The Seattle Socialist

UPDATE: See Below:

(HT: Dyspepsia Generation) it seems that the residents of Seattle have elected a ‘Socialist Alternative’ candidate, Kshama Sawant, defeating the incumbent for position 2 (of 9), and president of the council, the notorious reactionary Democrat Richard Conlin.  We might ask newly elected New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who took his honeymoon in Cuba, about it, but he’s merely a mainstream Democrat, which is very different from a Socialist.

Quote: “… Sawant the first Marxist to win a city-wide election in Seattle since the radical progressive Anna Louise Strong was elected to the School Board in 1916″

Do go and read that Wikipedia article about Anna, and you’ll see a lot of resemblance to Whitney.  Strong met with Stalin and was friendly with Mao.  During the war she did exactly what you would expect your average Seattle female politician to do – hang out on the Russian side of the Eastern Front and follow along with the Soviet advance.

In World War II, when the Red Army began its advance against Nazi Germany, Strong stayed in the rear following the soldiers through Warsaw, Łódź and Gdańsk. In great part because of her overtly pro-Chinese Communist sympathies she was arrested in Moscow in 1949 and charged by the Soviets with espionage. She later returned to the USSR in 1959, but settled in China until her death.

Later, in 1959, she wrote the great book, “When Serfs Stood up in Tibet” which, in a way probably opposing the attitudes of today’s Liberals, tends to put a bit of a pro-ChiCom spin on the narrative.

Anyway, back to Seattle.  MSNBC’s Up With Chris Hays is all over it, “Socialist: No longer such a dirty word“. (don’t tell Sunstein or the Tea Party)

And just joking about that notorious reactionary part, except that’s the way Sawant characterized him – as a kind of squishy liberal overly friendly to the establishment – by unfavorably comparing him to that wretch Kerensky whose only grace was making way for (well, ‘being overthrown by’) our hero Lenin.

No, I’m not kidding.

Now, some Mission Impossible!  Your challenge, all you Mr. Chambers out there, if you are willing to accept it, is to your aim your little slings at Ms. Sawant and somehow not also hit all those nasty Seattle Establishment Democrats.

I’ll add one caveat, in that that successful field agents must identify policies that are substantially different and are within a city councilmember’s legal authority.  In other words, you only get credit for potential deliverables – what Sawant can actually achieve for her constituents.  You don’t get points for Socialists merely signalling what they’d like to do, if only the Courts didn’t stop them, like Conservatives signalling about abortion.

Now, obviously Ms. Sawant believes there are important differences between herself and typical American Democrats.  I’m sure she’s got some strong words of opposition for and criticism of President Obama’s policies, it’s just … I can’t seem to find any.  The American left doesn’t seem to be attacking her very much on account of her Marxism either.  Sunstein is right, Liberals are just being lazy with their indifference, and they’re going to let Glenn Beck brainwash all the moron Tea Partiers into thinking they tolerate, or – gasp – even have an affinity towards these nasty Socialists.

Let’s take a look at Mr. Richard ‘Kerensky’ (‘K-money’ to his capitalist Runnin’ Dawg friends) Conlin.  Some excerpts from La Wik:

Under the banner of environment, he is involved in efforts to improve the salmon population.

Conlin spent time teaching public administration at the University of Botswana and University of Swaziland.

Conlin sponsored the 2007 Zero Waste Strategy, Resolution 30990 which directed Seattle Public Utilities to produce recommendations on how to eliminate residential solid waste,including whether to ban or tax plastic shopping bags and Styrofoam food containers. In 2008 Conlin sponsored Seattle’s Bag Fee Law, a 20-cent surcharge on bags. … The measure passed the city council by a 6-1 margin.

Huh.  Well, maybe he was too pro-development and too cozy with the money men!

On October 15, 2012, both the King County Council and Seattle City Council approved a financing plan for a $490 million sports arena in the Seattle’s Sodo neighborhood, backed by venture capitalist Chris Hansen. The King County Council vote was 9-0, while the City Council vote was 7-2, with Conlin and Nick Licata as the only opposition

Ok, well, let’s take a look at his blog:

Stopping the Coal Trains

Sign Up for Obamacare Now!

