The Mud’s on a roll world wide!

The Mud’s on a roll world wide!

Can’t wait to control our own destiny again, whites world wide unite!

Child sacrifice makes huge comeback in Uganda.

Since the end of white rule in Uganda, the nation has been on a steady decline despite massive amounts of aid from the west. Now the BBC looks into the widespread practice of the ritualistic murder of children to gain favors from the spirit world. The Ugandan government states that a minimum of two dozen ritualistic child killings occurred last year. They also report zero convictions. One former witchdoctor admits to performing about seventy child killings during his career.

Uganda parents have started circumcising their sons, because witchdoctors say the spirits don’t want the blood of circumcised children.

From BBC…

A BBC investigation into human sacrifice in Uganda has heard first-hand accounts which suggest ritual killings of children may be more common than authorities have acknowledged.

One witch-doctor led us to his secret shrine and said he had clients who regularly captured children and brought their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits.

Meanwhile, a former witch-doctor who now campaigns to end child sacrifice confessed for the first time to having murdered about 70 people, including his own son.

The Ugandan government told us that human sacrifice is on the increase, and according to the head of the country’s Anti-Human Sacrifice Taskforce the crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly.

In the course of our investigation we witnessed the ritual torching of the shrine of a particularly active witch-doctor in northern Uganda by anti-sacrifice campaigners.

The witch-doctor allowed ceremonial items including conch shells and animal skins to be burned in his sacred grove after agreeing to give up sacrifice.

He told us that clients had come to him in search of wealth.

“They capture other people’s children. They bring the heart and the blood directly here to take to the spirits… They bring them in small tins and they place these objects under the tree from which the voices of the spirits are coming,” he said.

 

Caesar Chavez nothing like left-wing portrayal.

The left-wing holds of fantastical versions of who Guevara and Chavez were. None of which have any resemblance of the truth.

Che Guevara was a spoiled brat rich white kid who traveled around Latin America on his rich parents dime and championed non-white Marxists, because he thought it was a cool thing to do. He then became an executioner for Fidel Castro and oversaw the murder of nearly one thousand “thought criminals.”

Castro then sent Guevara to the Congo to arm and train African Marxists. While in the Congo he had a change of heart. He wrote that the Negro race was untrainable, lazy, indolent, and unwashed. He wrote that Socialism would never work in Africa, because it’s people lacked the intelligence to have a complicated form of government.

Non of this stopped left-wingers from waving Che Guevara flags at Obama campaign rallies. Look at the picture of the moron to right with his Che Guevara portrait next to his Obama portrait. After returning from Africa, Guevara was opposed to putting members of the black race in positions of leadership.

Much like Guevara, the left-wing fantasy about Caesar Chavez has nothing to do with reality. The actual Caesar Chavez spent much of his political energy fighting illegal immigration from Mexico.

Cesar Chavez — The First Minuteman
by Steve Sailor

In California, only three birthdays are official state holidays: Jesus Christ’s, Martin Luther King’s, and Cesar Chavez’s. Beatification as a secular saint, though, isn’t always good for the soul. A recent four-part exposé by reporter Miriam Pawel in the Los Angeles Times revealed how the labor leader turned revered ethnic icon descended into paranoia, megalomania, and general crack-pottery in the 15 years before his death in 1993.

Today, his United Farm Workers functions less as a union—it represents only 2 percent of the California agricultural workforce—than as a lucrative Latino-pride fundraising machine providing sinecures for a dozen Chavez relatives. Pawel writes, “Chavez’s heirs run a web of tax-exempt organizations that exploit his legacy and invoke the harsh lives of farm workers to raise millions of dollars in public and private money. The money does little to improve the lives of California farm workers, who still struggle with the most basic health and housing needs and try to get by on seasonal, minimum-wage jobs.”

From 1965 to 1981, the UFW succeeded in raising wages significantly for stoop laborers in California. Since then, their pay has fallen, and they’ve lost most of the fringe benefits they had won. Today, most make less than $10,000 per year. Hundreds were discovered near Salinas living in caves, a mass indignity that even that town’s most famous son, John Steinbeck, barely anticipated in The Grapes of Wrath.

Unfortunately, in focusing on gossip about the personal foibles of Chavez and his successors, the LA Times series completely ignored the politically incorrect paradox of who was most responsible for wiping out the gains Mexican-American farm workers had achieved through strikes and consumer boycotts: illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Why does the left believe such fantasies? Some of their leaders actually know they are lying, but have no problem with lying as a political tactic. The rank and file leftists will simply believe anything.

