Spain Hasn’t Had a Federal Government for the Last 9 Months — and People Love It


October 6, 2016   |   Derrick Broze

(ANTIMEDIA) Spain — For more than nine months, Spain has existed without a traditional national government. In the face of this lack of central authority and planning, Spaniards have done the impossible: they have survived without a government.

The New York Times recently reported on this phenomenon:

“After two grueling national elections in six months, and with a third vote possible in December, no party has won enough seats or forged the coalition needed to form a government. For the first time in Spain’s four decades as a modern democracy, this country of 47 million people has a caretaker government.”

Spanish politicians warned the people that allowing the national government to fade away could have disastrous effects. However, as the New York Times notes, “the crisis seems to have offered a glimpse of life if politicians simply stepped out of the way. For many here, it has not been all that bad.”

No government, no thieves,” Félix Pastor, a language teacher, told the Times. Pastor said the people of Spain were better without a government because the politicians were unable to cause any more harm. Rafael Navarro, a 71-year old pharmacy owner in Madrid, told the Times that “Spain would be just fine if we got rid of most of the politicians and three-fourths of government employees.”

Despite the lack of government at the moment, life goes on without interruption. Welfare recipients in Spain are still receiving their benefits, and basic government employees are still paid. The streets are not littered with trash, and public trains and buses continue to operate.

However, there are some major differences from life with a national government. Spain has been unable to pass national legislation, handle foreign affairs, or fund new government projects. This means no new invasive, authoritarian laws can be passed by corrupt government officials.

Of course, local governments are still capable of creating projects that will benefit their local communities. Santiago Lago Peñas, an economics professor in the Galicia region of northwest Spain, told the Times that “[f]or a Spanish citizen, the most relevant government is the regional one.” While it is always possible for corruption to exist, even within a local “government” or council, communities are more able to combat dangerous behavior from smaller, local institutions.

The beauty of the situation in Spain is that most of the public seems perfectly content to continue on without a national government. “Only 2.3 percent of respondents in a July poll by Spain’s Center for Sociological Investigations considered the lack of government the country’s major problem,” Vox recently reported.

Vox continued:

“Even more surprising, that number has been getting smaller as people get more accustomed to life in political limbo, the survey found. ‘We’ve done very well without a government, or better put, with an interim, decaffeinated government,’ economist Gabriel Calzada wrote in a column in the business daily Expansion not long after the second inconclusive election. Indeed, noted Calzada, 2016 started with ‘perhaps the best half year of Spanish politics in at least the last decade.‘”

What does the situation in Spain mean for the rest of the world?

Perhaps all the stories we have heard about humans tearing each other apart in the absence of government institutions have been propaganda designed to instill doubt in the minds of the masses.

The concept of no rules or no authority is known as Anarchism. Anarchism is also a wide-ranging political philosophy that explores the idea of a stateless society and asks how humanity might achieve such a thing. The word is often misrepresented in the deadstream (formerly known as the mainstream) media, but it truly means each individual has the freedom to blaze their own path and not infringe upon the freedom of others. The philosophy is much more complex and filled with controversy and division, but respecting individuals’ abilities to live freely without imposed authority (statism, capitalism, socialism, etc.) is the basis.

Although Spain can hardly be called a stateless society as it is now, it is certainly providing an example of what people will do when the State cannot — or will not — help the people. The government is not only often ill-equipped to help the people, but it is also literally a gang of thieves who have come together and declared themselves the legitimate owners of various geographical land masses known as the United States, Spain, Israel, Colombia, Australia, Russia, and so on. They literally cannot survive without selling the people the idea that government is necessary. Not only is it necessary, they say, but its operators must also steal from the people (aka taxation) in order to create and maintain the government and keep us safe.

Obviously, these are lies.

One need look no further than Spain, Occupy Sandy, and the Common Ground Collective for examples of how people can come together and thrive in the absence — and failure — of government. It is up to each of us to stand together and focus on solutions that can move us forward as a species. If we are to truly take on this task, we must ask hard questions about the nature of government and what role, if any, the institution will play in our future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Yes, I’m still an Anarchist (a rant)

maxresdefaultDamn it! YES! I’m still an Anarchist, Panarchist, what-ever. I still believe there is no moral or ethical justification for a state, whether it be a state lead by a corrupt political party with a D in its name or a corrupt  political party with an R in its name. In a very general sense, my ire toward all those who seek state power is non-partisan.