Preschool for all children

Urban Forest Stewardship Plan

Public Financing of Campaigns (heh, he might not think so highly of it now – he had the financing advantage and still lost, it would have been worse without it)

Marriage Equality yadda yadda

So, a pretty doctrinaire modern American West Coast Liberal, not exactly a DINO.  Environmentalist, highly regulatory, mildly anti-development, pro-gay, etc.  If not ‘Socialist’, then pro social-democracy welfare state, with preschool and healthcare for all, amen.

Let’s take a look at Kshama now, who calls herself an “Occupy Wall Street” activist and teaches part time at Seattle Central Community College (stealing generously from La Wik):

Sawant was born … in Pune, India.  Sawant’s family were middle class members of the Brahmin caste. [heh] … grew up in Mumbai … studied computer science … B.S from the University of Mumbai in 1994. Sawant married her husband Vivek, an engineer at Microsoft [Fwd.us!], and moved to the United States.  … began to pursue study in economics due to what she described as her own “questions of economic inequality.”

She entered the economics program at North Carolina State University where she earned a PhD. … Sawant moved to Seattle in 2006 and became a citizen in 2010.

Sawant is a Marxist, a feminist, an activist in the Occupy movement, and a member of the Trotskyist political party Socialist Alternative, an affiliate of the Committee for a Workers’ International.

I don’t see any issue with a recent recipient of an taxpayer-subsidized American Economics PhD also being a Marxist.  I mean the Socialist President of Ecuador got one too in Illinois.  That is, you know, decades after the collapse of every Marxist economic system.  But, whatever.  I blame the Jews.  It’s funny though, neither of Seattle’s Socialists, Sawant nor Strong, were Jewish.  I don’t get it, that clearly doesn’t accord with the Standard Theory of Socialism, right?  We obviously need to do more research.

Let’s go through her Socialist, but certainly nothing like Democrat or Liberal, issues:  First from La Wik:

She is a supporter of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour

[The residents of Seatac, Washington just voted for this, hardly radical in a state where the MW is already $9]

implementing rent control [you mean like in NYC?], single-payer health care [You mean like Pelosi?], protecting public sector unions from layoffs [You mean like Wisconsin teachers?], instituting higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for public union jobs and services [You mean like the entire Democratic party?], using government to organize mass protests [Organize For Obama America!], a moratorium on deportations of illegal immigrants from Seattle [Dreamers!] and granting unconditional citizenship for all persons currently in the United States without citizenship [Amnesty!]. She opposes the E-Verify system [You mean likeLibertarians‘?]

Sawant has called for expanded government funding of renewable energy and efficacy technologies while opposing nuclear energy

So … yeah.  How much daylight between her an Obama are we talking about it?  You could try to seize on this:

In previous campaigns she has advocated the nationalization of large Washington State corporations such as Boeing, Microsoft, and Amazon.com.

Now, that is a bit out of the Establishment Democrat mainstream who only want to nationally socialize the sixth of the economy dedicated to medical care, and it’s fun to ponder exactly how effectively ‘national’ (that is – reliant on government-directed expenditures for their profit margins) companies like Microsoft and Boeing already are.

But remember the caveat above.  Sawant does not have the legal authority or jurisdiction to nationalize Amazon.  These days she’s matured from her youthful radicalism of two years ago and merely wants to forcibly unionize these companies, which Democrats have already wanted to do to Walmart forever, and anyway, Bezos owns the Washington Post now, so good luck with that.

Maybe we’re looking in the wrong place.  Let’s take a look and see if there’s anything additional at the issues page on her own site:

Put the brakes on the coal trains! [uh, see Conlin above]

Dramatically expand public transit & bikeways

End homelessness in Seattle. Fully fund services for the disabled, veterans, seniors, & families in crisis.