New York Times editor confesses to censoring information about black crime.

From the CofCC.org Staff.

Photo Right: Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the New York Times.

A while back the Los Angeles Times publicly admitted to censoring the race of crime perpetrators when they are black or Latino “so as not to stigmatize any one group.”

Now Philip Corbett, associate managing editor of the New York Times, has publicly admitted to doing the same thing.

The New York Times ran a second article on the gang rape of a Mexican girl by 20+ black males in Cleveland, Texas. The first article clearly blamed the victim and caused such outrage that nearly 50,000 people signed an online petition denouncing the coverage. The Times issued a weak apology.

Now the Times has a second article. Once again focusing solely on portraying the victim and her family in a negative light, while censoring information about the perpetrators. The New York Times has yet to even mention that the perps were all black, and censored all the pictures of the suspect that other news outlets have shown.

When asked why there is no information about the perpetrators race in either article, Corbett answered with combination of truth and lies.

“We would mention race in a physical description only if it really is a detailed physical description that readers would learn something from … But if the description is a ‘white man in his 40s’ or ‘a black man in a hoodie,’ then you’re not really providing any useful information and it could be sort of boiler plate.”

What Corbett means by “boiler plate,” is that it would be “politically incorrect.” He would rather censor information about crime, putting the public at risk, than bring attention to the astronomical rates and horrific nature of black crime.

By the way. If a large group of white men did something this horrible to an eleven year old Mexican girl, it would have been the biggest story in the English speaking world. The New York Times would have been screaming “WHITE MEN do such and such…” and the top of the front page.

For a very detailed analysis of the New York Times’s miscoverage of the horrific Cleveland, Texas gang rape, click here.

Georgia Black Caucus: Outlaw majority white cities.

White people have fled Atlanta for obvious reasons. Parts of the majority black city now resemble the third world. Now a collection of “white flight” communities outside Atlanta want to secede from Fulton and Dekab counties and form a new Milton County.

The black legislative caucus of Georgia filed a lawsuit demanding that the city charters of several “white flight” communities be dissolved. They claim that the majority white cities violate their “voting rights.”

Photo Right: Atlanta is a crime ridden cesspool. Instead of trying to improve the black community, race hustling black lawmakers want to outlaw white flight.

From Atlanta Journal Constitution…

The Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit Monday against the state of Georgia seeking to dissolve the city charters of Dunwoody, Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills. Further, the lawmakers, joined by civil rights leader the Rev. Joseph Lowery, aim to dash any hopes of a Milton County.

The lawsuit, filed in a North Georgia U.S. District Court Monday, claims that the state circumvented the normal legislative process and set aside its own criteria when creating the “super-majority white ” cities within Fulton and DeKalb counties. The result, it argues, is to dilute minority votes in those areas, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

“This suit is based on the idea that African Americans and other minorities can elect the people of their choice,” said Democratic State Sen. Vincent Fort.

The Office of the Governor and the Office of the Attorney General declined comment pending further review of the case.

Rep. Lynne Riley, R-Johns Creek, called the lawsuit “frivolous” and “disrespectful to the citizens of these cities who are most satisfied with their government.”

According to the 2010 census, Fulton County is 44.5 percent white and 44.1 percent black. About 54 percent of DeKalb County residents are black, and 33.3 percent are white.

Sandy Springs, created in 2005, is 65 percent white and 20 percent black. Milton, formed a year later, is 76.6 percent white and 9 percent black. Johns Creek, also formed that year, is 63.5 percent white and 9.2 percent black. Chattahoochee Hills, formed in 2007, is 68.6 percent white and 28 percent black, while Dunwoody, created in 2008, is 69.8 percent white and 12.6 percent black.

 

Brutal Rapes Plague Scandinavia

Another brutal rape and murder of a beautiful Swedish girl has stunned the once crime-free Scandinavian country. African and Muslim immigrants, who are pampered by the Swedish state, are conducting a reign of terror against the native population. Africans and Muslims commit virtually all the rapes in Norway and Sweden. The victim (pictured above) was apparently a multiculturalist and supporter of nonwhite immigration into Sweden. Her attacker (pictured, right) shows the true face of multicultural enrichment.

Read the story here.