That said, and I believe I have made a compelling case, we live in interesting times, and (real-talk here) if that crazy undead murderous lich queen gets elected I believe we’ll have WWIII. And this time it won’t be fought “over there.” But maybe you think I need a tinfoil hat? I sure hope so. I really do.

Donald is obnoxious, pompous, and for those of you who hate money (or just hate it when others have more than you) he’s rich. But guess what? Clinton is all of those things too. Also, she’s verifiably power hungry, vindictive, and prone to anger… what a great world leader she’s sure to be.

Oh but Trump is a racist! Oh fuck off. I’m already bored. He’s about as racist as anyone in his generation including Hillary “super predator” Clinton. So go turn on the TV again and tune into MSNBC or CNN (Clinton News Network) or even Fox. They are all equally terrible. I can hardly stand to watch more than 5 minutes of that mindless soap opera drivel. But if you’re one of the 6% that still trust the main stream media, go right ahead.

You know what? I thought maybe I might vote. but nah. Fuck it. I live in Oregon anyway, so the outcome here is predestined. I think I will just sit back and watch this shit show play out. It is, after all, possibly the most entertaining bit of political theater I have ever seen.  Besides, if Trump wins its really just delaying the inevitable in the hope of a more peaceful transition to something better later, and if HRC wins, well I wish you all the best, and hope to see you alive and well again in another four years.






Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Just Went Full Neocon

September 1, 2016   |   Jake Anderson via Antimedia.orgHillary-Rambo

The transformation is complete. Hillary Clinton has gone full neocon. We always knew she was. Anyone who’s paid attention to her foreign policy votes as a senator or her actions as a secretary of state knows she is the liberal analog of George W. Bush.

That’s why it came as no surprise when former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz said he would probably vote for her. Wolfowitz, who was one of the architects of the unilateral Iraq invasion in 2003, was also one of the authors of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC was a neoconservative think tank spearheaded by former vice president Dick Cheney. At the end of the 1990s, the think tank concluded the world would need a “new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze new military conquests around the world. A couple years later, a new Pearl Harbor happened and ushered in a new era in American governance.

The problem with Trump, Wolfowitz bemoans, is that he hasn’t expressed much interest in “policies of nation-building and regime change.” It would be, he said, “a huge mistake to abandon democracy promotion.”

He is referring to Trump’s less than enthusiastic references to the U.S.-led NATO military alliance.

Another neocon and former member of PNAC, Robert Kagan, also supports Clinton.

“I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump,” Kagan said in an interview. “I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.”

Now it appears Hillary is going for the triple lux. Yesterday she made a major speech extolling the virtues of American exceptionalism.

Speaking at a convention of the American Legion veterans’ group in Cincinnati, Clinton said:

“The United States is an exceptional nation. It’s not just that we have the greatest military, or that our economy is larger than any on Earth, it’s also the strength of our values. Our power comes with a responsibility to lead.”

Clinton’s appeal to prominent Republicans has worked well thus far. She also has endorsements from Brent Scowcroft, a national security adviser to two Republican presidents; Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush; and James Clad, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense under Bush.

But in her previous verbiage, Clinton’s neoconservative rhetoric had been cloaked in opaque references to keeping America safe abroad and protecting our interests and alliances. By invoking American exceptionalism, she will take things to the next level, where even Barack Obama — who himself largely continued the military interventionism of Bush — refrained from going.

In principle, American exceptionalism is the belief that America has a special role in the world and must be proactive. The Republican Party platform of 2012 described it as “the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history.” In practice, of course, it becomes the ideological justification for regime change abroad and economic imperialism. These ‘noble’ pursuits have killed at least 1.3 million people in the Middle East since the inception of the War on Terror.

Some ironic lines from the transcript include:

“When America fails to lead, we leave a vacuum that either causes chaos or other countries or networks rush in to fill the void.”

Wait, I think that’s what happens when we ‘lead.’

I’m supported by people on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the debates that have defined our foreign policy for the last 30 years. They know I believe in a bipartisan foreign policy. They know I believe we should be finding ways to bring our country together around national security,” she continued.

I’m glad the Democrats and Republicans finally found a reason to hold hands: they both love perpetual war.

