The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Socialist Senator Explains the Difference Between Democrats and Republicans
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What’s the biggest difference between “socialist-lite” candidate, Bernie Sanders, and a political heavyweight like Huey Long?

For one thing, Long didn’t mind bending the rules. After his scuffle with Standard Oil, (Note: The Louisiana legislature tried to impeach Long after he threatened to raise taxes by $.05 on every barrel of oil refined in the state.), Long threw away the rulebook and decided he’d do whatever-it-takes to defeat his enemies.

“You sometimes have to fight fire with fire,” Long said. “The end justifies the means. I would do it some other way if there was time or if it wasn’t necessary to do it this way.”

And he was right, too. You can’t beat corporate America by playing nice and hoping that truth will prevail. It won’t prevail. The corporations are too powerful and too willing to crush anyone that gets in their way. Long learned that the hard way. His falling-out with Standard Oil turned the media and the wealthy elites against him like a pack of rabid dogs. He was demonized in the papers and accused of all kinds of nefarious things including trying to have a political rival assassinated and attending parties “where half-naked women danced the Hula”. Naturally, these fabrications paved the way for his impeachment.

But Long outfoxed them all. He fired up his base by barnstorming across the countryside denouncing Standard Oil and he enlisted the support of 15 senators who helped him block the impeachment. His critics claimed that the senators were bribed for their support, and they probably were. But the fact is, the experience taught Long how the game was played, how to fight dirty and win. And when he won, the people of Lousiana won, because the money he collected on the oil tax went to roads, bridges, universities and free books for schoolkids.

Can you imagine Sanders doing anything like that? Can you imagine him doing anything even slightly shady or underhanded?

Nope. Then he won’t succeed, because you can’t beat Wall Street and the giant corporations playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Politics is bloodsport,not pattycake. If a person is too squeamish to get his hands dirty or twist a few arms, he should find another line of work. Like Long said, “I used to get things done by saying please. Now I dynamite ’em out of my path.”

What’s not to like about that?

Long was a scrappy streetfighter who liked confrontation and didn’t mind getting his nose bloodied every now and then. He also liked winning, which is precisely what we need right now, someone who knows how to win and doesn’t sweat the details. Leave that to the historians.

“I fought the Standard Oil Company and put those pie-eating members of congress out of office. I used a crowbar to pry some of them out and I’m using a corkscrew to take the rest of them out piece by piece.” (All of this is available in the excellent Huey Long Documentary)

Can you imagine Obama boasting that he just rubbed some corporate honcho’s nose in the dirt?

Heck no. The man has been bowing and scraping ever since he took office in 2000. It’s embarrassing. Name one corporation or financial institution he’s taken to task? Just one?

There aren’t any. The man is a complete lightweight, he couldn’t even get Guantanamo shut-down after 8 years of trying. What kind of lame chief executive is that?

Should we care that Long might have bribed the 15 senators or should we focus on the schools, and bridges, and roads and universities he built? Here’s what he said about the matter:

“They say they don’t like my methods. Well, I don’t like them either. I really don’t like to have to do things the way I do. I’d much rather get up before the legislature and say, ‘Now this is a good law and it’s for the benefit of the people, and I’d like you to vote for it in the interest of the public welfare.’ Only I know that laws ain’t made that way. You’ve got to fight fire with fire.”

Right on. This is exactly what the country needs, a brassy-brawling chest-thumping populist who likes a good slugfest and doesn’t mind stretching the rules a bit when necessary. And if he happens to have some less-than-admirable human frailties, then so be it. Who cares? Elliot Spitzer certainly had his flaws, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have been the best man to run the SEC. He would have been! In fact, If Spitzer had been the top regulator a lot of the scheming cockroaches who blew up the financial system in ’08 would be cooling their heels in a federal hoosegow right now. You can bet on it.

By the way, Long was never convicted of corruption even though FDR– who saw Long as his biggest political rival– put the FBI and the IRS on his tail.

Why? Why would FDR hassle a progressive supporter who helped to get him elected?

Because Long was further to the left than FDR on every issue. Long was making the case for redistribution of wealth instead of the weak-kneed, watered-down, half-loaf “New Deal” gobbledygook that FDR was dishing up. Here’s what he said:

“When you have a country where one man owns more than 100,000 people, or a million people, and when you have a country where there are four men, as in America that have got more control over things than all the 120 million people together, you know what the trouble is.”

Here’s more:

“We do not propose to say that there shall be no rich men. We do not ask to divide the wealth. We only propose that, when one man gets more than he and his children and children’s children can spend or use in their lifetimes, that then we shall say that such person has his share.”

Who can disagree with that? And check this out:

“We’ve opened up night schools to educate the adult illiterates. We’ve paved the highways. We’ve built free bridges. We have built a new capitol. We’ve taken the insane out of the jail cells and placed them in modern institutions…. And now, the corporate element of this State…who’ve profited by, who ransacked this state for the element of their allies — are being told what they can do and what they can’t do. What they will pay [and] what they can’t keep from paying for the welfare of the people of Louisiana. And we expect to have this State ruled by the people and not by the lords and the interests of high finance.”

Isn’t that the way the system is supposed to work? Aren’t the representatives of the people supposed to have the power to tell the corporations what they “can and can’t do”?

As far as FDR , well, he nabbed enough of Long’s progressive ideas to preserve capitalism and keep the American people on his side, but he balked at doing anything too radical. Roosevelt never really intended to change the system or level the playing field. His real goal was simply ‘damage control’, to stop the bleeding long enough so that the 1 percent parasites could resume their relentless plundering. Which they did.

Long of course has been given the same treatment as Castro and Chavez. Anyone who opposes glorious capitalism and works for the poor, the needy, the uneducated, the underrepresented or the unemployed, has to be discredited, denounced and demonized. And, so he has been. But he was a great leader who put the corporations in their place, helped to lift millions of people out of poverty, and single-handedly dragged Louisiana into the modern era.

Booyah, Kingfish. We could use you now, buddy, that’s for sure.

Notes: 1–Check out Huey Long’s famous Bar-B-Q Speech–3 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k

2–Quotes from: “Huey Long: The Man, his Mission and Legacy”
http://www.hueylong.com/perspectives/huey-long-quotes-in-his-own-words.php#bbq

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Huey Long 
Hide 60 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. mtn cur says:

    Once again, socialism is where the corporations are owned by the government, whereas capitalism is government owned by the corporation. Same caliber of people with the same devine right conferred by testosterone toxicity, with the same results enabled by an infantile populace that slobbers lustily after every new bait and switch scheme.

    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
  2. Without the existence of government socialism and corporations wouldn’t exist.

    Communes and businesses would though.