Locust: Mud’s around the world are poking a stick at the beast within the cage of the west. These anti-white western governments will fall, this will happen without a doubt, question for all you turd worlder’s is what happens when white nationalist take control.  You got it! Boom! I’ll wear a sweater when global temperatures drop due to nuclear bombs dropping on mud cities, I don’t give a damn. See you on the battlefield.

Will “White Flight” be declared Illegal? News from the “City too Busy to Hate”

Will “White Flight” be declared Illegal? News from the “City too Busy to Hate”

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/

Will “white flight” be declared illegal? Why don’t people move to majority Black cities?

In the state of Georgia, the Black Caucus is suing majority white cities ostensibly because of White Flight and the lack of tax dollars being shared with the city of Atlanta. The Black Undertow has been unsuccessful in turning these cities and counties into mirror images of Clayton and DeKalb County, because Dunwoody, Sandy Springs and Johns Creek have kept property values high, keeping a Black influx from transpiring.

The sad fact is the state of Georgia is broke. With an astounding number of Black people moving back to the South after failing in virtually every other city they went to during The Great Migration, the stress levels on an already broken infrastructure are going to become shockingly apparent. As this incredible article from Newsone.com admits, Black people are reliant on local, state, and federal government for employment and entitlements at levels disproportionate to other racial groups:

Poor and working-class Blacks, on the other hand, are caught between a rock and NO place—the “hard place” option no longer exists.

Simply put, the current economic crisis is much deeper than job and business creation. Both can be undertaken and still feature exploited workers with no health benefits or a living wage.

So what options exist for the Black poor and working class?

First, at the very least, poor and working-class Blacks need to organize. They should not be seduced by political slogans of hope.

Black youth, whose unemployment numbers are approaching a staggering 50 percent, for example, have to be aware of Arab young people using the “white man’s magic” (cell phones, Internet, FaceBook, and Twitter) to revolt against oppressive regimes. In doing so, some Arabs have made references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.

Yet, Black youth have failed to capitalize on the growing trend of using technology for political mobilization to address staggering unemployment and other issues that impact their lives.

According to a recent Target Market News Report, Black-Americans spent $9.4 billion dollars on cell phones and connectivity services in 2009.  This is regarded as a growing market. Even so, cutting-edge smart phones do not constitute Black political or economic power, especially for millions of Black youth for who technology is used primarily in the hot pursuit of foolishness.

Second, the disproportionate number of Blacks employed by municipal, state, and federal government need to wake up to the budget deficit game being played in Washington. It is not far-fetched to imagine the possibility that they may be sacrificed en masse. Beyond these workers themselves, budget cuts also translate into an assault on working and middle-class Blacks.

And finally, for Black folks who did not have jobs in the first place, surviving in the underground and barter economy—as they have always done—is the most viable option. They, like many of their counterparts across race trapped in jobless urban centers and rural areas, are caught in the middle of history.

This above article is an honest look at a problem we have pointed out will eventually manifest itself in America. The Federal Government is already attacking all-white counties and cities, scolding them for not making enough concession to Black Run America. Whose side do you think the government will fall on during a massive Black revolt (which Newsone.com seems to be encouraging)?

An artificial Black middle class has been created in Atlanta, largely due to a massive support network that seeks to improve the quality of Black life at the expense of other racial groups:

Local leaders said black business people come to Atlanta because of the city’s strong black middle class, support among other black entrepreneurs and black colleges and universities.

“There are really a lot of proactive efforts to engage small businesses and entrepreneurship here,” said Nancy Flake Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the Atlanta Urban League. “The political climate is supportive.”

Groups such as the Urban League, the Georgia Minority Supplier Development Council, Atlanta Metro Black Chamber of Commerce and Atlanta Business League have assisted these efforts.

The Federal Government has already made it clear that all-white cities, counties and states are a thing of the past (just ask the Somalians of Minnesota and Maine how great the welfare programs are there). Now the Black Caucus is suing the refugee camps outside of Atlanta and calling for the dissolution of these white flight enclaves.

Atlanta is known as The City to Busy to Hate. In reality, it is a city whose Disingenuous White Liberal class has been one of the most dedicated groups in the erection of Black Run America (BRA) and a metropolitan area that saw its Black ruling political class come under fire in 2009 when it became apparent that they were losing control of the city.

It’s a city where 30,000 Black people rioted over the right to sign a waiting list for Section 8 housing that wouldn’t be available for five years.

It’s a city with some of America’s least safe neighborhoods (all Black areas).