“When we say America is exceptional,” Clinton said on Wednesday, “it means that we recognize America’s unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress, a champion for freedom and opportunity.”

War should be a last resort, she suggested, but “we can’t lose our military edge.”

She might as well have winked.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

US Oligarchy worried about increasingly skeptical serfs

August 22, 2016  

by  Nick Bernabe via Antimedia

2016 is the year many, many Americans began to question whether or not our elections, and to a lesser extent, our democracy (insert “it’s a constitutional republic, big difference!” here) are rigged. As I’ve argued many times in the past year, there is plenty of evidence suggesting these skeptical Americans are, indeed, onto something with their suspicions.

But the corporate media has come out in defense of America’s “democracy” — and political elites are defending the system, too. In the wake of Trump’s recent rhetoric regarding the “rigged” system, the ruling class of the United States is peddling the fiction that somehow Trump’s irresponsible sensationalism is solely to blame for the newfound feelings of illegitimacy plaguing our elections.

Take, for example, Monday’s POLITICO piece entitled “What if Trump won’t accept defeat?”:

“Trump’s [rigged election] words are having an effect. Just 38 percent of Trump supporters believe their votes will be counted accurately, and only 49 percent of all registered voters are ‘very confident’ their votes will be tabulated without error, according to a Pew Research survey last week.”

You see, according to the corporate media, the only reason Americans think their elections are rigged in one way or another is because Trump said so. It has nothing to do with the explosive DNC email leaks that showed the Democrats manipulated the corporate media in favor of Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with superdelegates who get to override the voters. It has nothing to do with the Republican establishment choosing to shut down Colorado’s primary, handing all the delegates to Ted Cruz. It has nothing to do with now-former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz admitting the role of superdelegates is to fend off grassroots political challengers. It also must have nothing to do with an RNC committee member openly wondering why the Republican Party has primary elections to begin with since the party chooses the nominee anyway — not the voters. That makes sense, right?

And while Bernie Sanders fades into the matrix with his endorsement of Hillary Clinton and recent decision to hit the campaign trail for her, many of his supporters feel the same way Trump supporters feel. The Democratic primary was rife with inconsistencies, voter suppression, and suspect voting machines — all of which have culminated into severalhigh-profile lawsuits alleging wrongdoing by the DNC. Coincidentally, Shawn Lucas, the man who was spearheading one of the lawsuits, was recently found dead on his bathroom floor. But this is all Trump’s fault,right? Or maybe Russia’s?

But rest assured, as POLITICO notes, even though voting inconsistencies became famous in the 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election, Gore was a good boy and didn’t bother questioning the findings. He did the right thing and conceded defeat despite vocal cries from his ardent supporters that he contest the election.

What’s interesting is that according to the Emmy-nominatedHBO documentary Hacking Democracy, which followed the trail of investigators in Florida in an attempt to get to the bottom of the voter inconsistencies, the Gore campaign was made aware of verifiable issues with the vote counts but still encouraged the investigators to drop their cause and shut up. They were silenced by the candidate they were trying to help. This is what Trump should do if there are any questionable results in November, POLITICO suggests.

And boy, does Trump hate the media. He says it all the time. So much so that POLITICO thinks Trump could single-handedly do irreparable damage to the institution of mainstream media this election. This is yet another fiction being peddled by the self-serving corporate media. Instead of owning up to its waning trust among the general public, they would rather play the blame game. You see, long before Trump hit the 2016 political circuit, Americans had already started to lose trust in the corporate media.In September of 2014, Anti-Media reported, Americans’ trust in the media had reached an all-time low. As of October of 2015, only 7 percent of the country had a “great deal” of trust in the mainstream media — but thismust be Trump’s fault. Or maybe we can pin this on Russia, too.

Another recent development that in my opinion doesn’t prove the elections are rigged per se — but rather, that they are illegitimate — is the overwhelmingly small turnout of voters who nominated both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The two of them combined only attracted nine percent of the general public to vote for them in the primaries, meaning less than a tenth of the U.S. population anointed the nominees, one of whom will eventually be ruling over all Americans. Americans are hardly excited to get out and vote in elections nowadays — possibly because after years of believing unrepresentative politicians’ empty promises, they think the whole process has become futile.

But none of this really matters, anyway, since the U.S. is no longer a democracy or  constitutional republic. It’s an oligarchy. In short, as a 2014 Princeton University study concluded, “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.”