    • Replies: @Epaminondas
  3. Huey Long is an interesting historical character and the inspiration for one of the best novels by an American writer: All the Kings Men, by Robert Penn Warren. As the article notes, FDR genuinely feared Huey Long (not just “fear itself”). Huey Long had ten times the political skills of Donald Trump, and that’s not an insult directed at Mr. Trump. If Trump fails, as I sadly think he will, the stage will be set for a Huey Long type character to mobilize the people who Trump appeals to. Combine Huey Long rhetorical and political ability with Leon Trotsky levels of organizational skill and revolution might be in the air.

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @jimbojones
  4. No surprise that Long was assassinated … Question is, whodunnit?

    • Replies: @Brent
  5. tbraton says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    If you haven’t already read T. Harry Williams’ biography of Huey Long, “Huey Long” (1969), which won the National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize for Biography, I strongly recommend it. It is a superb account of Huey’s life, which Robert Penn Warren’s famous novel, “All the King’s Men” is loosely based on.

    @DiversityHeretic

    ” Huey Long had ten times the political skills of Donald Trump, and that’s not an insult directed at Mr. Trump.”

    As the Williams biography makes clear, Huey was a genius with a near photographic memory. As smart as Trump is, Huey was probably smarter. One of the Chief Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, William Howard Taft, said of Huey Long that he possessed one of the best legal minds he had ever encountered. Taft, of course, had once been President of the U.S.

    ” If Trump fails, as I sadly think he will”

    To buck up your spirits, DH, check out my post of yesterday on Derbyshire’s blog for an encouraging analysis of Trump’s prospects in securing the Republican nomination, starting with NY next Tuesday. Should Trump get the nomination, I would bet on him beating Hillary in the general election.

    P.S.–I just realized that I posted early this morning, not yesterday. Here’s the link: http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1385822 (click on the following posts as well).

  6. OutWest says:

    Large corporations are amoral and just want to win. But they do contribute to the national wealth. Big politicians are immoral and actually contribute not at all to national wealth. The banks, for instance, were urge to make low-income loans and chastised for consoling against bad loans. The politicians, wanting to roll the dice against growing bad odds, urged even more risky loans.

    The corporations acted badly but the politicians put them up to it and urged them on. Of course the corporations gamed the system.

    And if you’ve been paying attention, the politicians are starting to promote another round of bad loans. The whole thing is one big cynical game.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @woodNfish
  7. joe webb says:

    simpleminded leftie rant. As an ex-leftie, I know it well.

    Some sector has to save for investment. That is overlooked in this piece. It does not much matter how much wealth the top whatever percent has if it is generating investment, prosperity, a good living wage, and so on. Right now, the rich are not doing their job. They are abdicating their responsiblities. They may have to be separated from much of their wealth, to get the economyk growing again.

    Globalization is impoverishing working folks. We need analysis that does not focus on The Rich, but On Strong Economy and, in my humble opinion, that would include a nationalist economics.

    Also a frank discussion of how much blacks and mexicans are costing the economy would be useful.

    Joe Webb

    • Agree: Anonym, woodNfish
    • Replies: @Ace
  8. “I fought the Standard Oil Company and put those pie-eating members of congress out of office. I used a crowbar to pry some of them out and I’m using a corkscrew to take the rest of them out piece by piece.”

    ‘…And when he won, the people of Louisiana won, because the money he collected on the oil tax went to roads, bridges, universities and free books for schoolkids…’

    And thanks to Long’s legacy how’s LA doing compared to the other oil-rich states? (TX, OK, CO, ND, AK).

    Dead last. And has been for decades.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  9. Brent says:
    @The Alarmist

    The bullet that killed Long came from one of his bodyguard’s pistols.

  10. @tbraton

    If you haven’t already read T. Harry Williams’ biography of Huey Long, “Huey Long” (1969), which won the National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize for Biography, I strongly recommend it. It is a superb account of Huey’s life, which Robert Penn Warren’s famous novel, “All the King’s Men” is loosely based on.

    Warren’s book was published more than 20 years before Williams’ biography came out.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  11. when the people you are fighting is using every dirty trick in the book, why in the bloody hell would you not do the same?

    that is just utter stupidity.

    the fact that long was assassinated showed how effective his method was. that means it needs to be imitated.

    I would love to see how they would like to try to assassinate a senator or governor in 2016+

  12. Even one percenter Conrad Black opined that FDR was the hero who rescued capitalism against its own bad judgment.

  13. Smitty says:

    In agreement that Bernie Sanders is a frivolous fad media personality and about as inspiring as a cartoon spokes-animal for a public-access TV station; but your heroic trinity of “men who got things done” consists of Huey, Hugo, and Fidel? lol

  14. Ace says:
    @joe webb

    Excellent comment.

    Mr. Whitney makes the usual error when be inveighs against “capitalism.” Starting with LBJ spending started to soar and, I think, in ’74, the 1% started to leave the 99% in the dust and to suffer wage stagnation and employment insecurity due to bad trade and our insane efforts to build up a communist dictatorship. I am not making this up. Julia Child turning to cannibalism is the closest analogy to this political abandonment of free markets.

    Now saving is a mug’s game and “capitalism” is little more than a bubble economy that is a cool experiment for the Fed and other haruspicers.

    Whitney’s solution is the man on horseback and not a whisper about a return to the Constitution. And no understanding of savings. Voters sure have been stupid and venal and apathetic but the genius of it was that ambitious men didn’t get to operate with the enormous resources of the federal government and the relative untouchability possible at that level.

    Whitney makes a good argument for populism and a “cut the —-” crap approach. Who cares if Trump is sometimes earthy or Spitzer liked strange if they could rise above the spinelessness and sappiness that characterize the saintly others?

    Ryan and Boehner drive/drove me crazy because they won’t/wouldn’t use the most basic of tools available – the power of the purse and liberal, and I do mean liberal, use of the impeachment power. When Ginsburg told that Egyptian guy not to choose the American Constitution as a model, she should have been impeached before her plane got back to Reagan National!

  15. “Long of course has been given the same treatment as Castro and Chavez.”

    South America is tossing out the lefties where possible: Castro and Maduro keep their hold on power through force, but Fernández de Kirchner is out, Dilma is on her way out, Fujimori (center-right) is on her way in. Castro and Chavez: corrupt frauds, like nearly all “revolutionaries”. One laughs when this silly columnist forgives Huey Long his “stretching the rules a bit when necessary.” Imagine Mr. Whitney “forgiving” someone who “stretches the rules” to make literacy in English mandatory for voting in the USA!

    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
  16. Tom Welsh says:
    @mtn cur

    Nearly right!

    Socialism is where the corporations are owned by the government, which is owned and controlled by the people.

    Capitalism (of the current Western type) is where the people are owned by the government, which is owned by the corporations.

    See the difference now?