It’s a city white people fled from, and in so doing established some of the top counties in the nation. Slowly, and surely, the Black Undertow followed. Gwinnett, Clayton, and even parts of Fayette County all succumbed to the problems that the citizens who fled to them sought to avoid.

The ultimate question is this: Why are cities and counties with majority white populations so desirable and cities and counties with majority Black population so undesirable? 

Now the legal system will be used to break up white flight. As we have seen with Marin County in San Francisco, the legal system is in the pocket of BRA. Strangely, Black people still believe that the legal system operates under Jim Crow. This is why Brian Nichols thought he was a Black Avenging Angel of Death (BAAD), courtesy of people like Michelle Alexander who hold a revered place in Black people’s hearts and minds.

The mentality of people like Alexander has harmfully impacted thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Black people. Maybe even millions. Newsone.com has basically called for insurrection in this nation by Black people, following on the heels of Middle East uprisings.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, like The Washington Post and New York Times, rarely publishes articles that deal with race and crime (unless its a story like the Duke Lacrosse hoax). If they did, the paper would just be a print version of Thug Report.

If Black people follow Newsone.com’s suggestion and start to use social media to protest a system that provides free lunches, welfare, cell phones, housing, scholarships, allows Black-only groups to help with creating businesses, and employs a disproportionate amount of Black people in government jobs, how do you think non-Black people in America will react?

As we have said before, Black Run America is going to collapse on itself. Attempting to deprive people of the right to “white flight” by suing majority white cities that exist because majority Black cities (and Black-run municipalities) are unsuitable for raising families is a shocking indicator of the power of BRA.

But it’s an act of desperation.

Democracy: The Problem

Democracy: The Problem

Alain de Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy, now in English

 

Alain de Benoist is a name readers are likely to have come across in these circles, being a founder and leading figure of the Nouvelle Droite—the European New Right—as well as head of the French think tank GRECE. Sadly. This French philosopher’s vast output—50 books, 2,000 essays—has remained largely unavailable in the Anglosphere, due to a lack of English translations. This is something that Arktos has begun to rectify. The Problem of Democracy (originally, Démocratie: Le Problème, first published 26 years ago) is the first book-length political work to appear in English, and the first of a series of volumes to appear on the aforementioned imprint.

De Benoist is an astonishingly erudite and penetrating thinker, yet, like many brilliant minds, and quite unlike his pretentious and intellectually bankrupt counterparts on the Left, he is able to write with singular clarity and economy. This tome offers an eloquent example: De Benoist examines the theory and practice of democracy, analysing it from every angle you ever thought and never thought of and would have never imagined, demystifying and getting right down to the core of the matter, and illuminating the reader with surprising insights, all in a slender volume of just over 100 pages. How many authors do you know who can do that with profundity and academic rigour in such a compressed space and without producing incomprehensibly compacted prose? Homi K. Bhabha could learn a thing or two from this edition.

De_Benoist_Alain_-_The_Problem_of_Democracy

The fact is that this book is a lot better that it looks. With democracy not being exactly the height of fashion around these parts, and with the cover being rather opaque and impersonal, one imagines that this is going to be a slow and boring read. Yet the opposite is the case: Yes, De Benoist tells the reader much that he already knew or suspected about modern Western democracies; but he also uncovers a mass of otherwise obscure yet crucial realities that shows exactly how much of a charade our governments are, and how modern citizens have been reduced to idiocy—in the classical sense of the word. The sections dealing with the deficiencies of modern liberal democracies are truly fascinating, even for readers who think they know everything there is to know on the topic.

De Benoist begins by problematising this taken-for-granted term, democracy, and by showing that it is, and has been, used very loosely, cynically, imprecisely, disingenuously, and outright deceptively, to describe just about any system of government, from direct democracies to totalitarian communist regimes. To his mind, only the democracy of Athens in ancient Greece can be genuinely referred to as a democracy: after all, those who invented it best know what it was about.

Judged against this standard, modern democracies fail to meet the required definition—they are something else, but not democracies.

De Benoist also demonstrates that democracy is not synonymous with liberalism, elections, or even freedom. In fact, often the opposite is the case: modern elections are effectively a delegation—and therefore an abdication—of sovereignty, the anointment of a self-perpetuating class of professional politicians who then do whatever they like, with complete impunity.