But again, as POLITICO notes, it’s not the actions of the oligarchy or the corporate media that have led voters to question the legitimacy of the system — it’s Trump’s words.

“…[M]any Republicans [elites] fear that Trump’s efforts to diminish people’s confidence in mainstream media, fair elections and politics itself will have a lasting impact,” POLITICO observes.

“‘The damage this is going to do to various institutions is going to be long term,’ said Charlie Sykes, a prominent conservative radio host in Milwaukee who has been one of the country’s most outspoken and consistent anti-Trump voices. ‘How do you restore civil discourse after all of this? He is a postmodern authoritarian who’s in the process of delegitimizing every institution — the media, the ballot box — that can be a check on him.’”

But what if it’s the oligarchic political system and the corporate media that have delegitimized themselves, and not some manufactured Trump conspiracy that has suddenly turned half the country into skeptical anti-establishment rebels? Maybe the corporate media’s collusion with the corporate government is the real conspiracy. Or maybe we should stop complaining and just blame Russia and Julian Assange — that seems a lot more convenient to the New York Times.

Posted in politics, Repost | Leave a comment

The Party of Racism (an Integral Perspective)

In my last post I refrained from giving an Integral (SD) analysis of the topic in order to make it more widely accessible to those not familiar with the jargon of Spiral Dynamics. Here I will explore the same topic from an Integral perspective and try to bring some light onto how the Mean Green Meme Democratic Establishment is keeping communities of color closed from developing along the Spiral.

One of the most insidious aspects of the Democratic Establishment is its use of the public school system and the media to indoctrinate the people. They set up the politics of identity by which they can divide people into groups, not by ideas, or philosophy, but by ethnicity or gender. Having created these divisions they then set themselves up as the political party that fights for their interests. They foster a “what’s in it for me” egoistic (RED) feedback loop where-by they first perpetuate a myth of systemic victimization (usually the boogy-men are white republican males) and then claim to help the victim class by promoting entitlements, government welfare programs, and so on.

However this creates a conflict of interest whereby it will NEVER be to the advantage of the Democratic party to actually alleviate the misery of their victim class voters, because as soon as they are no longer victims, they no longer need the help of Democrats.

Literally trillions of dollars have been spent on this sort of Democratic vote buying with little actual results. Poverty rates remain steady, and single motherhood has gone up drastically creating its own set of problems and a further reinforcement of the RED vMeme that is epitomized by the gang cultures that exist in every shade of skin color. MeanGreen panders to RED Egoistic urges by offering an answer to the question, “What’s in it for me?”

“Republicans won’t do anything for X people,” (where X stands for any “victimized” identity) is the common theme by which MeanGreen Democrats control RED vMeme groups. The idea being that just giving RED individuals and communities welfare will help them. It does not.

Such programs do nothing to pull RED into BLUE, instead these programs keep RED closed to further development. They incentivize  a RED vMeme culture that is disconnected from community and pre-occupied with egoistic values (displays of toughness, power, and “bling”). Women have fatherless children, supported by government welfare systems, and Men who grow up fatherless find themselves untethered by the more BLUE norms of family and community centered life, instead become attracted to the romanticized and idealized RED gang culture, and emulate the only demonstrations of manliness they see around them.

GREEN perpetuates this by coddling RED, by telling them that their situation is not their own doing. It’s the system, and they are helpless against it. This is the lie that keeps people of color in their place on the Democratic voting plantation. To be used as pawns in the political power game for the Mean Green Meme.

The Republicans on the other hand, centered as they are in BLUE and ORANGE vMemes are closer to RED. They understand RED and harshly oppose it. They will not coddle RED, they will not give RED what it wants, but they will encourage RED communities to develop and shift into BLUE and ORANGE on their own. This is why from an Integral perspective I believe that it is so important to encourage these RED groups and subcultures to look at how they are treated by the Mean Green Meme, and get them to see what the Mean Green Meme has done to their communities, and how it has been the force that has held them back.


Posted in Philosophy, politics | 3 Comments

The Party of Racism

Doemocratic Votes

*Note: This post does not analyse this issue from an SD/Integral Perspective, but rather from a purely historical/political perspective. I will be tackling the SD/integral analysis next.

**Second Note: I am NOT a Republican. I do not support the Republican Party, or any political party. I am an Anarchist. However, I do think the Democratic Party is, at this time in history, the more dangerous of the two parties. 