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  17. annamaria says:
    @OutWest

    “Large corporations are amoral and just want to win. But they do contribute to the national wealth.”
    They do not. The socialism for the corporate world in the US, combined with monopoly and relocation of businesses to poorer countries – plus they incessant efforts at corrupting the US politicians – makes large corporations the destroyers of the US. And do not forget the deadly pollution.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  18. annamaria says:
    @anony-mouse

    Perhaps you are not aware that Huey Pierce Long Jr. lived from August 30, 1893 to September 10, 1935.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
  19. Agent76 says:

    Who’s Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates

    The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. The result is a travesty riddled with sterile, non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear.

    • Agree: Ace
  20. Agent76 says:

    This will bust the two party mythology, they all and I mean all of them are just teleprompter script readers.

    State Of The Union 1991, 1996, 2007, 2014

    Four turds and their words during the State of the Union addresses in 1991, 1996, 2007, 2014. Same old Scheming

  21. @Drapetomaniac

    That’s exactly right. Big business needs big government. They are co-dependent.

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Wally
  22. @Diversity Heretic

    “All the King’s Men” is a hack-job written to demonize Huey. The movies are also crap. (Both the old one that got the Oscar and the new one with Sean Penn and the one in between that has John Goodman.) Read instead T. Harry Williams’s Pulitzer-winning biography of the Kingfish.

    Huey Long was the real deal. And that’s why they shot him.

    Also, Huey wasn’t exactly a socialist. Right-wingers called him communist, and left-wingers called him fascist. Must’ve been doing something right.

  23. @Ace

    This magic constitution of which you speak: if its purpose is to limit the power of our supervisors, and to thwart their wicked plans, let me simply observe that it doesn’t do those things. If it did, then that which is happening would not be happening.

    At the risk of blaspheming The Holy Founders, are we talking about the constitution in which the central government is forbidden to do anything that isn’t explicitly authorized by the document itself (“enumerated powers”)? Or the one where they said, oh wait a minute, let’s tack on a “bill of rights” which enumerates a handful of things that the central government is forbidden to do, with the obvious implication that it can do anything else? Are we talking about the constitution, which the government that is allegedly limited by it gets to say what it means (good morning, “supreme court!”)?

    If this constitution really had all these marvelous government-limiting attributes, no one would have to talk about “returning” to it. But as it is, this constitution is, as someone said, “no threat to our system of government.”

    Sure, let’s return to the good old days. And I am talking here, literally, about days. How long after SuperConstitution was enthroned did it take for St. George Washington to be suppressing Whisky Rebellions? How long did it take until the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed?

    I don’t have a comprehensive, permanent solution to propose. Man is fallen, and endlessly corrupt, and endlessly inventive, and I suspect that one could, in principle, prove a theorem saying that no comprehensive, permanent solution exists, short of the Second Coming. But I do think it’s important to avoid the illusion that trying the very same thing again will work. The evidence says it won’t.

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Ace
  24. Rehmat says:

    Mike Whitney – that’s one of the dumbest comparison I have the misfortune to read.

    1. Both Republican and Democrat parties are run be Zionist Jew mega-donors.

    2. Bernie Sander is no ‘socialite’. He is down- to-earth pro-Israel Jew and linked with Wall Street crooks.

    3. Almost every ISM (Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Zionism, Fascism, etc.) – has been created and maintained to serve the interests of a small rich minority and their not-so-rich collaborators. All these ISMs have been worshipped and protected like some divine religions. The high priests (mostly Jews), who conceived these ISMs, made sure that their doctrine is accepted blindly by the great majority of world’s middle-class and poor people.

    The rich and parasites, who have been the main beneficiary of capitalist system – also created wage-disparity, bankruptcy, loan, paper-money, credit cards, and world monetary organizations like World Bank, IMF, Federal Reserve, etc. – to keep their grip over world monetary system, so much so, that during every recession – it’s the poor majority which suffers, while the rich become richer on the expense of their victims – the taxpayers….

    https://rehmat1.com/2008/12/28/capitalism-parasites-golden-calf/

    • Agree: No_0ne
  25. OutWest says:
    @annamaria

    Well, for instance, the government sent out foremost experts the Japan, that maker of novelty items, to teach them to make quality items at low cost. And thus we have Toyota and a host of high tech companies there and not here. Actually the government was merely the enabler as the decision to buy foreign is made by the consumer. Most of China’s manufacturing is Chinese owned and not relocated American businesses. They’re just more competitive with hundreds of millions of young girls with quick hands doing work our people don’t want. As the reserve of farm girls runs out there is always Vietnam and the Philippines, or even Mexico.

    And, if I recall correctly, it was Congress that wanted to roll the dice on loans to people who were unable to repay them. This drove a lot of ethical bankers from the business and brought in those that gamed the Federal loan insurance give away. Check the fate of “Red-line” loans when the bankers were dumped on for prudent consoling.

    Here’s a tip. If a politician runs hundreds of millions of dollars in adds promising to take good care of you, he’s already sold to various interests including corps and unions and doesn’t give a damn about you. Big corporations are just one of the players in the game to screw you and me. If they weren’t in the game they would be treated like you and me.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    , @woodNfish
  26. tbraton says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    “Warren’s book was published more than 20 years before Williams’ biography came out.”

    Notice I said that “It is a superb account of Huey’s life, which Robert Penn Warren’s famous novel, “All the King’s Men” is loosely based on.” In other words, Warren’s novel was loosely based on Huey Long’s life, not William’s biography of Huey Long. There much a much acclaimed movie made of Warren’s novel, “All the King’s Men,” made in 1949 (?), starring Broderick Crawford as “Willie Stark,” the main character based roughly on Huey Long. (I believe the original movie won an Academy Award. There was a remake produced a few years ago with Sean Penn as Willie Stark, but I never got around to seeing it.) I first saw the movie as a teenager sometime in the 50’s. Then I read Warren’s novel in the late 60’s, early 70’s. I remember reading a book review of William’s biography, which was published in 1969, put it away in my mental file cabinet as a “must read” book, but I never got around to reading the biography until 20 years later when I spotted a fat paperback version (just checked: 876 pages) in a bookstore. (I may have been inspired to read Warren’s superb novel by reading the review of William’s biography or I might have been reading Warren’s novel when the review came out, which explains why the review made a lasting impression.)

    I can’t put my hands on Warren’s novel at this instant, but I recall something he wrote in the introduction to the Modern Library edition of the novel to the effect that his novel was not literally true as an account of Huey Long’s life but that he used Long as a model of politicians you found all over the South, who rise up from very humble origins and use politics as a means to get ahead in life and how the pursuit of power corrupted them. (I’m paraphrasing here. Warren was much more eloquent.) Somebody who was born and raised in the South can speak to this matter better than I, but I have read enough about Southern politicians over the years to recognize a “Willie Stark” every now and then. (Although the same can be said about Northern politicians, I believe this trend was truer of the South than the North. I can recall something a friend of mine from 20 years ago told me. He was originally an Irishman born in the North, but he became involved in the real estate business later in life. This was at a time when Clinton was President. He recalled meeting a powerful man from Arkansas and asked him about Clinton. The man explained to my friend that the powerful men in Arkansas were always on the lookout for able and intelligent young men to represent their interests in politics. They are able to spot them at a relatively early age and start grooming them for higher office when they are in their 20’s. Clinton, btw, was first elected governor of Arkansas at 32, the “boy wonder.”)