Build a mass movement against police brutality & racial profiling. [Very different from the Democrats, of course]

Stop defunding public schools. Lower class sizes. Support Seattle teachers & students boycotting the MAP standardized test.  [No teacher left unemployed!]

Expand anti-bullying efforts & curriculum promoting LGBTQ equality, anti-racism, and anti-sexism.

You’ve got to help me here people.  Maybe my short-term memory is going kaput in my old age, but I seem to recall ordinary, center-mass, middle-of-the-bellcurve Democrats supporting all these things.  Help me Kshama!  You certainly aren’t shy about using the term ‘Socialist’, and you defend it:

The job of socialists is to point the way forward, and we are not shy about it. We invite to people to debate with us on ideas of socialism. But we are not shy and we have been proven, resoundingly correct, that we should not be shy, because there is no excuse for being shy or reticent when you are talking about such serious issues as fighting against the enormous misery that capitalism unleashes on us, all over the world. So let’s be clear about it, let’s not be shy. This is not a time for modesty; this is a time for boldness and courage.

Well, ok, you don’t like capitalism, but, really, Why Socialism?  To answer, she puts forward an article by Ramy Khalil, her campaign manager, and ‘a long-time social justice activist’ (something no Democrat ever called themselves)

One of my favorite swipes:

These glaring contradictions, alongside the Republicans’ ludicrous claims that Obama is a “socialist,” have generated a surge of interest in socialism as an alternative way to organize society.

Ludicrous.  Clearly.  But Khalil’s basic answer is, “Your entire system of government is incurably … unjust

However, governments that merely regulate the excesses of capitalism are incapable of escaping the system’s inherent flaws and grotesque inequalities.

There this piece of pure logic:

But as long as corporations are privately owned, no matter how regulated they are, they will be locked into a system of cut-throat competition and our entire society will be structured around one fundamental purpose – maximizing short-term corporate profits, not the needs of humanity or the environment.

Quite a leap from ‘corporations’ to ‘our entire society’. Now, as we all know, competition never did anybody any good, and it certainly never met any human needs.  And regulations were never able to get corporations to refrain from poisoning the environment.  Oh, wait, no, the exact opposite of that is true.  On the other hand, in ‘Communist’ countries like China where there is not really much competition for various giant State Owned Enterprises we don’t see a lot of serving of the needs of the environment or the locally-poisoned humanity.  Strange…

Still, it’s a difference.  Democrats: “Privately-held corporations can be regulated enough, we’re just not sure where that limit is, and we keep adding to the list of rules”.  Socialists “Never enough!”  A vast chasm of distinction!  He goes on:

The amount of resources wasted on war is another stark example of how the needs of capitalism are directly opposed to those of the vast majority of society.

Because Socialist countries never go to war or spend much of their resources on their militaries.

This requires taking the top 500 corporations that dominate our economy (the Wal-Marts, Exxon-Mobils, United Health Groups, Halliburtons, Microsofts, etc.) into public ownership and placing them under the democratic control of elected representatives of workers, consumers, and the community at large.

On the basis of a democratically planned economy, we could finally guarantee everyone on the planet a living-wage job and high-quality healthcare, childcare, education, and housing.

Planned economies have a great track record.  North v. South Korea.  East v. West Germany.  Post-Socialist Israel and China vs. their actually socialist periods, etc.

But, again, we see the sole difference yet again.  Nationally Socializing all the big private corporations, and public ownership of the means of production.  “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state“, just like Marx Mussolini said.

There is followed by a lot of … suspect … history, but he ends with some nice quotes from the pantheon of our latter-day Saints, MLK, Helen Keller, and Albert Einstein.  Let’s read King’s:

“The movement to date has done much for the middle class but little for the black underclass. We are dealing with class issues. Something is wrong with capitalism…maybe America must move toward democratic socialism.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

How far we’ve moved in the direction of democratic socialism for the black underclass, and whether it is doing much for them, depends a great deal on one’s perspective.  But there’s definitely a lot of government redistribution heading in their direction thanks to their electoral numbers (which, if that’s not the definition of ‘democratic socialism’ what is?), and no Democrat I know of has ever said, it’s ‘enough’, let along ‘too much’.