If you grew up, as I did, in the government school system, and bombarded by a limited selection of Mass Media outlets then you were likely brainwashed to believe that the Democratic Party is the Party of racial equality, egalitarianism, peace, generosity, and new ideas and that the Republican Party is the party of racism, bigotry, greed and old white people.

Well history (if one actually does the research) tells us quite a different story. This will be a VERY long post, so sit back and get ready for a fire hose of facts that the Democrat Party doesn’t want you to know about.

The Grand Old Party

The Republican party began as an Anti-Slavery party. In the 1840’s and 1850’s the Democrat Party was trying to expand Slavery into the new western territories, and the Republican party formed to stop them and contain the expansion of slavery. From Wikipedia:

The Republican party began as a coalition of anti-slavery “Conscience Whigs” and Free Soil Democrats opposed to the Kansas–Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36° 30′ latitude, which had been part of the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free Soil and Abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South.

The Act was supported by all Southerners, by Northern “Doughface” (pro-Southern) Democrats and by other Northern Democrats persuaded by Douglas’ doctrine of “popular sovereignty“. In the North the old Whig Party was almost defunct. The opponents were intensely motivated and began forming a new party.[2]

The new party went well beyond the issue of slavery in the territories. It envisioned modernizing the United States—emphasizing giving free western land to farmers (“free soil”) as opposed to letting slave owners buy up the best lands, expanded banking, more railroads, and factories. They vigorously argued that free market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true republicanism—this was the “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men” ideology.[2]

The Republican’s were considered radical in their day by the Democrats, and a threat to the way of life for the Slave-holding Agrarian Democratic South. Once the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, the Southern Democrats feared the end was near. They began to secede from the union only months after Lincoln took office.

To be clear, the Republicans did not want a war, rather their goal was the containment (and eventual end) of Slavery:

Without using the term “containment“, the new Party in the mid-1850s proposed a system of containing slavery, once it gained control of the national government. Historian James Oakes explains the strategy:

“The federal government would surround the south with free states, free territories, and free waters, building what they called a ‘cordon of freedom’ around slavery, hemming it in until the system’s own internal weaknesses forced the slave states one by one to abandon slavery.”

But by the time Lincoln was running for President, the South had built up a vitriolic hatred for what they derisively called “Black Republicans” and their “radical” anti-slavery agenda. In his famous Cooper Union speech, Lincoln addressed these Southern Democrats:

[W]hen you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Republicans.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black Republicanism” as the first thing to be attended to….

For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then… defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves….

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

The South, politically dominated as it was by an Aristocratic Class of Slave Holding Democrats – both White and Black (only in South Carolina were free blacks prohibited from voting), having no desire to see their way of life changed, seceded to form the Confederate States of America, setting off the Civil War.

At the conclusion of that war, the Republicans were eager to make big changes. Abolishing Slavery and passing the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the constitution in the face of strong opposition from the Democrat Party, which confirmed in law the rights of Blacks to vote and hold office. Black Americans flocked to the Republican party, and in the late 19th Century the majority Black Republican communities of the South began sending their representatives to Congress. 

19thC Black Republicans


  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901):  Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War.  He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America’s first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894):  Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman.  He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868.  In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874):  Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868.  From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905)Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops.  He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled.  Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901)Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man.  However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses.  But that didn’t stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887):  Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884)Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina.  He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872.  In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Here’s a list of all the things Republicans have done to advance the cause of racial equality in the United States.

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
Republican President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, each one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law byRepublican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it

August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
Republican President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act led by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who served in the Senate until his death in 2010.  At Byrd’s funeral, former Democrat President Bill Clinton said, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected.  And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done come and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians.”

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate.The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976
Republican President Gerald Ford formally rescinds Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981
Republican President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

June 29, 1982
Republican President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988
Republican President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991
Republican President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

The above information was originally produced by Michael Zak, in his book, Back to the Basics for Republicans

After the Civil War, the Democrats resorted to terror tactics in order to suppress black votes. They created the Ku Klux Klan to violently oppose the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments, and other “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags“. Of course these days you’ll not find any Democrats willing to admit their history as the party of the Klan. The Democrat Party has gone to great lengths to expunge its record as the ultimate party of racism in America.