    Anyway, if you want to find out more about Huey Long, I suggest you start with the excellent biography. You also get a greater sense of Long’s sense of humor and his intelligence. He was a very funny man, a sense you don’t get from the novel. The biography also makes it clear that Long was raised in somewhat comfortable circumstances at the time, not the poverty portrayed in the novel. Then, for a somewhat different and richer version of the same story, I also strongly suggest reading Warren’s novel. The original movie is OK for an introduction to the Huey Long/Willie Stark character. (Out of curiosity, I rented a copy about 10 years ago and wasn’t as impressed as I was as a teenager.)

    BTW I came across this quote from the novel, which suggests to me what a certain popular frontrunner for the Republican nomination has in common with Huey Long/Willie Stark: “Willie addressed the crowds he spoke to as “Friends, red-necks, suckers, and fellow hicks,” (94) and delivered his straightforward message in unmistakable terms: “You are a hick and nobody ever helped a hick but the hick himself. Up there in town they won’t help you. It is up to you and God, and God helps those who help themselves.” “

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    , @tbraton
  27. @Montefrío

    Castro and Chavez: corrupt frauds, like nearly all “revolutionaries”.

    Can you provide some examples of their corruption? Somehow I am not able to recollect their names figuring in the Panama Papers.

    • Replies: @bondo
    , @Rehmat
  28. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Ace

    Who cares if Trump is sometimes earthy or Spitzer liked strange if they could rise above the spinelessness and sappiness that characterize the saintly others?

    They all like Strange, that’s just one of the many perks. And they get as much as they want all the time with complete no consequences. It is the Faustian Bargain, 101.

    But, and the beauty of the arrangement is that, (serving as a simple object lesson to all), that the vary moment any one of ’em dares to… Do Right, the bill gets called in.

    “Saintly…” indeed!! So, as ‘ole Huey once used to say: ” You gots to go along… Ifn’ ya’ll want to Get Along.”

    Go along there all you… F’n Saints!

    • Replies: @Ace
  29. bondo says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    in zionized amurderkan lingo, corruption means honest just as freedom means oppression and free market means rigged market and lies are truth.

  30. Ace says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    You make a good case for laws needing people to respect them, RU. The finest automobile in any dealer showroom still needs a driver to regulate its speed, direction, and maintenance. There isn’t any fix to the Constitution to make it REALLY mean what it plainly says.

    There were a lot of things that the Framers didn’t foresee, notwithstanding their close study of past efforts at government. They didn’t foresee that the franchise would be extended to women and non-property owners. They didn’t foresee that the descendants of slaves would become the eventual raison d’etre of the entire system of government and exert enormous electoral power by providing the crucial votes in close contest fought against traditional, productive America.

    They did not foresee the rise of malevolent socialism, but I repeat myself, with its inherent hatred of the existing order and its sacralization of the principle that one can steal from your neighbor through legislative majorities when one cannot effect the same result by one’s own efforts. They did not foresee that the country would be locked in a struggle with a hideous totalitarian power that would infiltrate spies and agents of influence in the press, the academy, the military, and the government to wreak what damage they could.

    They didn’t foresee the rise of the ACLU with its agenda to subvert the Christian and European culture and legal system in pursuit of equality and the destruction of the white European majority.

    They did not foresee that enemies of the nation would be so successful that they could ensure that the borders were left undefended and that any foreigner anywhere in the world would be welcomed and whites be forced to subsidize them and tolerate their criminal depredations and theft of their jobs.

    They did not foresee that the most educated of the citizens would form a seditious core ardently committed to denigrating any and all aspects of the nation and its founding people. They did not foresee that that class of citizens would be unable to distinguish a religion like Christianity from voodoo, Islam, or santeria, and thus accord the latter all the protections contemplated for the former.

    They did not foresee that the most learned of lawyers on the Supreme Court would, as Judge Bork put it, just cease to enforce the Commerce Clause as it had been understood for 140 years.

    Most of these problems could be solved if politicians had any understanding of the tools provided them. Or, more to the point, had the will to use what’s plainly there. I mentioned two. Cut to the chase, in addition to all the above, the Framers did not foresee that factions, which they envisioned as fueling a healthy competition, would become a conspiracy of actions against the nation.

    You do show a gratuitous disrespect to the Framers who really come up with something that was new, healthy, and intended to free mankind from the scourge of kings and priests. Why your contempt?

    There is no implication possible from the Bill of Rights that it carved out certain things from a panoply of permissible powers. It was not necessary, for example, to make clear that Congress had no power to make any law abridging freedom of speech as no such power had been granted Congress in Art. I, Sect. 8. Thank God for the BoR but it did not, however, alter the scheme of the Constitution so that certain powers were delegated to the Congress in Art. I, but that Congress was, by way of amendment, free to legislate regarding anything not mentioned in the BoR.

    Joe Sobran was the source of that witticism and he merely stated more succinctly what I said initially.

    Washington was an extraordinary man and your disrespect for him is your affair but it’s a gratuitous slap given his great service to the country and his personal integrity. I know little of the WR so can’t speak to the merits of any side’s conduct. The Alien and Sedition Act included provisions that “made it harder for an immigrant to become a citizen (Naturalization Act), [and] allowed the president to imprison and deport noncitizens who were deemed dangerous (Alien Friends Act) or who were from a hostile nation (Alien Enemies Act) . . . .” (Wikipedia.) Permit me to skip the obligatory boo hoo about these provisions and say that, in view of the pathetic weakness we show on the issue of Sainted Third-World Invaders today, that there is some righteous legisification. Anyway, the bad, bad parts were repealed soon afterwards in an outbreak of “politics.” This was more of a vindication of the now System than a manifestation of its Dark Side.

    Man is indeed fallen but the sad part is that the essential parts of the Constitution — liberty and popular sovereignty — proved to be matters of indifference to the mass of Americans. Whether we go back to the spirit of the Constitution or try something else are two choices before us. We’ve already got “something else” now that Ann Barnhardt has described for us in her inimitably moderate fashion. After the coming economic spasm, a new “something else” is likely to be devised by people who have none of the character and learning of the Founders and my predictation is that it will resemble a variant of fascism.

    Given what we have now and might have later, going back to the Constitution doesn’t seem all that awful or unwise. Mark Levin has some ideas for salutary modifications.

    It’s coming.

    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  31. @tbraton

    On Trump, why didn’t you post this stuff at Sailer’s blog last week regarding Wisconsin? Sure would’ve been welcome and needed.