So folks, there we have it.  Unless you can solve the Mission Impossible Challenge in some other way, the only discernible difference between the the Seattle Liberal Democrats and the Marxist Ms. Sawant is basically a disagreement about Clinton / Blair-style post Cold-War revival Neoliberalism. Funny, that used to be the disagreement amongst Democrats, who didn’t call themselves Socialists, even if they were on the con side of the neoliberal debate.

So, the fundamental distinguishing question is whether leftists can ‘tame’ market capitalism through regulation and redistributive taxation to serve their social-justice objectives better than crude collectivist central-planning, or not.  Contemporary Establishment Progressive Democrats say ‘yes’, the Socialists say ‘no’.

But in the end one gets the impression that it’s more a question of means, rather than ends, and that’s the point.  It’s certainly not obvious that, in changed economic conditions where national socialism could serve the progressive enlightened agenda better than tamed capitalism, that Democrats would oppose it because of some commitment to some other overriding principle.

Now, like I said above, (and thank God) Ms. Sawant cannot actually do anything to nationally socialize all the top corporations in the country, and since she probably won’t be expected do anything very different than Conlin, one should try to explain why she won the election.

One reason is that the American left still thrives on a kind of ideograph of being anti-establishment, of being the rebels, speaking truth to power, fighting for the poor worker and organizing their communities into as-much-revolution-as-feasible against the oppressive old, white, male, wealthy capitalists who control everything, etc.  It’s always Berkley in 1968.

The problem with this ideograph is that the progressives are the establishment now, and their politicians are often wealthy, well-connected elites who make the deals in the smoky-filled back rooms and like to network at the country club.  Will Obama be our first billionaire former President?  If you don’t pay him (or his wife) a quarter-million a speech then you’re obviously racist, so I wouldn’t bet against it!

But if the progressives insist on preserving this ideograph then they run the risk of occasionally letting the mask slip and appearing as very ‘establishment’ to voters who have been socially conditioned to always support the most anti-establishment candidate.  Frustrations with governance are inevitable, but in purple districts, Democrats can always blame the Republicans.  But how can you blame anybody if the Democrats have a rock-solid, super-majority (or even unanimous) hold on power?

Well, you can,  apparently, go on blaming George W. Bush for at least half a decade, but eventually it gets tired – and that’s at the national level.  What do you do in a place where Democrats have dominated everything forever?  Anti-establishment leftist frustration only has one place to go, and that’s Socialism.

So, Ms. Sawant’s case may turn out not to be some random aberration but instead a harbinger of things to come in parts of the country where political and demographic realities have made one-party Democratic rule uncontested because uncontenstable, now and forever.   The leftist ratchet may proceed in part through this ‘more anti-establishment than thou’ mechanism.

In a way, we can only hope that the progressive establishment recovers from their shock, learns their lesson, and doesn’t make the same mistake in the future.  If they don’t, then pretty soon it’ll be the anti-establishment Maoists and Stalinists attacking the establishment Troskyites, etc., etc.

So it’ll be interesting to see how the progressives react next time a Socialist in on the ballot.  Who knows, maybe they’ll even try to draw a distinction or two.

UPDATE:

Yay!  More distinction!  So Boeing was having a bit of a classic post-globalization labor-management tiff with their machinist employees.  “Yield, or we outsource!”  To other, ‘right-to-work‘ states, presumably, in this instance.  The current state of the economy with its crappy labor market means that Boeing has a  reserve army of domestic unemployed, ready, willing, and able to do the job for much less – a precarious position for a union to find itself in.

Boeing told the machinists to give up their defined-benefit pensions in exchange for eight years of guaranteed high-paying manufacturing work.  The machinists balked and struck (though this is a typical ritual in these negotiations).

What was not typical was Sawant’s advice.  She told the machinists that if their jobs were moved out of state, then that

“…will be nothing short of economic terrorism because it’s going to devastate the state’s economy,”

Terrorism!  And how do you respond to terrorist threats?  “Extrajudicial Expropriation” (in the most legally euphemistic expression) or “Conspiracy of Burglary” (in the more common one).  They ought to:

“…take over the factories, and shut down Boeing’s profit-making machine.”

She calls that “democratic ownership”, but how far the franchise extends is a bit fuzzy.  I don’t think the senior foremen will be sharing equally with the apprentices.

“The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don’t need the executives. The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,”

Remember folks, this woman has a PhD in Economics from an American public university.  Apparently they never explained what it is that executives actually do.  But even so, if they are well compensated, and they can be done without, then economic theory says that profit-seeking, cost-cutting corporations would have already done that.  So, some of the senior foremen will have to do those things, and have authority to make decisions, and of course they’ll decide to compensate each other well, and start to hire and intermingle with other experienced, competent executives, and, didn’t someone write a book like this once?

Thankfully, Matthew Yglesias is one the case, calling these ‘bad ideas’, and defending the non-triviality of executive functions.  So I guess we can be confident that he’s a sensible liberal and not a Socialist.  After all:

I hope her political career blossoms so as to provide sensible liberals with someone noteworthy to triangulate against.

That’s accurate enough.  “I’m not a crazy Socialist like Sawant who is stuck in the leftist syndicalist rhetoric of the 1910’s.”  But Conlin was a sensible liberal, he did try to point that out, and he still lost.

This goes back to my theory.  ‘Sensible, not Socialist’ is a perception a Democrat wants to project to fence-sitting moderates in a contested electoral contest with Republicans.  “He’s a Socialist!” – “Oh, that’s silly, if not a lie.  Sawant’s a crazy Socialist, but I’m nothing like here.  She’s crazy, and my opponent is crazy for comparing me with her.”

But in a blue district, and in a blue-on-bluer election, ‘sensibility’ seems ‘establishment’ and is thus not how the progressive electorate is conditioned to vote.  Triangulation won’t help you there – and that’s where the future is.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to The Seattle Socialist

  1. It’s really amusing to see this happening. I mean I could see her coming in if say there was somehow a Republican on the council or there was an open seat, but beating an incumbent on which there is little substantial difference, that’s incredible.

    I do wonder if it’s something like what happened in Milwaukee where a Somalian-born individual beat an incumbent because the council district was redrawn to contain a Somali-dominant area. I wonder if Seattle has the same thing going on there.

  2. spandrell says:

    I rushed to the Wiki to confirm if that Anna Louise Strong was an evil jewish bolshevik, but:

    Strong was born on November 24, 1885 in Friend, Nebraska. Her father, Sydney Dix Strong, was a Social Gospel minister in the Congregational Church and active in missionary work

    Oh…

    On the other hand is fascinating to see Indians eagerly going lefter-than-thou and joining the Cathedral army. You don’t see that in Britain that much, I wonder what’s going on.

    • Handle says:

      There are still plenty of places in the U.S, with authentic, continuous Northern European Commie Christian traditions going back to at least the early 19th century (certainly before Marx’s writing became influential, and prior to the revolutions of 1848).

      I grew up where and when there were still a few around. The idea that it’s all Jewish brainwashing of suggestible hard-right Christians disappears into absurdity when you get to know these people and their history.

      Anyway, there are plenty more smart East and South Asians than Jews, and they are rapidly moving to the West and into all the traditionally Jewish elite career paths. In a generation or two, it’ll make more sense to talk about the vast Asian Maoist conspiracy.

      Like I said, very smart people are your typical Socialism torch-bearers. But one shouldn’t confuse the latest step in the relay race for the origin of the baton.

      • SMERSH says:

        Does the “authentic, continuous Northern European Commie Christian tradition” inherently tend towards multiculturalism, or is that a foreign meme that was transmitted to them from mainstream progressivism? I don’t know the answer.

        Because “authentic, continuous Northern European Commie Christian tradition” doesn’t seem to work out all that badly for Northern Europeans, until they start inviting in clannish, ethnocentric outsiders who will exploit the hell out of it and offer nothing in return.

        I’m not a huge fan of Sweden’s socialist policies but it seems that it wasn’t working out all that badly for them, until they opened the flood gates to immigration. That’s not to say that I’m comfortable with the way it damaged the family or emasculated men, etc, but it seems that many countries that are more capitalist suffer from similar problems.

        I guess I’m not sure if “authentic, continuous Northern European Commie Christian tradition” is really the thing that reactionaries are fighting against, although maybe techno-commercialist neo-reactionaries are.

        • Handle says:

          The clear point of the comment was to emphasize that the widespread human impulse towards, and emotional and intellectual allure of, Egalitarian Socialist Utopianism is in fact not best explained by the Standard Model of “Jews, Jewishness, and Judaism” as the omni-explanative fons et origo.

          You can see Moldbug’s work on the Puritans and Cryptocalvinism, which is excellent and important, but I tend to think that it is a particular and common susceptibility of intellectuals everywhere. Lots and lots of Jews used to love it and still do. But East Asians also like it a lot. South Asians like it. North European Protestants like it. Central European, South European, and Latin American Catholics like it. Strangely enough, post-Soviet Russians, post-Maoist Chinese, almost-post-Castro Cubans, and post-Socialist Israelis like it less and less. Americans like it more and more, alas.

          Socialism is like Heroin. In a state of nature, you might never encounter it, and you would never long or hunger for it. You wouldn’t even know that there is this thing, this dream-idea, that would capture your soul, that you would lust for obsessively, if you were ever to get into it. You’d find your pleasures and satisfactions in other conventional pursuits, projects and diversions. But you were created with genes that made you with neurotransmitter receptors that, once you got your first taste, would turn you into a junkie. If you saw all your friends doing it, that might entice you to give that first try, and then you’re hooked.

          Maybe, just maybe you’d wake up one day and realize, “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness.” Not everyone is equally susceptible, of course. Some are naturally immune; some are raised to build up their resistance. But I tend to think that most intellectuals, of all sorts, from everywhere, will always be a step or two away from shooting up. When wise governments understand the predictable, widespread, and extremely harmful vulnerabilities of their population to a particular product, especially if the harm or addictive lust for it is irreversible upon first contact, they make it contraband.

          Now, I tend to agree with you that the communitarian tendencies of Germanic peoples and cultures (and some others too, e.g. the Japanese) are not necessarily socially destructive or deleterious when translated into government policy. Nationalist Socialism (or at least a large welfare state) is in many ways the natural political expression of a society with high degrees of homogeneity, trust, non-clannish breeding, cooperation, conformism, work-ethic, and charitable-feeling towards ones neighbors and compatriots. If you can rely on these personalities, predispositions, and acculturated norms of your citizens to self-propagate harmoniously alongside government policies, then you needn’t worry too much about the long-term corrosive effects on culture and incentives. The best military units are fundamentally Collectivist in both psychology and policy, and the only thing that prevents that model from acting as a broader societal ideal is that doesn’t generate the economic production upon which it relies. People like individual liberty of course, but they are definitely willing to trade it for other values, like economic security and social harmony.

          As to where boutique multiculturalism, and out-group mass-immigration come from, I don’t think it’s a foreign meme at all, it’s just an extension of the ‘works for everyone’ notion. All that one is required to believe is that the functionality and stability of one’s social system is not dependent on homogenous ethnicity and culture. That is is, instead, like language, something arbitrary that can be learned by any new arrival, and certainly with equal native fluency by their offspring merely by passive exposure. This is exactly what all my liberal friends believe, and good luck trying to talk them out of it.

          When, in the post-war era, you combine that with the intellectual taboo against the possibility of aggregate ethnic differences, and the belief that traditional religions and cultures and attachments are all backward and bound to be disposed of by new arrivals and their children, then a policy allowing mass-immigration is a natural consequence. After all, if you believe in these human uniformity premises, then why not? But demographics is also irreversible, and while some parts of the West are awakening to their errors, the ‘I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness” is a regret that comes much too late.

      • Speaking of Jews:

        “No class of people are so prone to emigration…. But wherever they go they are sure to combine together, and act in concert for the furtherance of their own peculiar opinions and interests” (United States Democratic Review, 1855).

        Oh, wait: they were talking about the Puritans.

        trollol

  3. Anthony says:

    Regarding blame for socialist-caused problems: in California, they’re /still/ blaming Prop 13 for everything that goes wrong.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      When visiting SF recently I mentioned that there are significantly more aggressive vagrants than in my hometown of NY.

      The girl I was talking to blamed Ronald Regan’s gubernatorial administration. She was in her 20s.

  4. This is the flip-side of the integration/assimilation debate on immigration. While the lower-middle, and lower classes of migrants are maintaining ghettos, the upper-middle, and upper classes assimilate into the dominant ideological paradigm – progressivism. Both of these things are harmful, but I can’t say which is more harmful, though I’m inclined to think of the production of more progressives as more harmful.

    • Handle says:

      I don’t think immigration made Sawant a Marxist, though it probably does a lot to capture the minds of first-generation-in-the-West kids. I figure she grew up that way in India. Intellectuals have been able to come up and become perfectly indigenous Marxists for generations. There are plenty of very, very nasty and violent Maoist insurgencies still going on in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal, and, of course, Burma, Cambodia (to some extent), and Vietnam have their successors in charge.

  5. Ian says:

    The clear point of the comment was to emphasize that the widespread human impulse towards, and emotional and intellectual allure of, Egalitarian Socialist Utopianism is in fact not best explained by the Standard Model of “Jews, Jewishness, and Judaism” as the omni-explanative fons et origo.

    “Socialism” is a red herring here. It’s not about “socialism.” The fundamental issue is “nationalism”, or more precisely genetic identity. Jews promote the suppression of genetic identity among their hosts. Where they promote socialism, it’s a type that suppresses genetic identity in favor of class identity or class warfare and cosmopolitan, international socialism.

  6. Ian says:

    A way to think about Jews is that they’re a breed of humans that instinctively competes with all others ethnies (since it neighbors all others) by killing their middle classes (either via communist purges of kulaks or via capitalist centralization of wealth with baronage/serfdom) to centralize power and take over the resulting niches. Communists want to centralize control via politics. Objectivists want to centralize control via wealth centralization. The point is centralization. Now can you figure out why centralization might be an extended phenotype of an ethny that had coevolved with cities?

  7. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/04 | Free Northerner

  8. Thanatos says:

    “But, whatever. I blame the Jews. It’s funny though, neither of Seattle’s Socialists, Sawant nor Strong, were Jewish. I don’t get it, that clearly doesn’t accord with the Standard Theory of Socialism, right? We obviously need to do more research.”

    I should say not. We already have all the evidence we need to suggest that mainstream liberalism/democrat/labour/social democrat is a window into hardcore Jewish leftist Trotskyism,Maoism,Marxism, or some combination of these.Now the flavour,or extraction,of these political religious tendencies will follow a cafeteria Catholic-style “pick and choose” strategy based on what most flatters their aberrant ego and confirms their warped communitarian sensibilities. It then follows that as democratic ideals give way to socialism, and socialism itself to a hard core of leftist degenerates that employ Machiavellian ends towards shaping humanity into a hellish nightmare,and that as the mainstream liberalism/democrat/labour/social democrat ethos is really a “sphere within a sphere of influence”, serving as a kiddie pool for recruits of the right political,religious, and ethnic qualities, it is influential Jews in the hardcore who actually run the show,who set the tone that those lower in the social rank must defer to, as in a crime family hierarchy.

    Now I’m not actually saying that I believe this or some facsimile of this, but that your highlighted socialist activity can easily be explained within the framework of the idea that the majority of socialists and communists in influential positions within the leftist hierarchy are indeed Jews.

Comment - You know you want to

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s