De Benoist’s main thesis is that genuine democracy can only exist in a community with shared values and common historical ties. A secondary thesis is that the larger the political unit, the stronger the type of government needed to hold it together. The liberal democracies of the West, governing over vast multicultural multitudes, are necessarily repressive and tend increasingly towards totalitarianism. As it happens, this is a point I made in a certain novel I wrote:

a homogeneous society [is] easier to legislate for because people shared a concrete set of values; a highly heterogeneous society require[s] mountains of legislation, regulating every aspect of the individual’s life, as well as a bloated and highly complex bureaucracy, designed to invent it, record it, expand it, refine it, and enforce it, alongside an omniscient surveillance apparatus, to constantly monitor behaviour and report non-conformity.

Such conditions, I argued, make it preferable to have

strict controls on who was allowed to come and settle in Europe, rather than strict controls on what people who lived in Europe were allowed to say, write, read, watch, think, or publish, what organisations they were allowed to belong to, what political parties they were allowed to vote for, what music they were allowed to listen to, and what personal associations they were allowed to maintain, in order to keep the chanko stew in the social pressure cooker from exploding.

Surprisingly, De Benoist also posits that a genuine democracy is elitist, not egalitarian. Equality exists among citizens before the law, and in such a system, citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal. Democracy does not assume natural equality. What is more, a genuine democracy, according to De Benoist, is designed to offer elite turnover, the idea being that if citizens are given equal opportunities to be unequal, the each gets what he deserves, and the best elements rise to the top while the worst sink to the bottom.

Thus De Benoist argues for a fundamentalist understanding of democracy, and a return to the model of Antiquity, albeit adapted to modern times (he offers some suggestions as to how this may be done). This exemplifies perfectly how one can be radical while being traditional.

In sum, this slender volume can be read very profitably and is worth recommending to anybody, irrespective on their love or hatred for democracy—because they are, in fact, so similar in their criticisms, De Benoist has something here for supporters and detractors alike. The Problem of Democracy offers plenty of ammunition for anybody wanting to engage conventionally thinking citizens in thought-provoking debate.

A book like this should be in standard political science reading lists in all Western universities.

Raciology in Russia

Raciology in Russia

I don’t want to fantasize too much about a country I’ve never even visited, but it appears that this is what government-endorsed textbooks are like in Russia.

Raciology

This image is of the English translation, of course, which you can purchase here. (Hat tip to Constantin von Hoffmeister.)

Reviewing the Russian edition in 2007, Jürgen Graf wrote,

Vladimir Avdeyev: Rasologia. Biblioteka rasovoy mysli,
Moscow, 2007, 665 pages.
a review by Jürgen Graf

Where in the world is it nowadays conceivable that a book about the inherent differences between the human races, which pays tribute to the racial theorists of the Third Reich and explicitly claims that all races are not equal, is not only openly sold in the bookstores but even becomes a bestseller? And where in the world is it possible that such a book is favorably reviewed by renowned scholars and provided with two introductions, one written by a member of parliament and the other one by a prominent representative of a liberal organization?

In Germany, Austria or France? Unthinkable! In these countries such a book would almost certainly be banned; its author would be put on trial for “racial discrimination” or “instigation of the populace”; any member of parliament who would have the audacity of endorsing its contents by writing an introduction would immediately be castigated as a “racist bigot” by the media and would have to relinquish his seat in parliament within days.

In the Anglo-Saxon world? Not impossible, but highly unlikely. It is quite true that the English-speaking countries enjoy much greater freedom of thought and speech than the German-speaking ones or France. In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution would certainly protect the author of such a book from legal persecution; in Britain or Canada, there are laws against “racism”, but the author of a scholarly work about race would hardly be prosecuted on the basis of these laws. On the other hand, the media would either ignore or angrily denounce his book without discussing his arguments, and he would risk social ostracism. This is exactly what happened in the United States to Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck, two serious scientists who had dared to challenge the dogma of racial equality. They were pilloried as “racists” and “haters” and harassed by left-wing fanatics for whom rational arguments did not count. The late biologist Glade Whitney became the victim of a tremendous smear campaign after writing an introduction to David Duke’s My Awakening. Only a handful of scholars or politicians will muster the courage to incur the wrath of the watchdogs of “political correctness”.

In Russia? Yes, in Russia all this is perfectly possibly. The proof is Vladimir Avdeyev’s books Rasologia, the second edition of which came out in late 2007 in Moscow.

Vladimir Borisovich Avdeyev was born in 1962. After acquiring a university degree in Economics, he served in the Soviet Air Force where he was promoted to the rank of First Lieutenant. Since 1993, he has been a member of the Russian Writers’ Association; in 1991, he founded the journal Atenei together with his comrades-in-arms Anatoli Ivanov and Pavel Tulayev. Since 1999, V. Avdeyev has edited a series of books under the title “Biblioteka Rasovoy Mysli” (The Library of Racial Thought), and in 2005, the first edition of his Rasologia appeared. This book was highly successful, and already two years later its author was able to publish an improved and enlarged second edition. The two introductions were written by Andrey Savelev, a delegate of the Russian Duma {parliament) and close personal friend of Avdeyev, and by Valeri Solovei, a historian and member of the ultra-liberal Gorbachev Foundation, who aptly summarizes the book as follows:

“Humanity is entering a new epoch. The world that was shaped by the Enlightenment and Modernity using melodious words such as ‘democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘progress’ and ‘human rights’ is becoming part of a past that will never return. Together with this world, the scientific concepts and the intellectual ballast which belonged to it are doomed too. All this will be replaced by a world based on blood and soil, strength and hierarchy, which will need a new theory and new concepts.”

Avdeyev’s book is subdivided into eight chapters: 1) Racial Science and Anthropology: What are the differences? 2) The Fair Race: Historiography and Anthropology. 3) The Biological Foundation of the Northern Conception of the World. 4) Thoughts about Racial Prejudices. 5) A New Paradigm in Racial Science. 6) The Anti-Racial Myth of the “Melting Pot”. 7) Racial-ideological Neurology, and finally, the striking chapter 8, A Racial Theory of Time. The book contains a large number of excellent photographs and illustrations.

For me as a non-specialist, who only had a very general knowledge of the question, Avdeyev’s history of racial thought was particularly fascinating. I had erroneously taken it for granted that almost all racial theorists had been German and that the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau (Essay on the Inequality of the Races, 1855) and the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, 1899) were exceptions. Thanks to Avdeyev, who has carefully studied the writings of all the important racial theorists, I learned I was wrong: the subject of race has been dealt with by numerous and illustrious French scholars, and the study of race flourished in Russia before 1917. Who would have guessed that the term “Nordic race” was not coined by a German, but by a Russian, Joseph Denniker (1852-1918)?

There is a great irony to the existence of a volume like this. As Graf points out, Russia was once the homeland of Lysenkoism; it is now one of the few places in which one can pursue, honestly and rigorously, the study of race.

And it is in the “land of the free” that scientists like Arthur Jensen and Glayde Whitney are attacked as heretics. (In 1995, Whitney was shunned and condemned for his views on race by the Behavior Genetics Association, a body of which he was, at the time, president (!).)

The Marxian Left were not always opposed to Darwinian evolution and its implications: Marx himself believed his theory was perfectly compatible with Darwin’s, and many prewar Leftists considered themselves eugenicists. Whatever the case, by the 1930s, Communists and Western Marxists had become, almost monolithically, “environmentalist”: genetic differences, they claimed, were the stuff of Nazi propaganda; the scientists studying them should be denounced (if not shot); if you want a new plant, just change the fertilizer, soil, and pot.

After the flame of the purges and the tearing down of cathedrals burned itself out, the Soviet Union settled down as an authoritarian empire, in which free thought was possible, so long as it didn’t touch on the domain of the state. As the story goes, if one praised the proletariat in the introduction and conclusion of an essay, one could write pretty much what one pleased in the middle.

America and Western Europe, on the other hand, became countries where leftism was pursued more vigorously, thoroughly, and radically—in which the state took an interest not in owning the means of production but in stamping out racism and sexism in the minds of its citizens. It is America, and not the Soviet Union, that has more fully implemented a “universal society,” in part because its consumer-capitalist economy has proven more sustainable than the Soviets’ backwards industrial socialism.

In fearing America’s descent into “socialism,” America’s self-styled “conservatives” love to depict their Democratic enemies wearing Soviet garb or the traditional Russian ushanka. In reality, it is the late and post-Soviet regimes, and not Washington, DC, that have more evinced “conservatism,” if this term is to have any meaning beyond an eagerness to bomb Middle Eastern countries into democracy and hold mass rallies in honor of Black Marxist preachers.

Looking at the outcome of the 20th century from a Hegelian standpoint, one might suggest that it was America that was on the left—and the post-Lenin USSR, on the right—all along; tag lines like “capitalism” and “socialism” simply obfuscated the inner natures of each regime.

Whether Russia is simply behind America—and will soon follow it into cultural decadence—or is truly charting an independent course remains to be seen.