    If Mike Whitney is consistent regarding his desire to see a true populist candidate take the White House along the lines of Huey Long, then he should switch to the other side and support Donald Trump’s candidacy as Trump appears to be reaching out to the same voters as Long.

    Isn’t that correct, Mr Whitney? And, when can we start to see your pro-Trump articles forthcoming? You know, for professional consistency’s sake.

  32. joe webb says:
    @Ace

    thanks Ace, Btw, what is overlooked also by these leftie rants is that 98% of the big bucks that the super rich have is invested. You can only drive so many cars, live in so many houses, etc.

    The issue, again, is what the putative investor class, is actually doing with our collective Capital.

    The short answer is that they are screwing it up.

    A nationalist economics would put Country and Race back where it should be…first.

    Nationlist economists, like those Trump would presumably gather round him…might be able to figure it out….that is, if the profession of economists has not bi0-culturally weeded out any non- pee cee type economists.

    The constitution pre-occupation , in my opinion, is a snare. Politics trumps legality, etc.
    The race wars are coming, if not here already, and Liberalism is on the ropes.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @Ace
  33. joe webb says:

    akin, but a sidebar in this general context, that is the death of Liberalism…how economies will be restructured will be a fascinating topic. Managed capitalism, etc.

    Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 9:21 AM
    Subject: Fw: NYTimes.com: The Death of Liberalism ( or, the Life of Racial Renaissance )

    [MORE]

    “The broad failure of the Arab Awakening — the greatest liberation movement since 1989, an attempt by Arab peoples to empower themselves — had many causes, but a central one was the absence of any liberal constituency in societies from Egypt to Libya. Even a country with a large middle class like Egypt was not ready to accept the mediation of multiple truths through democratic institutions.”

    It was obvious to anybody with a racialist understanding that Arabs were and are not fit for putting up with elections, and I so stated at the time.

    ‘Multiple Truths’ is a Liberal and Pluralist delusion. Of course, where Liberalism cracks up is on Race and racial inequality. Liberalism clucks: we are all equal, and if you deny it, go directly to jail. So the whole Liberal Catechism is one lie after another, fundamentally in the service of making money thru globalism , and self-righteousness: doing well by doing good.

    Here is another mystery of ‘Multiple Truths’….”[ Isaiah ) Berlin [a jew] …, identified a potential weakness of liberalism. In “The Crooked Timber of Humanity,” he wrote: “A liberal sermon which recommends machinery designed to prevent people from doing each other too much harm, giving each human group sufficient room to realize its own idiosyncratic, unique, particular ends without too much interference with the ends of others…”

    This is a jewish obsession. The ‘particular ends’ of jews is total domination of their host societies. Besides the obscurantism of ‘multiple truths’, another jewish liberal crypsis that theorizes jewish subversion as Good for , well not only jews but everybody else because it fosters Pluralism, and the equally jewish lie of Cultural Relativity (levi Strauss and endless look- alike jews, the ugliest folks on Earth…Orthodox jews with their cookie-cutter strange looks) championed by the whole dark army of post-modernists, all jews and broken-down leftists..whose ‘truth’ is Whites are the cancer of the planet (Susan Sontag, jew) and who demand that Whites must voluntarily remove ourselves from power, thus turning Power over to Equals whom jews think they can control….

    Where was I? Oh, the Tiimber of Humanity is not crooked. It is varied, just as there are various species of trees. It is all genetics of course. To the Jew, the timber is crooked because it is not jewish.
    Jewish timber is straight out of the chosen by jehovah, the best of course. The mission of the jews is to dominate everybody, especially whites, since we , they think, are the only race capable of harming them. The Chinese , if they ever take over, will dispense with jews in about one week.

    The fundamental facts of human and political association are that genetic similarity is number One. Number two is religious similarity. Number three is general agreement on secular values.

    LIberalism denies all of these natural facts, that every political theorist (except jews with their own ethnic chauvinism and fascism) has clearly seen and stated.

    So, Europe is threatened with civil war right now, and the US is in the greatest era of political conflict since our Civil War. All of this is due to Liberalism and its absurd claim that Anything Goes and that there must be Tolerance for Everything, except of course, no free speech for racialists. Liberalism is totalitarian. The counter-revolution will be authoritarian. Authority must be created once again.

    One thing is certain, when the cultural and political counter-revolution succeeds, liberalism will not only be dead, but ridicule will silence any survivors. There are Limits.

    Joe Webb

    ,

    Sent by [email protected]:

    OP-ED COLUMNIST
    The Death of Liberalism
    BY ROGER COHEN

  34. Rurik says:

    you can’t beat Wall Street and the giant corporations playing by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. Politics is bloodsport,not pattycake.

    can’t help but think of the movie The Quiet Man hearing those words.

    Can you imagine Sanders doing anything like that? Can you imagine him doing anything even slightly shady or underhanded?

    he’s a US Senator, so yea

    they’re all rotten, to the core

    “I used to get things done by saying please. Now I dynamite ’em out of my path.”

    sounds just like Trump to me

    Booyah, Kingfish. We could use you now, buddy, that’s for sure.

    reminds me of a scene from another movie with a quote from another hero of the American working class, Hoffa with Jack Nicholson.

    We have… led the American workingman into the middle-class and, buddy, we intend to stay here.” – Hoffa 1992

    • Replies: @joe webb
  35. Rehmat says:
    @Regnum Nostrum

    Believing in the Panama Papers is just believing in Israel’s created Wikipedia.

    Castro and Chavez are corrupt because they’re friends of Iran’s former president Dr. Ahmadinejad. They’re all socialist and anti-Capitalist system.

    Castro pulled Obama’s dirty Zionist pants down last month during latter’s “historic” visit to Havana.

    “We don’t need the Empire to give us any presents, Fidel Castro said mocking Obama’s statement: “It is time, now, to forget the past, leave the past behind, let us look to the future together, a future of hope. And it won’t be easy, there will be challenges and we must give it time; but my stay here gives me more hope in what we can do together as friends, as family, as neighbors, together” Castro told Obama.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/29/fidel-castro-pulls-obamas-pants-down/

    • Replies: @Regnum Nostrum
  36. Ace says:
    @edNels

    Some wag suggested that if you want to get ahead in politics you should go out and commit a heinous crime. That way TPTB would have something on you and know you can be trusted.

    Are you any relation to Jeaux?

    • Replies: @edNels
  37. @Rehmat

    Castro and Chavez are corrupt.

    I am asking once again. Can you provide some examples of their corruption? The fact they were friends of Ahmadinejad speaks in their favor because he himself was incorruptible.

  38. Ace says:
    @joe webb

    The Constitution (return thereto) is one of the options, as I discuss elsewhere. It may be a snare, as you say, but any other alternative would be a snare for the same reason — the generic voter will at all times prefer free stuff and negroes running round and funny-shaped balls up and down courts and grassy rectangles. Whoa. The thrill of it!! That’s what the politicians love — distraction and sensualism.

