding and building their own nations, just want to run off to white nations for better material lives. They become Puerto-Ricanized. Puerto Ricans lost all sense of national pride and independence because they got hooked to the drug of US largess. Their only ‘identity’ is bitching for more benefits and freebies. Since begging is humiliating, Puertos now do their begging in the form of demands. It’s like a dog barking loud to hide its shame that it depends on the master for food.

    AirBnb is owned by Zionists imperialists, and that explains it.

    If leftism is about equality and diversity in power/influence, why doesn’t anyone in these firms complain that Jews are vastly over-represented in the upper echelons of power, wealth, and connectedness? What happened to Disparate Impact? If these elites really care about diversity and fair representation, then their main focus of denunciation should be that Jews, who are only 2% of US population, have near-monopoly or outright monopoly in so many sectors of US economy and power. I mean Google and Facebook are owned by Jews, and they are tied closely with Wall Street that is owned by Jews and collude with Media owned by Jews. And they fund operations like SPLC and ADL to lend moral sheen to Jewish supremacism. Both organizations push Jewish/Zionist interests in the name of fighting ‘hate’. The mere desire NOT to serve Jewish supremacism is ‘hate’. And they operate with Deep State that takes orders from Jews. And even GOP cuck-Congressmen are funded by the likes of Sheldon Adelson,

    Dialectics of left and right? That’s BS. It is really about the ‘Trialectics’ of Jewish Power as the Third Force manipulating bogus ‘left’ and bogus ‘right’ to make both serve Jewish supremacism.
    Therefore, class politics is dead on the left. The new left is all about decadent crap about 50 genders and ‘inclusion’. Jews want gentile diversity because it means disunity among gentiles. Also, homomania as ‘leftism’ is a huge boon to the rich since homos are vain and cater to the rich.
    And the new right since the Neocon takeover of GOP has been all about lowering tax rates for the rich and praising Israel, Israel, and Israel while reviling any sign of white consciousness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Dialectics of left and right? That’s BS. It is really about the ‘Trialectics’ of Jewish Power as the Third Force manipulating bogus ‘left’ and bogus ‘right’ to make both serve Jewish supremacism.

    Finally you are seeing it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Beckow says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    This is an OK article in some respects, but I spotted one glaring contradiction. Early on, the author/speaker points out that multinational corporations promote 'diversity' in order to weaken national identities, precisely because increasing immigration and off-shoring while decreasing tariffs is good for their bottom line:

    The two factions differ by motive. Businessmen act out of material self-interest. They want to hire people from abroad at much lower wages and benefits than most people here would accept.
     
    As far as it goes, this statement is correct and quite perceptive. The multinats have absolutely nothing against Marxism, so long as it is cultural Marxism rather than economic Marxism. But then, towards the end of the article/speech, comes a total non-sequitor:

    Corporations are not parties, philanthropies or think tanks. Yet by taking on such roles, they are working against their own interests and those of their nations.
     
    Well, which is it? Are the multinats acting in their own interests, or not? I say yes. Horowitz, on the other hand, seems confused.

    A few other minor points:

    The goal here is monopoly. But it is more than simply a monopoly over a particular market. It is a monopoly over public opinion.
     
    Ultimately, they want a monopoly over the whole world.

    Mind you, they haven’t given up on class struggle.
     
    Yes they have. The ruling class won. Now they will go about creating fake 'identities' (like LGBTXYZ) and playing them off against one another in order to keep the lower classes busy.

    The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. Urtexts include Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth ...
     
    Fannon was actually not from the US.

    The outsized role of Google in the Obama administration should dispel any illusions about corporate radicalism being “libertarian.”
     
    Why shouldn't Goolag report to the government? After all, they were effectively founded by the CIA: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

    INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
     

    “Are the multinats acting in their own interests, or not? I say yes. Horowitz, on the other hand, seems confused.”

    Horowitz is confused because he is trying to square a circle: protect a nation state and culture, and yet try to defend corporations as the best way to run the economy. He is looking to bring back the golden ‘corporate era’, let’s say WWII to late 90′s. The problem is that the internal logic of corporate business is to seek the lowest possible labor – that cannot be changed. Once it became possible with new technologies the ‘loyal’ corporation era had to end. So Horowitz is confused, interesting to listen to, but ultimately not able to have a coherent picture of reality.

    And that’s the way the Goolagists like it. We are more screwed than ever before. The best strategy is to find a quiet place that is not fully ‘globalized’ yet, and wait it out.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Ooops! I meant to hit the 'Agree' button. Sorry for the error.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Wally says: • Website
    @Anon
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing “genocide?” This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    Zero in 1940? Wasn't that part of the world designated as Palestine when Brits took over after WWI?

    It's true that Zionists didn't wipe out Palestinians like Nazis killed many Jews.

    But suppose a different group did to Jews in Israel what Jews did to Palestinians.
    Suppose Iranians emigrate to Israel in huge numbers without the approval of Jews in Israel. Suppose Iranians in Israel call on UN to divide Israel in half and declare half as New Iran. Suppose Jews rise up and wage war, and suppose 'New Iranians' win and drive out most Jews from the remaining Israel. Suppose Jews are pushed into a corner of the nation and made to live under Occupation.

    It would clearly not be genocide in the Nazi or Khmer Rouge sense.
    But wouldn't Jews around the world call it 'genocide' on account that Jewish nationhood, Jewish culture, and Jewish identity have been violated and smashed?

    said:
    “It’s true that Zionists didn’t wipe out Palestinians like Nazis killed many Jews. ”

    No proof, Zionist rubbish.

    http://www.codoh.com

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Beckow

    "Are the multinats acting in their own interests, or not? I say yes. Horowitz, on the other hand, seems confused."
     
    Horowitz is confused because he is trying to square a circle: protect a nation state and culture, and yet try to defend corporations as the best way to run the economy. He is looking to bring back the golden 'corporate era', let's say WWII to late 90's. The problem is that the internal logic of corporate business is to seek the lowest possible labor - that cannot be changed. Once it became possible with new technologies the 'loyal' corporation era had to end. So Horowitz is confused, interesting to listen to, but ultimately not able to have a coherent picture of reality.

    And that's the way the Goolagists like it. We are more screwed than ever before. The best strategy is to find a quiet place that is not fully 'globalized' yet, and wait it out.

    Ooops! I meant to hit the ‘Agree’ button. Sorry for the error.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. renfro says:
    @Malla
    I have always considered Capitalism and Communism as false oppositions to each other. People in power use whichever of the two is useful for a particular situation, place and time to attain certain long term aims. The future of the world is moving towards Corporate Communism where the worst of capitalism and communism are blended to rule over and exploit the masses. This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it's earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population. The same with China recently. Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together. This also explains why big corporations still hire their workforce from Western Universities which are hot beds of leftist propaganda. On one level, it never makes any sense. But when you see the bigger picture, it makes sense.
    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.

    Cultural Marxism (probably) emerged much later then economic Marxism of Karl Marx. It was a solution to a pressing problem of why Western populations were resistant to Communism. The problem was narrowed down to traditional Western civilization, the White race and to some extent traditional Christianity. Cultural Marxism is a 'slow boil the frog' method unlike the shock method unleashed on Russia and China. It also uses the tactic of communists and communism infusing in every part of a country's institutions like blood capillaries around muscles.

    ” Corporate Communism where the worst of capitalism and communism are blended to rule over and exploit the masses.”

    Exactly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. renfro says:
    @biz

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?
     
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing "genocide?" This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat
     
    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait...

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.

    ”How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950,

    I am no longer amazed at the ignorance and stupidity of the Israel supporters. ‘Real’ history is the greatest enemy of the Jews.

    First Census of Palestine
    J. B. Barron, ed. (1923). Palestine: Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922. Government of Palestine. http://www.klinebooks.com/cgi-bin/kline/35716.html

    The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922. The division into religious groups was:

    590,390 Muslims
    83,694 Jews
    73,024 Christians,
    7,028 Druze
    808 Sikhs
    265 Bahais
    156 Metawalis
    163 Samaritans.

    Second census of Palestine
    E.Mills, British Mandate Census of Palestine 1931, Population of villages, towns and administrative areas”
    Official report on the 1931 Census of Palestine, which was the second census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine. It was carried out on 18 November 1931 under the direction of Major E. Mills. The first census had been conducted in 1922. Following the 1931 census, no further census was conducted in Palestine by the British administration.
    The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces) – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4% due to Jewish immigration into Palestine while less than 3% of Muslims were born outside of Palestine.

    The population was divided by religion as follows:
    759,717 Muslims,
    174,610 Jews,
    91,398 Christians,
    9,148 Druzes,
    350 Bahais,
    182 Samaritans,
    and 421 “no religion”.

    A special problem was posed by the nomadic Bedouin of the south, who were reluctant to cooperate. Estimates of each tribe were made by officers of the district administration according to local observation. The total of 759,717 Muslims included 66,553 persons enumerated by this method.

    (Other Surveys)

    # According to a Survey of Palestine prepared in December 1945 there were :

    1,076,780 Muslims (58% of the total population),
    608,230 Jews (33%),
    145,060 Christians (9%). (4)

    # In the mid-19th century, the area corresponding to Palestine had about 340,000 people, of whom 300,000 or 88 per cent were Muslims or Druze, 27,000 of 8 per cent Christian, and 13,000 or 4 per cent Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. renfro says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    This is an OK article in some respects, but I spotted one glaring contradiction. Early on, the author/speaker points out that multinational corporations promote 'diversity' in order to weaken national identities, precisely because increasing immigration and off-shoring while decreasing tariffs is good for their bottom line:

    The two factions differ by motive. Businessmen act out of material self-interest. They want to hire people from abroad at much lower wages and benefits than most people here would accept.
     
    As far as it goes, this statement is correct and quite perceptive. The multinats have absolutely nothing against Marxism, so long as it is cultural Marxism rather than economic Marxism. But then, towards the end of the article/speech, comes a total non-sequitor:

    Corporations are not parties, philanthropies or think tanks. Yet by taking on such roles, they are working against their own interests and those of their nations.
     
    Well, which is it? Are the multinats acting in their own interests, or not? I say yes. Horowitz, on the other hand, seems confused.

    A few other minor points:

    The goal here is monopoly. But it is more than simply a monopoly over a particular market. It is a monopoly over public opinion.
     
    Ultimately, they want a monopoly over the whole world.

    Mind you, they haven’t given up on class struggle.
     
    Yes they have. The ruling class won. Now they will go about creating fake 'identities' (like LGBTXYZ) and playing them off against one another in order to keep the lower classes busy.

    The crucial game-changers have been black authors, for the most part home-grown Americans. Urtexts include Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth ...
     
    Fannon was actually not from the US.

    The outsized role of Google in the Obama administration should dispel any illusions about corporate radicalism being “libertarian.”
     
    Why shouldn't Goolag report to the government? After all, they were effectively founded by the CIA: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

    INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
     

    ”Corporations are not parties, philanthropies or think tanks. Yet by taking on such roles, they are working against their own interests and those of their nations.”>>>>>

    There is a reason cannibals are extinct. They ate all their neighbors and so eventually lost their food source.

    People who run corporation aren’t necessarily smart. They go for short term growth and profit and stock price increases thinking they will always come up with new and more plans to keep it going.
    A complaint classless consumer base works for awhile but they depend on that consumer base–the population– growing also. The bigger the consumer base the more demand. But that consumer base must have money/jobs to purchase their products. More demand does not necessarily translate into bigger profits as it means more production and cost which they try to over come with price increases. With out a corresponding increase in/money/job wages in the consumer base they hit the ‘diminishing returns’ plateau.

    In short they ate their customer base.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    This article is a good primer on what is wrong with World Affairs.

    https://altright.com/2017/11/21/my-fellow-jews-we-need-to-talk/

    To talk of 'left' and 'right' misses the point. What we have is less dialectics of left and right as the 'trialectics' of 'left' and 'right' both being manipulated by a third force that chooses to remain invisible. And this power is essentially though not entirely Jewish.

    Consider the trajectory of mainstream politics in America over several past decades. It wasn't a true right vs left struggle but Jews owning and using both to serve the Third Power that was Zionist-Globalist. Rahm Emanuel claims to be 'leftist' but he served in the IDF to enforce Zionist control over Palestinians. David Brooks excoriates Trumpian nationalism but he sent his son to serve in IDF to be just like Rahm Emanuel. Those who cling to real power know tribal blood counts more than ideological ink.

    After all, both Liberal Elites and Neo-Conservatives have been totally pro-Israel and favored Jews over Palestinians. Why such pro-nationalist Zionist zeal on Middle East issues? And why does just about every Congressman sign the AIPAC pledge to Israel? If nationalism and ethno-centricism are 'rightist' and if ALL GLOBALIST ELITES are 'leftist'(anti-nationalist), then why are most elites in business so pro-Israel? Why don't they denounce the tribal influence of AIPAC? Where do you see elites in Hollywood, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Big Oil siding with helpless Palestinians against powerful ethno-nationalist and imperialist Zionists? And if Google and Twitter are really into equality and for the underdog, why did they get ADL to monitor 'hatred'? ADL is a totally pro-Zionist organization that supports defaming whites and supports Israeli occupation of West Bank. It also never mentions Nakba or that Israel was created by massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. It never criticizes the Zionist-controlled US Wars for Israel on the Muslim World that hatefully destroyed millions of lives.
    If Google and Twitter are truly 'leftist', shouldn't they hire BDS to monitor Zionist supremacist hatred and chauvinism? Shouldn't Paypal and such services deny service to ADL or any such group that supports the ongoing Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Shouldn't Paypal and other such services deny services to members of CIA and Pentagon who've been engaged in murderous US neo-imperialism that destroyed many nations and peoples with bombs, invasions, aid to terrorists(especially in Syria), and sanctions?

    This is a curious kind of 'leftism' that is so jingoist(US is an exceptional nation), 'racist'(Zionists uber Palestinians and Jews uber gentiles), supremacist(black men deserve to colonize white wombs since white men are inferior cuck dorks), and replacist-genocidal(white people should lose their own homelands to waves of foreign colonizers), and of course, totally hypocritical. Diversity via coercive inclusion and demographic imperialism for every nation EXCEPT Israel that, despite its closed walls and Jewish-Only policy, is showered with $4 billion a year and is allowed to spy on and operate in America as a 'patriotic' lobby when it's all about pushing the Jewish supremacist agenda.

    So, it's not about dialectics of left and right. It's about the 'trialectics' of Jewish globalist supremacists controlling and manipulating 'left' and 'right' to serve their own interests. If indeed these corporations are really into 'leftism', why do they go along with the anti-BDS program? Jewish oligarchs and their agents are using money and threats to force all US states and all politicians to violate freedom of speech by criminalizing BDS. Imagine white ultra-rightists in the US in the 80s using their influence to criminalize any boycott or sanction of South Africa that then practiced Apartheid. The Left would have blown a fuse and gone crazy. But there seems to be mostly silence about the criminalization of BDS. There are some murmurs and complaints in some corners of the Left, but there is no mass concerted effort to call attention to this as a violation of First Amendment and Moral action.
    So, we live in a nation where cities can ban Chick Fil-A for supporting Real Marriage, but companies and individuals will be destroyed if they even think of boycotting Zionist Occupation of West Bank and its apartheid policies.

    So much for 'leftism'.

    American Power can be boiled down to Jewish Supremacism and White Cuck Collaborators. And Asian sychophants and token blacks. But all the decisions are made by Jews and their favorite proxies, the homos. Asians may increasingly hold higher positions, but they have no agency or will. They just follow the White Cuck-collaborators who obey Jews and homos. That is the hierarchy of US power, and it masquerades as 'leftist' to mask the ethno-monopoly and ethno-supremacism of Jewish globalists.

    The fact is Jews can destroy anyone with their control of high tech, Wall Street, and media. Via high-tech, they can rig who is platformed and who is deplatformed. Through Wall Street, they can decide who is funded and who is de-funded. Through media, they can decide who is anointed and who is excommunicated. Just by having ADL or SPLC smear an individual or company as 'racist', 'antisemitic', or 'homophobic', the Power can bring down anyone. Those are the talismanic words with the power to make or break careers.

    If US corporations are truly leftist, why didn't they denounce US imperialism in the Middle East? Starbucks cares about those Muslim refugees? Why didn't its Jewish owners denounce Obama and Hillary for reducing Muslims into refugees with destruction of Libya and by aiding terrorists in Syria? Surely, the Starbuck guys are smart and well-informed. They must know what really happened in the Middle East and North Africa. So, why do they define their 'progressivism' in terms of 'caring about Muslim refugees' instead of denouncing US imperialism that reduced Muslims to refugee status? They are Zionists, and they support the ethno-supremacist policy of pushing Wars for Israel and globalist bankers.

    And that Campbell Soup bitch is really appalled by 'murder' and 'racism'? There was only one evil side at Charlottesville? But what murder? The fat whore Heather died of a heart-attack, and James Fields panicked after being attacked. Also, BLM is a hate-filled black movement. And what does Campbell Soup have to say about Zionist occupation of West Bank or Zionist-supremacist Wars for Israel that murdered 100,000s of people in the Middle East? Or, Clinton's sanctions on Iraq that killed many children?
    She is just a lowlife skank whore. She may be sincere in spouting such BS since she prolly attended some elite college with PC indoctrination, but even that isn't the real reason. After all, if she is really really anti-nationalist and 'anti-racist', her policy should be to cut all ties between Campbell and Israel that still illegally occupies West Bank. The reason why she condemned the white patriots at Charlottesville is because White Emancipation and White National Liberation means whites no longer serving Jewish ethno-supremacist globalist imperialism. She is a white-whore-cuck shill who serves Jewish supremacism by smearing white liberation as 'white supremacism'. In fact, it is Alt Right that is anti-imperialist by being anti-war and by supporting the national rights of all nations. Globalists corrupt nationalist sentiments all over the world by opening the West to the Rest. Tempted by easier material life in the West, formerly nationalist non-whites abandon their own nations and come to the West to become 'Americans', 'Canadians', or 'Englishmen'. Thus, Jews kill two birds with one stone. White national sovereignty is destroyed but so is that of non-whites who, instead of guarding and building their own nations, just want to run off to white nations for better material lives. They become Puerto-Ricanized. Puerto Ricans lost all sense of national pride and independence because they got hooked to the drug of US largess. Their only 'identity' is bitching for more benefits and freebies. Since begging is humiliating, Puertos now do their begging in the form of demands. It's like a dog barking loud to hide its shame that it depends on the master for food.

    AirBnb is owned by Zionists imperialists, and that explains it.

    If leftism is about equality and diversity in power/influence, why doesn't anyone in these firms complain that Jews are vastly over-represented in the upper echelons of power, wealth, and connectedness? What happened to Disparate Impact? If these elites really care about diversity and fair representation, then their main focus of denunciation should be that Jews, who are only 2% of US population, have near-monopoly or outright monopoly in so many sectors of US economy and power. I mean Google and Facebook are owned by Jews, and they are tied closely with Wall Street that is owned by Jews and collude with Media owned by Jews. And they fund operations like SPLC and ADL to lend moral sheen to Jewish supremacism. Both organizations push Jewish/Zionist interests in the name of fighting 'hate'. The mere desire NOT to serve Jewish supremacism is 'hate'. And they operate with Deep State that takes orders from Jews. And even GOP cuck-Congressmen are funded by the likes of Sheldon Adelson,

    Dialectics of left and right? That's BS. It is really about the 'Trialectics' of Jewish Power as the Third Force manipulating bogus 'left' and bogus 'right' to make both serve Jewish supremacism.
    Therefore, class politics is dead on the left. The new left is all about decadent crap about 50 genders and 'inclusion'. Jews want gentile diversity because it means disunity among gentiles. Also, homomania as 'leftism' is a huge boon to the rich since homos are vain and cater to the rich.
    And the new right since the Neocon takeover of GOP has been all about lowering tax rates for the rich and praising Israel, Israel, and Israel while reviling any sign of white consciousness.

    Dialectics of left and right? That’s BS. It is really about the ‘Trialectics’ of Jewish Power as the Third Force manipulating bogus ‘left’ and bogus ‘right’ to make both serve Jewish supremacism.

    Finally you are seeing it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. PC gone crazy in Canada

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. patsy says:
    @Michael Kenny
    I was born in Europe. Except for a few years in the 1960s, I have lived all my life in Europe. I have never come across anybody in Europe “rejecting their identity”. Quite the contrary indeed! European national identities are alive and well, and thriving in the European Union. The article itself is the usual VDare anti-EU propaganda and the article linked to (by Pat Buchanan) doesn’t support the author’s argument. I don’t really see why Americans are getting so steamed up about Marxism. Nobody has taken Marxism seriously since the collapse of the communist dictatorships 25 years ago. And, of course, I’m always amused at the way the people who shout “America First” keep telling us Europeans how to run our countries!

    Michael get your self a copy of the book titled The Milner Fabian Conspiracy by Ioan Ratiu.
    You can goolag it first but its worth a read for all Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @Malla
    I have always considered Capitalism and Communism as false oppositions to each other. People in power use whichever of the two is useful for a particular situation, place and time to attain certain long term aims. The future of the world is moving towards Corporate Communism where the worst of capitalism and communism are blended to rule over and exploit the masses. This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it's earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population. The same with China recently. Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together. This also explains why big corporations still hire their workforce from Western Universities which are hot beds of leftist propaganda. On one level, it never makes any sense. But when you see the bigger picture, it makes sense.
    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.

    Cultural Marxism (probably) emerged much later then economic Marxism of Karl Marx. It was a solution to a pressing problem of why Western populations were resistant to Communism. The problem was narrowed down to traditional Western civilization, the White race and to some extent traditional Christianity. Cultural Marxism is a 'slow boil the frog' method unlike the shock method unleashed on Russia and China. It also uses the tactic of communists and communism infusing in every part of a country's institutions like blood capillaries around muscles.

    People in power use whichever of the two is useful for a particular situation, place and time to attain certain long term aims.

    You nailed it. They use whatever works for them at the time and they are not beyond flip flopping repeatedly. Opportunistic parasites, all of them.

    Anyone who thinks differently is entirely deluded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Malla
    I have always considered Capitalism and Communism as false oppositions to each other. People in power use whichever of the two is useful for a particular situation, place and time to attain certain long term aims. The future of the world is moving towards Corporate Communism where the worst of capitalism and communism are blended to rule over and exploit the masses. This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it's earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population. The same with China recently. Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together. This also explains why big corporations still hire their workforce from Western Universities which are hot beds of leftist propaganda. On one level, it never makes any sense. But when you see the bigger picture, it makes sense.
    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.

    Cultural Marxism (probably) emerged much later then economic Marxism of Karl Marx. It was a solution to a pressing problem of why Western populations were resistant to Communism. The problem was narrowed down to traditional Western civilization, the White race and to some extent traditional Christianity. Cultural Marxism is a 'slow boil the frog' method unlike the shock method unleashed on Russia and China. It also uses the tactic of communists and communism infusing in every part of a country's institutions like blood capillaries around muscles.

    I’m glad you’re commenting.

    This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it’s earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population.

    It also explains why the Nazis were demonized and crushed. The Nazis were not only anti-Red, but figured out ways to circumvent the international bankers and instituted a relative worker’s paradise. That had to have been a huge threat to the ruling classes of Britain and the USA.

    Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together.

    True. Each supports and benefits from the other.

    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.

    Bingo. It goes for all the “threats” they identify for us. It also explains why the “threats” never go away, and why they keep adding new ones.The ruling classes are the biggest threats to the rest of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Thanks bud!

    It also explains why the Nazis were demonized and crushed. The Nazis were not only anti-Red, but figured out ways to circumvent the international bankers and instituted a relative worker’s paradise. That had to have been a huge threat to the ruling classes of Britain and the USA.
     
    And also the fact that unlike today's globalists, who are combining the worst aspects of crony Capitalism with the worst of Communism so as too screw the masses to the benefit of the elites, the National Socialists of Germany did the mirror opposite. The National Socialists of Germany (and maybe up to a lesser extent the Fascists in Italy) had combined the best aspects of socialism with the best aspects of free market economics to get the best deal for the masses. That is because, they really cared for their masses unlike the globalist elites of today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @biz

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?
     
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing "genocide?" This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat
     
    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait...

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.

    This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    Oh, get over it. For one thing it isn’t over yet. In fact it’s ongoing and super sadistic as well as totally unnecessary.

    Do you even know the meaning of the word, “genocide,” or are you using one that’s convenient for you, or what?

    “Perhaps if we don’t give them enough water they won’t have a choice, because the orchards will yellow and wither.”

    That is what Israeli Prime Minster Levi Eshkol said in 1967 about Gaza, as revealed in newly declassified documents from the time. Ofer Aderet of Haaretz reported about this today.

    As is widely known, the standard UN definition of Genocide includes “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

    These newly declassified documents reveal that the genocidal policy was indeed there already in 1967. This is important, because it sheds light on later policies, such as Israel’s siege of Gaza, which is part of an ‘incremental genocide,’ as historian Ilan Pappe has been calling it since 2006, and it puts the notion of a “huge concentration camp”, the term Haaretz journalist Amira Hass has used for Gaza, in historical perspective.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/11/liberal-contemplating-genocide/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @biz

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?
     
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing "genocide?" This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat
     
    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait...

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.

    This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    Since you’re playing fast and loose with numbers and concepts, explain this as a “successful” genocide.:

    Jewish Population of the World:

    1945 11,000,000

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Malla says:
    @jacques sheete
    I'm glad you're commenting.

    This explains why many Western crony companies had invested in the the Soviet Union in it’s earlier days of , they could never had got a more slave labour population.
     
    It also explains why the Nazis were demonized and crushed. The Nazis were not only anti-Red, but figured out ways to circumvent the international bankers and instituted a relative worker's paradise. That had to have been a huge threat to the ruling classes of Britain and the USA.

    Crony Capitalism and Communism seem to go well together just like how big corporations and big governments go well together.
     
    True. Each supports and benefits from the other.

    Besides, the false left vs right paradigm keeps the common man on the streets busy infighting and wasting their time without realizing the big schemes being played over them.
     
    Bingo. It goes for all the "threats" they identify for us. It also explains why the "threats" never go away, and why they keep adding new ones.The ruling classes are the biggest threats to the rest of us.

    Thanks bud!

    It also explains why the Nazis were demonized and crushed. The Nazis were not only anti-Red, but figured out ways to circumvent the international bankers and instituted a relative worker’s paradise. That had to have been a huge threat to the ruling classes of Britain and the USA.

    And also the fact that unlike today’s globalists, who are combining the worst aspects of crony Capitalism with the worst of Communism so as too screw the masses to the benefit of the elites, the National Socialists of Germany did the mirror opposite. The National Socialists of Germany (and maybe up to a lesser extent the Fascists in Italy) had combined the best aspects of socialism with the best aspects of free market economics to get the best deal for the masses. That is because, they really cared for their masses unlike the globalist elites of today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Malla, I've sometimes referred to our governance by America's Council of 25,000 (our lobbies) as Fascism Lite, a bit of Mussolini, but without a human touch. I agree that Hitler and Mussolini both believed that national vitality meant a revitalized people, from street sweepers to corporate execs.

    Here, I'm not sure what our policy makers believe. Means-tested social programs that "dis-incentivize" wage-paying work that's expected to lift people out of the poverty that led them to means-tested programs in the first place? Corporate subsidies and tax incentives to shut down operations and relocate?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. JackOH says:
    @Malla
    Thanks bud!

    It also explains why the Nazis were demonized and crushed. The Nazis were not only anti-Red, but figured out ways to circumvent the international bankers and instituted a relative worker’s paradise. That had to have been a huge threat to the ruling classes of Britain and the USA.
     
    And also the fact that unlike today's globalists, who are combining the worst aspects of crony Capitalism with the worst of Communism so as too screw the masses to the benefit of the elites, the National Socialists of Germany did the mirror opposite. The National Socialists of Germany (and maybe up to a lesser extent the Fascists in Italy) had combined the best aspects of socialism with the best aspects of free market economics to get the best deal for the masses. That is because, they really cared for their masses unlike the globalist elites of today.

    Malla, I’ve sometimes referred to our governance by America’s Council of 25,000 (our lobbies) as Fascism Lite, a bit of Mussolini, but without a human touch. I agree that Hitler and Mussolini both believed that national vitality meant a revitalized people, from street sweepers to corporate execs.

    Here, I’m not sure what our policy makers believe. Means-tested social programs that “dis-incentivize” wage-paying work that’s expected to lift people out of the poverty that led them to means-tested programs in the first place? Corporate subsidies and tax incentives to shut down operations and relocate?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @biz

    What about 70 years of Palestinian genocide?
     
    How can a group of people who numbered zero in 1940, 700,000 in 1950, and >5 million today be said to be undergoing "genocide?" This is the least successful genocide in world history.

    October Revolution was little more than a jewish coup d’etat
     
    I guess that explains why the Soviet Bloc was notoriously pro-Israel, and allowed Jews the same opportunities at universities as everyone else. Oh wait...

    etc.. the rest is more of this usual boring anti-Israel agitprop.

    Is it okay if I get my boring anti-Israel agitprop about the history of the October Revolution being a Jewish coup d’etat straight from the Jerusalem Post?

    “I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish,” Putin said June 13 during a visit to Moscow’s Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said that at least 80 percent of the members of the first Soviet government were Jewish
    Jerusalem Post
    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150

    ✡ Shalom, comrade. ☭

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Malla says:

    Means-tested social programs that “dis-incentivize” wage-paying work that’s expected to lift people out of the poverty that led them to means-tested programs in the first place? Corporate subsidies and tax incentives to shut down operations and relocate?

    I am assuming you are talking about welfare. Well , welfare is about wealth transfer from the middle class, you can also say wealth transfer from White America and at the same time it buys entire groups (blacks, hispanics) who can be made to vote in a particular way. Welfare also does a good job of destroying the family as women now do not need men, they are married to the state and thus low IQ women will progressively choose dumb thug men. This destroys the family structure and thus the population at the same time lowers IQ (idiocracy). A car side through a black ghetto will make this obviously clear. A portion of the native White working class population of Britain is going through the same destructive process but their situation is still not bad as US blacks.

    Relocation of industries is now doing the work of destroying the working class and lately even the American middle class. These globalists work in ways by which every action they take, they attain multiple objectives at the same time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. A lot of good information here but the analysis is weak. I would say there are four logical possibilities in political space. 1. Firm boundaries, solidaristic (the tribe or classic nation state) 2. Firm boundaries, hierarchical ( reactionary fantasy). 3. Porous boundaries, hierarchical ( empire, our current multi culti, neoliberal globalism). 4. Porous boundaries, solidaristic ( utopian fantasy).

    The author is using silly left-right language to describe how worlds 3 and 4 join forces, as they always have in history. He also wrongly ascribes diversity, etc to academic books, rather than ascribing agency to global capital which us the prime mover in all this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?