But lest our Democrat friends forget, here is a list of actions taken by the Democrats to undermine and undo efforts by the Republican party to bring freedom and equality to Black Americans:

  • Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.  (Can you say Civil War?)
  • Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. (Both were southern Democratic attempts to constrict black freedom after the Civil War.)
  • Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.  (Missouri was let into the Union at the same time as Maine.  The main reason was to keep the number of slave states and free states even in 1820.)
  • Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery. (1854.  Popular sovereignty in the territories for whether or not they would allow slavery. Designed by an Illinois Democrat.)
  • Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.  (1856.  Orginally decided in St. Louis, the case made it to the Supreme Court in 1857 where the place was stacked with southern Democrats who prevailed in a 5-4 decision.)
  • Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
  • Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
  • Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well-known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
  • Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
  • Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
  • Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
  • Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.  (He also was instrumental in getting multiple planks of the Communist Manifesto instituted in American law, namely the 16th amendment to the Constitution.)
  • Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. (Oops.  Thought FDR was a saint.)
  • Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.  (So much for his image as a good guy.)
  • Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching. (1935.  FDR refused to speak out in favor of  Costigan-Wagner Act, which attacked one of the main aspects of lynching. The legislation proposed federal trials for any law enforcement officers who failed to exercise their responsibilities during a lynching incident.)
  • Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.  (Can you say the honorable Tuskegee Airman????)
  • Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  • Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson. (1896.  Decision upheld constitutionality of state segregation laws.  Details here.)
  • Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.  (Whoops.)
  • Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
  • Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.  (Yes, MLK was a Republican.)
  • Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
  • Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
  • Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
  • Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
  • Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
  • Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
  • Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
  • Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
  • Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
  • Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
  • Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
    Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

Democrats also opposed:

  1. The Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863.  Issued by President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican)
  2. The 13th Amendment (Abolished slavery in the United States.  100% Republican support in Congress.  23% Democrat.)
  3. The 14th Amendment  (Citizenship, right to vote, the right to privacy, life, liberty, due process….  ZERO Democratic support in Congress.)
  4. The 15th Amendment (Right to vote base on color or race.  Zero Democratic support as it was a bid to hold on to black voters for the Republican Party.)
  5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
  6. The Civil Rights of 1866
  7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
  8. The Forced Act of 1871
  9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
  10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
  11. The Freeman Bureau
  12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
  13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
  14. The United State Civil Rights Commission

But… But… The Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act!

“I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”  – President Lyndon B. Johnson

The prophetic LBJ is quoted as having made that statement to assuage the fears of some southern Democrats prior to passing his “Great Society” legislation. You see, at this point in history there was huge momentum against the Jim Crow laws of the south. Civil Rights were coming, and the Democrats knew it. The Republicans (most recently under Eisenhower) and to be fair, Progressive Democrats as well, had been making big strides toward equality in the Jim Crow South. But Southern Democrats opposed Civil rights at every turn.

There had been forming for many decades a rift within the Democratic Party. “Progressive” Democrats, influenced by Socialist ideals began to appear on the scene, from Woodrow Wilson (16th Amendment, Federal Reserve), to FDR (New Deal). In contrast to the Democrats of the South they were heavily influenced by socialism although they still remained pro-segregation.

Even Harry Truman, who signed the executive order integrating the US military in 1948 (the first remotely pro-civil right act by a Democratic President), had to join the Ku Klux Klan in order to get elected by his party. By the 1948 election of Truman, progressive Democrats in the North were beginning to feel differently than Southern Democrats about the issue of Civil Rights.

Democratic Politicians now had to placate both sides to some degree, but the Progressive Democrats began to push for more anti-segregation legislation. This led to an eventual reversal in the Democratic Party on the issue of segregation and the signing into law of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Progressive Democratic platform  of “Great Society” welfare programs changed the make-up of the Democratic Party.

American Blacks began to rapidly shift party allegiances, attracted by the social welfare programs of the Democrats. Many southern Whites also slowly began to shift allegiances to the Republican Party as their dislike of the continually more “liberal” policies of the Progressive Democrats, overshadowed their traditional hatred of the GOP.

With this shift in the voter base of the parties in the 1960’s and 70’s, the Democrats set themselves up as the new “saviors” of American Blacks and other minorities. In contrast, however, to the Republican’s century-long effort to provide equal rights to all citizens without increasing the scope and size of government, the Democrats used government as a hammer and approached every problem and every issue as a nail.

The Democrats cast American Blacks as the helpless victims of White oppression, unable and incapable of improving their own situation – a claim that went counter to the incredible progress, achievements, and contributions Blacks were making to American society.

While professing to help poor Blacks and other minorities, the welfare state instead did to Black communities what centuries of slavery, oppression, Jim Crow and segregation could not do. As the great Thomas Sowell put it; “The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.”

In fact if one looks at US census data a starkly different picture emerges than the one pushed by the Democrats. A picture of an increasingly affluent Black American population that was perfectly capable of making its own way, despite the horrible racism they faced.

[T]he cold historical fact is that most blacks did lift themselves out of poverty by their own bootstraps — before their political rescuers arrived on the scene with civil rights legislation in the 1960s or affirmative action policies in the 1970s.

As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action — the 1970s — ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much.

The truth is that Democrats need Black votes far far more than Black voters need Democrats. If Democrats were to lose even 20 to 30% of the Black vote, they would lose almost every major election in the country. The Democrats have a vested interest in keeping Blacks ever fearful of racism, whether or not it actually exists.  Again Thomas Sowell argues:

If the share of the black vote that goes to the Democrats ever falls to 70 percent, it may be virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the White House or Congress, because they have long ago lost the white male vote and their support among other groups is eroding. Against that background, it is possible to understand their desperate efforts to keep blacks paranoid, not only about Republicans but about American society in general.

Liberal Democrats, especially, must keep blacks fearful of racism everywhere, including in an administration [Bush] whose Cabinet includes people of Chinese, Japanese, Hispanic, and Jewish ancestry, and two consecutive black Secretaries of State. Blacks must be kept believing that their only hope lies with liberals…

Black self-reliance would be almost as bad as blacks becoming Republicans, as far as liberal Democrats are concerned. All black progress in the past must be depicted as the result of liberal government programs and all hope of future progress must be depicted as dependent on the same liberalism.

In reality, reductions in poverty among blacks and the rise of blacks into higher level occupations were both more pronounced in the years leading up to the civil rights legislation and welfare state policies of the 1960s than in the years that followed.

Moreover, contrary to political myth, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But facts have never stopped politicians or ideologues before and show no signs of stopping them now.

What blacks have achieved for themselves, without the help of liberals, is of no interest to liberals…

This strategy is not limited to Blacks, but has spread to other groups. Democrats use identity politics to play on peoples fears and keep them tethered to their benevolent masters. In effect the Democrats have created a voting plantation – a different kind of slavery. Democratic policies have worked to shred apart the very core of black communities – of ANY community – the family. The welfare state has resulted in huge increases in single motherhood, crime and violence, and has kept not only blacks but the poor of all races dependent.

The Democratic party benefits from the misery of these manufactured victim classes, promising them more and more government programs to keep them ever more dependent. The Democrats have replaced the plantation with the welfare office, and the literal chains of bondage, with the virtual chains of economic dependence.

Little by little people of color are waking up to the fact that Democrats are using them, and that the Mainstream Media, who serve as the propaganda arm of the Establishment are to blame for keeping people of color indoctrinated to believe they are helpless victims. The Democratic Establishment uses Media and public school system (both of which they control) to implant the myth of “Systemic Racism” and the victim mentality in the minds of people of color from the time they are children. But people are “getting woke” to the lie. A quick search of youtube will reveal scores of people who don’t want to be used by Democrats as voting chattel anymore.

It is incredibly heartening to see black Americans, or any people of color expressing skepticism of the lies we’ve all been taught to believe by the political establishment. Often they do so in the face of vitriolic hatred by their own communities. They are labeled “Uncle Tom” or worse. Now again I am not a Republican myself, and I recognize that the Republican party has a hand in the Establishment Globalist system as well. But what is heartening to me is that the media is losing its ability to control the conversation, and as a result people are breaking out of the identity politics mold that is dividing this country.

That gives me hope for the future.



Posted in politics | Leave a comment

Regarding Milwaukee

Pretty much on point as usual by @StefanMolyneux

Not much for visuals so Just listen if you are blinded by that glorious shiny noggin.

I will have more to say on this from an Integral (SD) perspective, but I am still gathering my thoughts on race relations in America, Black Lives Matter, Police Violence etc. It’s certainly a very big and very complex issue that requires deep and honest conversation.


Posted in politics, Repost | Leave a comment