    Liberalism is indeed on the ropes and the race wars it has guaranteed from the times of the “Civil Rights Revolution” (and the policy of providing welfare for parasitic losers) will transpire. The current lunacy where covering up black ignorance, incompetence, rampant criminality, and parasitism is the top priority of the political system is becoming ever more clear to any white person who isn’t in a coma.

    We are at the end of four paradigms: (1) socialism works; (2) America will be vital and strong as we were in 1945 forever regardless of how economically and politically reckless we are; (3) congressional, executive and judicial discretion is better than the rule of law; and (4) blacks and massive numbers of other foreigners will willingly embrace the ethos of rule of law, free enterprise, individual responsibility, and loyalty to America over foreign countries and religions.

    Fasten yo’ sea’ bew.

  39. @OutWest

    Most of China’s manufacturing is Chinese owned and not relocated American businesses.

    Most of China’s manufacturing is Chinese owned subcontractors for American businesses.

    They’re just more competitive with hundreds of millions of young girls with quick hands doing work our people don’t want.

    Our people did that work here in the US for years until the factories were closed down, and businesses started subcontracting out to cheaper Chinese factories. Granting China ‘most favored nation’ trade status in 1992 was a real turning point there.

  40. @tbraton

    I actually read the T. Harry Williams biography just a few years back and thoroughly enjoyed it. I’ve never read the Warren novel, but I found the movie based on it so-so.

  41. Agent76 says:

    Sep 19, 2013 Ron Paul Defines Libertarianism – Charlie Rose Interview

    Charlie Rose: “Define what libertarianism means to you” – Ron Paul: “The word I best describe it is something not a lot of people use. I call it non-intervention.”

    Charlie Rose: “Non-intervention in personal life, non-intervention in foreign policy, non-intervention in…”

    “There it is. Because it’s sort of tells you what a conservative, a libertarian, constitutionalist, and liberal, classical liberalism has been used it’s closely aligned with libertarianism, but non-intervention as you say. I don’t want to interfere in your personal life. The one rule is you can’t hurt another person, that’s when government’s necessary.”

    https://youtu.be/tfYBvIcAtko

  42. So, rightists, you’re looking for a demagogue who’ll “fight for you,” the way “progressives” think Hillary will “fight for” them. No surprise there; the U.S. presidential, gubernatorial, and even mayoral systems promote this feudal thinking. But it’s no way to achieve socialism, if for no other reason than the ruling class can stop you with a single bullet.

    • Replies: @Wally
  43. joe webb says:
    @Rurik

    politics is not a blood sport. It is rough and tumble to be sure but blood comes when politics is over and war begins, especially civil war.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @tbraton
    , @Rurik
  44. tbraton says:
    @joe webb

    But I thought that war was a continuation of politics by other means. 😉

    BTW that’s why I keep questioning the idolization of Abraham Lincoln. When I was a teenager in high school and learned that 600,000 (recently upped to 750,000) Americans (both North and South, they were all Americans) lost their lives during our Civil War, I questioned why Lincoln was so idolized. If I had the sense at that young age and with little knowledge, I wonder why others (outside the South) have not asked that question. I thought a test of a politician was how many lives were lost under his leadership. If Lincoln was truly a great politician, he could have found a way to avoid war and the immense loss of life. Incidentally, that’s one reason why I have a hard time giving Stalin a pass a la Saker. It’s not just a matter of the people he directly murdered but the fact that upward of 20 million Soviets lost their lives during WWII, even if the USSR was among the “winners” of that war.

    • Replies: @joe webb
    , @Jacques Sheete
  45. Wally says: • Website
    @Epaminondas

    But then why do so many leftists insist on calling this government involvement with business “capitalism”.

    It is not.

  46. Wally says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    But why “achieve Socialism”, the most failed form of governance the world has ever seen?

    Haven’t you been / aren’t you paying attention?

    And BTW, ruling socialists have stopped countless numbers with single bullets.

  47. edNels [AKA "geoshmoe"] says:
    @Ace

    That way TPTB would have something on you and know you can be trusted

    .

    This is a way underated concept, also called being compromised, or blackmailable.

    No/

  48. @Ace

    You do show a gratuitous disrespect to the Framers who really come up with something that was new, healthy, and intended to free mankind from the scourge of kings and priests. Why your contempt?

    I’m not hurting their feelings any. They’re dead. And it seems to me that a little contempt is a salutary offset to the idolatry offered to these dead men by some of us today.

    Here’s a different view, from David Montgomery:

    [MORE]

    How can anyone not be awed by the Declaration of Independence? It’s punchy, rebellious, and full of romantic idealism.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    This singular statement is the lodestar of American political philosophy. The Founding Fathers didn’t like to be bossed around. And to their credit, they were true-blue tax haters. They wanted a regime they could control – one that wouldn’t meddle in their affairs and would benefit their demographic “tribe” – namely educated, landed, white men.

    They got the party started by blasting out the finest piece of political marksmanship ever penned. The Declaration of Independence. Even the title is majestic. And yet…

    As soaring as the Declaration’s language is, there’s a hairy fly in the freedom ointment: The Declaration of Independence is a political document. Its express purpose was to replace one regime with another.

    The Modus Operandi of Politicians

    Back to our freedom fighter, Patrick Henry. While Patrick was demanding that liberty be given to him, he was busy wresting it away from others. He’s on record as having purchased 78 slaves.

    “But times were different!” Dear situational slavery apologists, please face the pain of reality. These were extraordinarily smart, observant men. Since antiquity people have recognized that slavery is a moral abomination. The earliest American colonists did, too.

    And of course, Patrick Henry knew it. His own words:

    “Would any one believe that I am master of slaves by my own purchase? I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not – I cannot justify it, however culpable my conduct.”

    Reluctantly oppressing people for personal gain? Ah, there it is. The modus operandi of politicians: Believe what I masterfully preach; pay no mind to what I ruthlessly do.
    Timber

    Let’s take an axe to the tree of hypocrisy planted by George Washington. Said the wealthy overseer of 317 slaves on his estate, “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.”

    A plan? Hey George, how about starting by releasing the slaves you own?

    When a slave named Oney Judge managed to escape, Washington actively pursued her and even advertised a reward for her capture. Somehow her freedom wasn’t in his “plan.”

    This guy was absolutely perfect for heading a new political regime. Washington bought and sold hundreds of people from his childhood onward, and he owned them till the day he died. All while passionately lamenting the inhumanity of it.

    Modus operandi.

    At least George wrote in his will that his slaves should be freed after his and his wife’s death, something the other Founding Fathers didn’t bother doing.

    Jefferson’s Declaration of Hypocrisy

    Is it any surprise that the primary author of the Declaration of Independence owned hundreds of slaves throughout his life?

    Like George Washington and Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson fiercely denounced slavery while continuing to buy, sell, and claim literal ownership over other human beings. “Unalienable Rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”? There’s so much here to learn for those who aspire to “govern” others.

    And like Washington, Jefferson desperately wanted slavery gone for good – just not enough to actually free any slaves.

    From the official web site of Jefferson’s plantation, Monticello: “He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two ‘separate nations’ who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and ‘as incapable as children,’ coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme.”

    Makes you wonder how he dreamed up the “All men are created equal” line.

    If the slaves were ever freed, Jefferson wanted them forcibly deported to Africa or the West Indies. “Unalienable Rights” to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”? These words would have more credibility in a fortune cookie.

    Jefferson bought and sold people with a keen eye for profit. He wrote to a friend who had fallen on hard times that he “should have been invested in negroes,” and that any remaining savings should be invested “in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” Somehow I missed that bit in school.

    He was also quite the disciplinarian. Jefferson ordered young boys he owned to be whipped when they were not productive enough in his nail factory. This myth-busting truth was censored by regime historians, literally deleted from a 500 page account of the operations of his plantation.

    There’s also written and DNA evidence that Jefferson had sex with a slave he acquired when she was 14. How can it not be rape if you exercise unbounded control over someone by claiming to literally own her? It seems he impregnated her and apparently didn’t stop there. His grandson wrote that there were children “which resembled Mr. Jefferson so closely that it was plain that they had his blood in their veins.”

    Enough.

    I’m asking in earnest: Do you love liberty? More than just as a slogan?

    Let’s just shed the mythology and recognize reality: The Founding Fathers hatched a government they could control for their benefit. All the soaring freedom language wasn’t about anyone’s freedom but their own.

    People say actions speak louder than words. Not in politics. Shakespeare captured the essence of political speech in eight words: “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

    Politicians are grandmasters of persuasion. They regale us with “liberty scripture” and then do whatever serves their interests. Modus operandi. That makes them devils to any honest observer.

    Think of every politician throughout history who has waged wars while decrying the horrors of war. Yet most people believe their words – even cling to them – and ignore their actions. This is likely due to politicians’ rhetorical mastery, their relentless propaganda, pledging your loyalty to the regime every day in school, and being taught whitewashed government mythology.

    But more fundamentally, it may be that people simply don’t want to confront the awful truth that they’re being “governed” by moral frauds who will say and do anything to advance their agendas.

    Always and everywhere, they are the government and you are the governed. What is criminal for you is legal for them. They claim a monopoly on the creation of law and its enforcement, and in return you’re permitted a token vote for regime-approved candidates.

    That’s democracy.

    Declare Your Independence

    Independence Day is a day the American regime but not the American people should wildly celebrate. There are about 200 other governments in the world, and they can only dream of wielding such vast financial, regulatory, military, and propaganda power.

    The true declaration of independence is not a political document at all. It’s the inward realization that the flag lapel-pinned strangers who seek to govern you have no legitimate claim to your person or property.

    What do we do once we notice that whatever they take from some and give to others is the product of extortion and meant to grow their power?

    Start by training yourself (if you haven’t already) to separate your identity from the government. It’s not as easy as it sounds. Remember Shakespeare’s quote every time the mainstream media trains its cameras on a politician. Never forget the bottomless chasm between the words and the actions of the regime’s Founding Fathers.

    Stop pledging allegiance to a cabal of politicians. Pledge allegiance to your loved ones, your friends, your principles.

    Be a model of kindness and make liberty attractive to those who haven’t thought through these ideas. Since everyone concedes that humans are at times untrustworthy and aggressive, see if you can influence others to conclude that monopolizing untold power in the hands of the few who most seek it is a really bad idea.

    The flash and flare of government flags and fireworks pale in comparison to freedom understood. Own the truth in your heart and act accordingly.

    Happy Independence Day.

  49. joe webb says:
    @tbraton

    good points.

    Stalin is given a pass by patriotic Russian communist types, like the Sacker and Shamir.

    Stalin was a nationalist, hard on the Jews, patriotic, and a good communism-in-one-country kind of guy as opposed to Permanent Revolution of Trotsky. If Trotsky had been in power, much more blood would have been shed.

    Arguably forces were in play that mitigate personal responsibility of any single person, etc.

    Nevertheless, consider the old line about how communism in theory was good, but in practice it was bad.

    This is absurd. No communist, as opposed to socialist, theory, meaning the forms of Leninism…vanguard party, dictatorship, war-communism, terror, central planning, the erasure of civil society, one-party state forever….ever made any sense from the point of view of the biological nature of man. In fact, the communists championed equality, if not race equality so much, thru its Lysenkoism/Lamarckianism…changes in the biology due to culture…madness of the first order.

    The first concession to the national question was the Jewish state, carved out of somewhere in Russia, not that jews wanted it, but this was needed to keep the many ethnys in line in the USSR.

    That was all to be temporary of course, while the New Soviet Man was built from scratch. Ultimately all nationalism would be revolutionized into oblivion. There was to be peace and love between all peoples and races. Of course, one people was more equal than the others.

    I have plugged The Jewish Century by Slezkine, which traces the Jewish Thread in the USSR and communism. Slezkine is half jewish and half Russian. historian at Berkeley, or was. He says that jewish communists in Russia had shed their jewish identities and become communists. This is belied by his own remarks that have jews marrying jews, communists, but jewish communists. Blood is thicker than Ideas. Any blood, any ideas.

    so, the World Changers go on rampage. It has always been like this. Death to the Ruling Class, etc, etc, etc. Now it is Death to whites, the cancer of the planet (Susan Sontag, Partisan Review about 1967, a jewish communist journal, part of the New York jewish intellectual mafia.)

    It was Procrustean beds for the counter-revolutionaries, if they were lucky to escape the bullet in the first place, and workers and peasants first. Of course, jews were actually first, and they purged the large German sections of the intelligentsia and state services, and Russians as well. Russians were then put on the rack…Procrustes Forever. Permanent Revolution. These guys are still around in the neoconservative movement.

    If Menshevism made some sense and fell in line with Marx on the issue of allowing capitalism to develop the forces of production before an attempt at socialism was tried, the Leninist ‘voluntarism’ of forcing or telescoping the presumed ‘natural’ development of capitalism and the social relations attendant to the capitalist phase, this was a massive mistake, even assuming the Mensheviks were correct, which is unlikely given the history of the last century or so.

    On top of that, the Vanguard Party, is like the Chosen People principle of the Jews. That is at least another massive mistake with regard to how white people, at least, have ordered their politics for the last, say, 4 thousand years. Aristocracy is one thing, with its relative openness to outsiders with talent, and also its comprehensive view of all people fitting in to the regime in some manner…call it corporatist.

    Leninsism and communism viewed whole classes as Enemy and to be exterminated, which all communist movements have pursued, from 1917 to Pol Pot, Shining Path, etc.

    You may dislike a corporatist/fascist model, but the model does not require mass murder, especially of your own people. Today, the mass murder plan is for Whites to disappear…that is Billary. etc.

    There was Nothing in Leninism, which is historically what communism actually was, that is any way consistent with the human condition of vast inequality, tribalism, religious conviction, and social relations consistent with our human nature, not the “means of production.”

    Terror was and is the only means of jambing folks onto the Procrustean beds and coffins of communism.

    The Saker and Israel Shamir both deny biology, racial inequality, and the like. This makes them terrorists-in-the making, just as Liberals are the same thing. Rousseau had his “force men to be Free.” If Saker/Shamir would not kill their enemies, they would ostracize them from the community of equals, and worse.

    At least the corporate model of fascism is inclusive, while the communist model is exclusive…get rid of the capitalist pigs, and the intellectuals, and the racists, and the patriarchists, and the White Males, and, and, and…don’t forget blondes with blue eyes, especially if good looking…Lookism!
    Off with their heads!

    Finally, there is zero liberty with communists. No private sphere…the totalitarian claim of “all is political” is lunacy. Private life is , can I say, sacred.

    The communist view leaves nothing untouched, unreformed, unrevolutionized. It finally is a psychology that hates the world as it is given biologically. The Church always commands us to love the world, it is God’s work. That is a healthy view, even if one is an atheist. ….This is It.

    Ordinary people, without the benefit of a college education, know the Do-Gooder when they see one. The Do-Gooder is fundamentally hateful, abstract, and egotisitical. He. or especially she, knows and you don’t.
    Killers all, just like the commies…trots, or stalinists, or maoists, or, or or…all killers. This includes most Liberals today as well. Liberals are killers.

    The best read in terms of primary sources is Solzhenitsyn, especially his new book on the Jews in the USSR, 200 Years Together…Stalin, Jews, Russians, etc. Solzhenitsyn apparently has been misread by the Sacker, as any Stalinist would mislead it.

    Joe Webb

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  50. @tbraton

    You are right to question the idolization of Abe, yet another American fraud. You may be interested in this if you don’t already know.:

    The would be Lincoln hagiographer and super patriot former US Senator (Indiana) Albert J. Beveridge, was shocked at what he found when he began researching his boyhood hero, Lincoln. Most of what he “knew” was campaign rhetoric and outright fabrication, as is a huge portion of American history.

    “The more research that Beveridge did the more disgusted he became with the “slush and rot” that had been—and was being—written about Lincoln. There were a few exceptions. ..”

    http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/25.2/braeman.html

  51. Rurik says:
    @joe webb

    politics is not a blood sport. It is rough and tumble to be sure but blood comes when politics is over

    the blood is already flowing Joe

    Americans have been assassinated by this regime. Overtly in a drone attack, and covertly like with Michael Hastings.

    Millions of innocent people have been butchered or maimed or had their villages bombed into ruins and their lives’ destroyed. Terror drones fill the skies over landscapes of poverty and despair.

    There’s a torture camp being run right off our shores where men are not allowed to starve themselves to death. Instead they ram tubes up their backsides to ‘hydrate’ these wretched souls.

    How long do we have to wait before we can say the politics have failed and the blood sport has begun?

  52. woodNfish says:

    We only propose that, when one man gets more than he and his children and children’s children can spend or use in their lifetimes, that then we shall say that such person has his share.”

    Who can disagree with that?

    Well apparently not another socialist like you Whitney.

  53. woodNfish says:
    @Tom Welsh

    Yeah, I think you nailed it there, Tom. I’m beginning to understand anarchists.

  54. woodNfish says:
    @OutWest

    I have made the same argument – that the banks had no choice bu make bad loans because of the Community Reinvestment Act. If they didn’t give mortgages to deadbeats they got sued. So damned if they don’t and damned if they do! What would you do with a financial gun at your head? So they played the con game and enjoyed it while they could.

    Our criminal government caused the financial collapse – every bit of it! The banks were just their fall guys.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  55. woodNfish says:
    @OutWest

    They’re just more competitive with hundreds of millions of young girls with quick hands doing work our people don’t want.

    Oh BS! Amerikans are hard workers, but when a company wants to pay you the dollar a day – the cost that they can get the same work done in China, no amerikan can afford to work for those low wages (forget minimum wage laws). If those goods were then taxed at a rate that covers the increased social costs in unemployment and retraining for the damage done by shipping those jobs overseas, they would probably cost about as much as they would to make them here.

    It has nothing to do with amerikans’ unwillingness to work. That is just a corporate red herring and a lie to destroy jobs, lives, livlihoods, and our economy and get away with it.

  56. woodNfish says:
    @joe webb

    …all killers. This includes most Liberals today as well. Liberals are killers.

    I assume you mean “liberals” in the way most ignorant amerikans define “liberals” which is what they call leftists. (Proof that the PC propaganda works.) Real liberals believe in liberty and individual freedom. You can never have that with socialism.

    I think it would be better if you just dropped the PC label and called them leftists. Stop helping them hide behind words that mean something positive, like “liberal”. Or calling illegal aliens “undocumented immigrants” like the idiot author of this article.

  57. @woodNfish

    “What would you do with a financial gun at your head?”

    Who needs a gun to the head when there is a government sponsored safety net that’ll bail yer tuschie out?

    I suspect that big banks wrote the rules that congress just rubber stamped so they could rake in the cash either way. In addition, people then blame the government and ignore the other partner(s) in the rip off.

    Big banks are corporations and corporations exist to socialize risk while privatizing profits. Government makes the robbery efficient.

  58. woodNfish says:

    You make some good points jacque. I know the banks and Wall St. are totally corrupt, but the government is not innocent in this. They made it possible and then play both sides like the hypocritical criminal slime they are.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  59. @woodNfish

    I think that both Mr Whitney as well as Mr Long would agree that they certainly are hypocritical slime. Greedy and ruthless too.

    What surprises me is that people think there’s any substantial difference between the two wings of the welfare-warfare party when even a blind and deaf person could appreciate the scam over a century ago.

    “Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.… “
    -Helen Keller,
    Letter published in the Manchester Advertiser (3 March 1911), quoted in A People’s History of the United States (1980) page 345.

    “Are not the dominant parties managed by the ruling classes, that is, the propertied classes, solely for the profit and privilege of the few?
    They use us millions to help them into power. They tell us like so many children that our safety lies in voting for them. They toss us crumbs of concession to make us believe that they are working in our interest. “

    -Helen Keller,OUT OF THE DARK, LETTER TO AN ENGLISH WOMAN- SUFFRAGIST* Copyright, 1907

    http://archive.org/stream/outdarkessaysle01kellgoog/outdarkessaysle01kellgoog_djvu.txt

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 Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS