VP Debate

Posted in American Politics with tags on October 4, 2008 by parimon

Tell me your opinions on the VP debate. In My opinion, They both were terrible, Biden did not get his facts right and he lied on some things and Palin avoided questions and kept talking about soccer moms and other shit that I dont care about. I dont care if she is an average american or not, If she doesnt have her shit right i sure as hell dont want her in office. Tell me what you guys think about the debate. Leave a comment.


Hypocrite Nazis?

Posted in Dumb Nazis with tags on September 11, 2008 by parimon

For more than three decades, William Potter Gale warned the world that a satanic Jewish conspiracy disguised as communism was corrupting public officials and the courts, undermining the United States and wrecking its divinely inspired Constitution.Jews, the self-described “reverend” taught, were offspring of the devil, while non-whites were “mud people” and whites were the real Hebrews of the Bible. By the time of his death in 1988, Bill Gale had spent half a lifetime energetically promoting his particularly bloodthirsty brand of anti-Semitism across America.

“Arise and fight!” Gale preached in one infamous sermon broadcast to Kansas farmers in 1982. “If a Jew comes near you, run a sword through him.”

But William Potter Gale had a secret. It turns out that Gale, founder of the Jew-hating Posse Comitatus that raged through the Midwest in the 1970s and 1980s, was descended on his father’s side from a long line of devout Jews.

In interviews with this author for a book being published this fall, Gale’s daughters revealed with some bemusement the Jewish roots of their grandfather and his forebears.

Ironically, like so many other 19th-century Jews from Eastern Europe, Bill Gale’s father Charles was fleeing Russian anti-Semitism and seeking economic opportunity when he arrived in the United States in 1894, changing his name from Grabifker in the process.

Four years later, Charles, then 18, lied about his age and place of birth in order to join the U.S. Army — but he was truthful enough to declare on his military enlistment papers that his parents’ nationality was “Hebrew.”

While Charles Gale eventually abandoned Judaism, married a non-Jew and raised his children as Christians, all of his siblings proudly embraced their religious heritage. Charles’ younger sister, a practicing Jew, was often a guest in the Gale family household in Los Angeles when Bill Gale was a teenager.

Despite this and many other reminders of his father’s heritage, Bill Gale had adopted Christian Identity theology and become an unrepentant anti-Semite by the mid-1950s.

Although it is in some ways unique, the remarkable case of Bill Gale is not unprecedented. Some of the most zealous anti-Semites on the American white supremacist scene have turned out to have direct family links to the religion and the people they have devoted their lives to hating.

Similarly, a self-described “Aryan” named Leo Felton, convicted this year in a conspiracy to blow up Jewish and black landmarks, turned out to have a black father. And uncounted white supremacists have sneaked across the color line to engage in sex with black women.

Jewish anti-Semitism, however, is a case unto itself.

Power and Powerlessness
Around the world, there is a sad and troubling history of Jewish self-hatred that has played itself out in a variety of ways. To even start to understand this history, it is necessary to understand the basic mythology of anti-Semitism.

As described by Norman Cohn — a leading scholar of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a classic anti-Semitic text — the political myth about Jewish world domination can be summarized as follows:

[T]here exists a secret Jewish government which, through a worldwide network of camouflaged agencies and organizations, controls political parties and governments, the press and public opinion, banks and economic developments … in pursuance of an age-old plan and with the single aim of achieving Jewish dominion over the entire world.

On a more individual level, Jews are often stereotyped as unethical, dishonest, socially aggressive, conceited, clannish, stingy and obsessed with money.

Historically, these myths have been pervasive — so pervasive that they seep into the consciousness of many Jews as well as non-Jews.

“It is important to remember that western society has a heavy anti-Semitic underpinning, and negative stereotypes about Jews are part of the culture in which everybody grows up, Jews and non-Jews alike,” says Sander Gilman, a University of Illinois at Chicago liberal arts professor and the author of Jewish Self-Hatred, a key text on the subject.

This view is echoed by Raphael Ezekiel, a psychologist and the author of The Racist Mind: Portraits of American Neo-Nazis and Klansmen.

“If you live next door to a cement factory, then inevitably cement dust gets into your body,” says Ezekiel, who in recent years has worked as a senior research scientist and visiting scholar at the Harvard School of Public Health. “And the same goes for anti-Semitism and other prejudices. Everyone who grows up in a culture gets impacted by those beliefs that are deeply held, including the members of endangered groups.”

These observations apply to Bill Gale. But there were other factors, too.

Like many other retired military officers in the early 1950s, Gale was drawn to the extremely conservative, anti-Communist politics of the time, which were often tainted by anti-Semitism and diehard opposition to racial integration. And because his idolized father had abandoned Judaism and lied about his immigrant status, Gale’s adoption of anti-Jewish beliefs also may have been driven by a desire to preserve what he felt was his father’s shameful secret.

Charles Gale also apparently endured subtle slights from his more financially secure Jewish relatives in Portland, Ore., and young Bill seems to have picked up on these resentments.

Co-existing with the myth of Jewish power and aggression is a parallel and yet contradictory stereotype: the Jew as vulnerable and weak. And it is this image of the Jew that most often gives rise to Jewish self-hatred.”Jews who become genuine anti-Semites do so because of a need to recapture some sense of lost power, and that idea is very much connected to the image of the weak Jew,” Gilman says.

When faced with a barrage of anti-Semitic stereotypes the majority of Jews readily choose to discard the images, says Gilman. But some Jews get caught up in false notions of “good Jews vs. bad Jews,” while others may internalize the stereotypes or even choose to identify with the aggressor.

It is this latter tendency that best explains the behavior of those Jews who became leading advocates of forcible conversion in medieval times, along with those who join neo-Nazi groups in the modern era. In fact, Gilman cites studies by the famous child psychologist Anna Freud (the daughter of Sigmund Freud), who observed Jewish children in England who had recently escaped from Nazi Germany. She found that during some forms of spontaneous play, many of these children chose to identify as Nazis.

“Identification with the aggressor signals an attempt to recapture a sense of power and indicates a tremendous sense of powerlessness in the psychic life of the Jewish anti-Semite,” says Gilman.

He also points to a similar phenomenon that was identified among African Americans by black psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Phipps Clark during the 1940s.

Among other things, the couple’s pioneering “doll studies” revealed that black children as young as 5 years old already had developed negative self-images based upon the racially prejudiced values of the larger society. When given a choice between playing with a white doll or a black one, these studies found, the majority of African-American children chose the white doll.

“You cannot assume that there is a single explanation for the all of the individual nuances of self-hatred,” says Gilman, “but you can develop a model which explains the movement toward certain end goals. And the principle goal is the achievement of power.”

Certainly, this seems to have been the case with Daniel Burros, a tragic figure from Queens, N.Y.

One More Victim
Growing up, Burros’ pious devotion to Judaism greatly impressed the elders of Talmud Torah synagogue. But by 1960, Burros had pledged his loyalty to George Lincoln Rockwell, “commander” of the American Nazi Party. A year and a half after moving to Rockwell’s headquarters in Arlington, Va., Burros left the party — but not Nazism — and returned to his native New York.

Back in the Empire State, Burros hooked up with a variety of hate groups, earned a conviction for conspiracy to riot, and eventually migrated to the Ku Klux Klan, where he became the New York State organizer for Robert Shelton’s United Klans of America (UKA), the most notorious Klan group of the period.

But on Halloween, 1965, Burros got quite a shock: A front-page article in The New York Times exposed his Jewish roots. Burros killed himself that same day.

At the time he died, Burros had been living for about a week in the Reading, Penn., home of Roy Frankhouser, then the 25-year-old grand dragon, or state leader, for the UKA. Frankhouser, who would go on to serve two federal prison sentences, bizarrely eulogized Burros at a Maryland gathering a short time later.

“To the good Jews, we offer our love and respect and understanding,” said Frankhouser, praising his fallen compatriot for having separated himself from the “bad” ones.

Burros, of course, had made no such distinction. Throughout his short career as a militant white supremacist, he had favored total extermination of the Jews.

After hundreds of thousands of people read the Times story about Burros’ roots, along with the front-page account the next day of his suicide, two editors at the paper teamed up to investigate.

Abe Rosenthal and Arthur Gelb’s One More Victim: The Life and Death of a Jewish Nazi traced Burros’ self-hatred to the same sources identified by Gilman: a quest for power by one who has come to associate all of his inadequacies and feelings of powerlessness with being Jewish. They wrote:

The record of his short life shows that never since his childhood did he believe himself strong enough, worthy enough, to survive as himself.Dan Burros searched for the explanation … and discovered it. … Everything that was ‘Jewish’ in him was weakness to him. … Most men hate something … within them, but most men do not find the world telling them over and over, ‘You are right to hate yourself.’

Dan Burros did … and the one overwhelming irony of [his] life was that he became an example of the quintessential Jewish victim — the Jew who confesses that the diseased fantasy in the mind of the anti-Semite is truth.

Having confessed, Dan Burros sought to escape punishment. The only way he could do this was to identify himself with the aggressor, the man of strength, and become himself a judge of the Jews. To survive as he wished to survive, he had to destroy his enemy and his enemy was the Jew. …

The Nazis were the accusers, judges, torturers, and executioners of the Jews. Thirsting for the torment and execution of the Jew in himself, Dan Burros fled to them. They would help him kill the Jews and they would give him the greatest gift, the death of a particular Jew.

Burros’ story might have faded from memory, were it not for the efforts of Hollywood writer-director Henry Bean, who this year released “The Believer,” an award-winning film based loosely on an updated version of the Burros story.

Besides Dan Burros, there are very few known instances of those of Jewish heritage rising to prominence in the Klan. But one man who has persisted steadily in his efforts to promote the hooded order despite being born Jewish is Jordan Gollub, currently leader of the tiny Royal Confederate Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

In the 1980s, Gollub managed to rise to the post of Mississippi state leader of the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, then led by Virgil Griffin of North Carolina. But in 1989, Griffin uncovered Gollub’s background — Gollub had been born to Jewish parents in Philadelphia — and booted him out of the Knights as a result.

To the amusement of many, Gollub angrily qualified Griffin’s account, saying that he had actually been ejected because of his religious “background and the fact that I’m against Catholics joining the Klan.” Catholics, he argued, have a primary loyalty to the pope, rather than the United States. “We can’t have an organization with 100% Americans with Catholics,” Gollub told the Jackson (Miss.) Daily News.

Things haven’t gone too well for Gollub since then.

Gollub has spent the last years trying to get a new Klan group going, with most of his efforts ending in disappointment. This summer, he announced plans to march in three Mississippi cities with a phalanx of his Royal Confederate Knights. In the event, he actually showed up in only two of those cities, accompanied by just three followers.

Afterward, said he would lead the Klan in three Alabama marches this December. When he learned that one of those marches would conflict with a Christmas parade, he said he was willing to reschedule.

Is That Wolfgang or Andy?
Andrew Britt Greenbaum was a bright, high-achieving high school student living in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Westwood, outside Boston, when he ran for class president on an explicitly racist platform and launched a tiny anti-Semitic hate group on the Internet that he called the Knights of Freedom.

Within days of graduating high school in 1996, the one-time chess whiz of his parents’ neighborhood legally changed his name to hide his partly Jewish heritage. If the appellation Davis Wolfgang Hawke left any doubts as to his politics, the SS suits he liked to dress up in did not. His Wofford College dormitory room in South Carolina was draped with National Socialist flags, and he sold swastika armbands.

The architect of the “Ministry of Racial Unity” was not shy.

“We must all carry with us in our hearts this knowledge, that the dreams of Adolf Hitler have not faded away, but are just as alive today as they were years ago! The German army was defeated on the battlefield, but the ideals of Adolf Hitler live on in the hearts and souls of those who now carry the torch of the Aryan peoples,” Hawke told supporters who called him “the chosen one.”

Hawke’s Net-based group, renamed the American Nationalist Party in its last moments of life, eventually claimed more than 100 adherents. But it collapsed in along with his make-believe ethnicity after the Intelligence Report described his Jewish heritage.

His one last bid for attention disintegrated into ignominy when, after promising a march of thousands of neo-Nazis in Washington, D.C., just four people showed up — not including the wannabe führer of Wofford College.

“He’s a chicken,” his mother, Peggy Greenbaum, told a reporter.

Greenbaum, who was labeled a “race traitor” by her son, told the Intelligence Report at the time that she had had no idea of her son’s neo-Nazism. Weeping, she recalled how her nerdy boy had been taunted as a “kike” at school and was even beaten by classmates jealous of his good grades.

“I just don’t know where it came from,” she said of the 20-year-old who earlier bragged to the Report that he intended to become the “absolute, supreme dictator” of the United States.

“He seems to be so full of hate and so power-hungry. … I just don’t want him to hurt anyone.”

Like other young people drawn to hate groups, Hawke was impressed by the power of Nazi martial regalia and its message of violence. The rest of what drove him to reject his parents and recommend their extermination may never be known.

Today, Gale and Burros are dead, Gollub is trying against all odds to rehabilitate himself in the world of the Klan, and Hawke has vanished without a trace from the public arena. But the story of hypocritical hate did not begin with Bill Gale, and it surely will not end with Gollub or Hawke.

For an entire millennium — from the 8th to the 18th century — Jewish converts to Christianity were among the leading advocates of forcibly converting their former brethren and of burning the Talmud, the text of rabbinical commentaries on Jewish law. In the early 20th century, there were numerous converted Jews who also made careers out of attacking their former co-religionists.

As long as there is religious and ethnic hatred in this world, there will be members of oppressed groups who turn on themselves.

Redneck VP And Family

Posted in American Politics with tags on September 6, 2008 by parimon

The bad-boy image of Levi Johnston, 18, the boyfriend of Bristol Palin, 17, added to the pressure surrounding Senator John McCain after his decision to choose Mrs Palin as a running mate in the Republican bid for the White House.

The details follow the disclosure that, Mrs Palin, 44, had once addressed a party conference of the Alaska Independence Party, which has been pushing for Alaskans to be allowed to vote on whether the state can secede from the United States. The McCain campaign, however, denied she had ever been a party member, providing documents that she had been a Republican since 1982.

There were also reports that Mrs Palin, who has portrayed herself as a fighter against corruption and a doughty opponent of wasteful government spending, secured $27 million (£15million) in federal funds for the small town of Wasilla, where she was mayor until two years ago.

Democrats seized on the claims about Mrs Palin as evidence that Mr McCain had poor judgment because he had failed to vet her properly.

However, senior McCain aides said that a vetting team had been in Alaska before the Arizona senator made his choice. “You can’t confuse secrecy with lack of vetting,” said one adviser.

A dozen McCain aides have been sent to Alaska to help Mrs Palin’s family and to rebut the claims against her.

Some Republicans linked to the attacks believed that Mr McCain had sacrificed thoroughness in the vetting process so that secrecy could be maintained.

The surprise choice of Mrs Palin could make or break Mr McCain’s battle for the White House. Republican activists are delighted that a strongly anti-abortion mother of five who is an avid hunter has been chosen.

But Democrats scent blood and believe they can paint Mrs Palin as “Dan Quayle in a dress” – the description applied to her by Karen Thurman, a former member of the House of Representatives.

Mr Quayle was chosen as George W Bush’s running mate in 1988 after a cursory vetting process failed to find serious weaknesses in his character and record.

Christian conservatives have covered Mrs Palin with praise for supporting her daughter, who is five months pregnant and is due to marry Mr Johnston. There has been criticism of Democrats and the media, which is being accused of exploiting a private issue.

“They have been using this 17-year-old girl as a battering ram against her mother and against social conservatives,” said Gary Bauer, a leading evangelical and former Republican presidential hopeful.

“It’s disgraceful. All families wrestle with these issues and try to teach their kids the best they can. But children make mistakes. The whole pro-life movement is built around helping women in crisis pregnancies. We don’t judge these women. If we did, they wouldn’t come to us.”

Associated Press reported that Mr Johnston plans to join the family of the Republican vice presidential candidate at the GOP convention.

Levi Johnston’s mother said her 18-year-old son left Alaska on Tuesday morning. Sherry Johnston also said there has been no pressure put on her son to marry Bristol Palin.

“Absolutely not,” Sherry Johnston told reporters outside the family’s Wasilla home. Johnston said the two teens already had plans to marry before they knew she was pregnant.

On his MySpace page, Mr Johnston, an avid ice hockey player, proudly declares: “I’m a ——‘ redneck” who would kick ass if anyone gave him trouble. I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing,” he said on the social networking the site.

Poignantly, in the one part of the site where it asks about children, he wrote, “I don’t want kids.”

The web page was removed yesterday and appeared not to have been accessed for a year.

Bill Sturdevant, coach of the Wasilla Warriors ice hockey team, told the New York Daily News: “He was a good kid to be around, with lots of friends. He was well-liked.”

Last year Johnston had to pay a $370 bail after state troopers caught him catching salmon out of season in Moose Lake, a popular Alaskan fishing location.  Levi wrote in his convention bog some very interesting things like this ” Dear Dude,

There is some seriously WEIRD FUCKIN SHIT goin on up in here!!!

So I get off the plane in Minnesota and the first thing I know some creepy old dude who smells like my grandma is gettin up in my grille. I am totally goin to give him a righteous beat-down and then I see it’s that John McCain dude from TV who’s always approvin his fuckin message.

So I give him this look like, “Don’t get in my face or I will SERIOUSLY fuck you up,” and dude looks back at me like, “I’ve ate Viet Cong bigger than you for breakfast.” So I like totally back off. Dude, if I’m gonna get fucked up no way am I gonna get fucked up by someone older than Larry King.

Things go from weird to fuckin WEIRD AS ALL SHIT as I get like the totally evil eye from Bristol’s old man Todd who looks like he wants to shove an oil pipeline up my fuckin ass. Shit, I said I’d marry her, what the fuck is wrong with you, dude??? Back off or I’ll fuck you up.

So I TOTALLY try to stay out of the way of Bristol’s mom, who looks like she’s gonna go medieval on my ass, like do me way worse than that trooper she got canned. For a minute I feel like I am TOTALLY GOING TO SHIT MYSELF, but than I think of thoughts to calm me down, like that time in middle school when I fucked that guy up who tried to fuck with me.

Dude, the one thing I don’t like understand at all is why Bristol’s mom even WANTS to be fuckin vice-president and all. Right now, being Governor of Alaska and shit, she could totally invade Russia if she wanted to. It’s that fuckin close.

With all this crazy shit going on I didn’t even like get a chance to talk to Bristol. I wanted to ask her how her summer was, shit like that, but every time I opened my mouth that McCain dude gave me another look like, “You say word one and I will rearrange your fuckin face you fuckin piece of hockey shit.” So I don’t say a fuckin thing.

Gotta go now. One thing’s for sure, dude – when this week is over I am totally getting wasted!!! “Peace out,” 

 How can you not make fun of this guy!!! As a proud Northern City dweller this just proves to me people from small country towns who hasnt been anywhere in their lives to be complete ignorant hillbilly rednecks who talk out of their asses. I give Levi’s marriage to Bristol a couple of years then… OVER!!!!


new_jersey-2.jpg picture by kretscky

Rush The Douche

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on August 6, 2008 by parimon

Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night and just think to yourself, ‘Am I just full of hot gas?'” Dave Letterman to Rush

“A Political war is one in which everyone shoots from the lip.” Raymond Moley

“A silent majority and goverment by the people is incompatible.” Tom Hayden

"And one of the things that -- that the -- the
AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh,
this is only a matter of time before it spreads to
the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time.

And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try
to get people like Reagan to start talking about it
from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't.
It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa,
and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by
-- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that
spreads this, if you want to know the truth.
It's promiscuity.

But it -- it hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual
Rush Limbaugh
June 9, 2004 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show

"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares." -Rush Limbaugh

‘take that bone out of your nose and call me back.’
Rush Limbaugh
Source:Notable Quotables, mrc.org

Choice or Orgasms

"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice
tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis,
Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or
multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?'
We all know what was chosen" (TV, Feb. 23, 1994). 

Citizen Service
Citizen service is a repudiation of the principles upon which
our country was based. We are all here for ourselves." -


"Condoms only work during the school year."

Drug Abuse
"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs,
using drugs, importing drugs.  And the laws are good
because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if
people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought
to be accused and they ought to be convicted and
they ought to be sent up."

"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia
(former Grateful Dead guitarist) destroyed his life on
drugs.  And yet he's being honored, like some godlike
figure.  Our priorities are out of whack, folks."

(well ditto heads?  I bet you still love this drug
addicted, law-breaking drug freek.  Ever hear of 'just
say no' or how by buying drugs you are supporting
Osama?) *Rush is Addicted to Painkillers*


"The Earth's eco-system is not fragile."


"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive
women easier access to the mainstream of society."

"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the
homeless olympics...the 10-metre shopping cart relay,
the dumpster dig, and the hop, skip, and trip." 

Indians and VD

"I don't give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a
disease that they didn't have immunity against" (Ought to Be, p. 45). 

Iraqi Prison Abuse
Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what
happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going
to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper
our military effort, and then we are going to really
hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these
people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about
people having a good time, these people, you ever heard
of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some
steam off?
Rush's Radio Show 5-4-4

Jesse Jackson
‘have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted
criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
Rush Limbaugh
Source:Notable Quotables, mrc.org

Lindsey Graham
"I may be wrong ... Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to [McCain] to die of anal poisoning."
Rush Limbaugh

If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--
I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely
no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and
unskilled Mexicans do that work." 

Michael J. Fox (Parkinson's disease)
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's
moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
act. . . . This is really shameless of
Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication
or he's acting. This is the only time I've ever seen
Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the
disease he has. He can barely control himself."
Rush Limbaugh
Source: Rush's Radio Show 10-24-06


"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get
a liquor store and practice robberies"
(radio; reported in the Flush Rush Quarterly, January 1993). 

Donovan McNabb
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit
for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve."

Nuclear Arms Reduction

"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them." 


"If the owl can't adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it"
(Ought to Be, p. 162). 

Sierra Club

"The Sierra Club wants to limit the number of kids you can have
to two. They are into power and controlling peoples lives." 

Sexual Harassement
Sexual harassment at this work station will not be reported.
However...it will be graded!!!


"Being stuck is a position few of us like. We want
something new but cannot let go of the old - old ideas,
beliefs, habits, even thoughts. We are out of
contact with our own genius. Sometimes we know
we are stuck; sometimes we don't. In both cases
we have to DO something." 


"The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you
do after you cut it down."

"We have more trees in this country today than when
the Declaration of Independence was written. The wackos
will tell you that's impossible."

"There are more acres of forestland in America today
than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492" 

Rush Lies

1) Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into
believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation
in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the
have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the
Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth"
(Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in
1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the
income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more
than 20-to-1. 

2)Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off
than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase
an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase
$20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200;
in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994,
published by the World Bank).

Wishful Thinking and Deadly Self-Deception

Posted in American Politics with tags on August 6, 2008 by parimon

The August 18 issue of The Nation magazine published “Change We Can Believe In. An Open Letter to Barack Obama,” online at thenation.com.

The letter begins by congratulating Obama and extolling how, through his candidacy, “Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind [Obama], and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.”

But they express concern that, “Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance—including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation…”

While making clear that they “recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy,” and “understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense,” they advise Obama, “Retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.”

“People always were and always will be the foolish victims of deceit and self-deceit in politics until they learn to discover the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. The supporters of reforms and improvements will always be fooled by the defenders of the old order until they realize that every old institution, however barbarous and rotten it may appear to be, is maintained by the forces of some ruling classes.”

V.I. Lenin

After listing some of Obama’s positions that they like and some that they don’t, they pledge: “If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don’t. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.”

The signatories to this letter are an impressive list of writers and intellectuals, a number of whom are respected tremendously as voices of conscience. But, this letter, and its whole logic and method, is very bad. Whatever their intent, those who put their names on it are wielding their influence to get people to join them in a deadly exercise in self-delusion.

On one level, the best response to this letter are the words of Obama himself. Answering accusations that he had “moved to the right” since securing the Democratic nomination, he said, “The people who say this haven’t apparently been listening to me.”

But since those who signed The Nation’s letter are serious people making a serious argument, and since this letter reinforces themes that are constantly hammered at people, it is important to say more.

The Poison of Wishful Thinking

One of the most insidious dangers of this letter is how it “softens” Obama’s politics, distorts the meaning of his campaign, and proceeds from what the writers wish were true rather than what actually is.

Take, for instance, the letter’s claim that Obama has “sketched out a vision of a better future, in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe.”

In reality, what he has “sketched out” is a vision of massive escalation—to the tune of 10,000 more troops!—of the war in Afghanistan, a willingness to unilaterally use military force in Pakistan, and a refusal to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran! Besides voting repeatedly to continue funding the war in Iraq, Obama has made clear that his criticisms of that war are out of a desire to strengthen the influence and domination of the U.S. in the world. Really, all this is much more than a “sketch”; Obama has put forward a very concrete program of imperialist domination for all to see and hear. . . and it doesn’t entail “shedding a warlike stance” any time soon.

Or take this letter’s description of Obama’s positions as “cautious and centrist.”

What exactly is “cautious and centrist” about voting for Bush’s FISA law sanctioning massive domestic wire-tapping and retroactively protecting those who violated the rights of millions to privacy? What is “cautious and centrist” about giving a bloodthirsty speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that essentially writes Israel a blank check and threatens Iran with war? What is “cautious and centrist” about blaming Black fathers, in his infamous Father’s Day speech, for the way this system has written off a whole generation of youth, unable and unwilling to provide jobs or decent education or any kind of future at all, and instead funneling 1 in 9 Black men into jail?! What is “cautious and centrist” about getting to the right of George Bush’s Supreme Court and arguing for even wider use of the death penalty? What is “cautious and centrist” about promising to expand Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative?!

If all this is “cautious and centrist,” I’d really hate to see “cynical and fascist”!

More to the point, sanitizing Obama’s positions in this way is dangerously similar to how the Pentagon refers to civilians murdered in unjust wars as “collateral damage”; it has the effect of numbing people to reality and making it easier for them to acquiesce to war crimes.  What is particularly painful is that many of the letter signers have a commendable history of speaking plainly and insisting people confront the full horrors of the crimes of the government, but the logic of trying to make Obama into something he is not has led them away from this principle they have stood for.

The Need to Speak Honestly

It is essential to speak honestly and accurately about all this. Only by confronting reality as it actually is, can we determine how it can be transformed in ways that are both possible and desirable. Conversely, if we insist on deceiving ourselves—and worse yet, deceiving others—then we will continue to find ourselves standing by in impotent frustration as this country continues on its bloody, criminal course.

The reality is the situation is extremely dire. Millions on this planet, and many future generations, are imperiled because of what the U.S. government is doing in our names: the torture, the massive spying, the refusal to acknowledge or take meaningful action to stem global warming, the Gestapo-style round-ups of immigrants, the assaults on women’s most fundamental rights, the vicious resurgence of racism, and especially the wars.

Further, the reality is that all this was sanctioned and codified, not stopped or even slowed, through people’s participation in “politics-as-usual.”

To name just one example, in 2006 millions gave money, volunteered time, and voted for the Democrats out of a desire to see an end to the whole Bush trajectory. What did this “victory” lead to? A Congress that has voted six times to approve war funding, actively participated in covering up torture and protecting war criminals, and secretly funding covert military operations already afoot within Iran’s “sovereign” borders.

Is it any wonder that so many have become profoundly alienated from this shit?

And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Potentially, it is a profoundly good thing; but this alienation is far from enough, and left to itself will turn to cynicism, despair, and passivity. What is needed is for this to go further, and for these people to come forward in political resistance that is broad, deep, and determined enough to stop this whole direction.

In the face of this urgent need, why should anyone celebrate if Obama, holding the positions that he actually holds, “re-engages” these people back into the killing confines of his “politics-as-usual”? This is like congratulating the Pied Piper for how his beautiful flute-playing attracts the town’s children, disregarding that this is leading them to the bottom of a river.

But Doesn’t He HAVE to Listen?

But what of the letter’s argument that Obama has to listen to them because he cannot afford to “weaken the movement whose vigorous backing [he] needs in order to win…”?

Once again, perhaps the best answer to this comes from the candidate himself.

Responding to angry supporters who complained about his FISA vote, he wrote, “[S]ome of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.… Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change.”

In other words, he knows full well that as long as people’s eyes are focused on Who’s Going To Be President progressive people have “no alternative” but to vote for him.

And, while the letter writers pledge to challenge Obama, if elected, on the positions they don’t agree with, the actual effect of their letter and their logic is to promise not to challenge Obama too much now. This is a logic echoed by all too many; as one prominent anti-war activist recently told me, explaining why her group wasn’t putting more effort into protests at the Democratic National Convention, “We’re going to shut the fuck up until he gets elected.”  This is certainly NOT what the anti-war movement should be doing at a time when the rulers of the country are actively preparing a new war—a war against Iran that Obama has made clear he’d support.

You see, even as they criticize Obama for his FISA vote, already by the next paragraph the letter writers are smoothing this over by acknowledging that “compromise is necessary in any democracy… the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense.”

Well, that logic never ends.

Today, a FISA vote is excused “in order to get elected.” Next, a delay in troop withdrawal because “the Generals insist…” Soon people swallow more religiously-driven legislation and homilies to Jesus Christ because “he can’t get anything done” unless he “brings the country together.” Then, before you know it, further “compromises” so the Democrats hold their majority in the mid-term elections. Then, like a tape on loop, those same “pressures” will have to be accommodated to get him reelected.

Most fundamentally, those pressures must be understood for what they are: the operation and logic of the system Obama is competing to be commander-in-chief of. And if he wants to be selected president he has to prove himself capable of running this country in the interests of the class of capitalist/imperialists who rule.

That is why he is championing the so-called “war on terror” which, in its essence, is a war for imperialist domination. That is why he is photo-op-ing with Generals and singing the praises of troops who are neck-deep in war crimes. That is why he is meeting with, and by all accounts trying to win the approval of, people like Franklin Graham who once compared the Iraqi people to the ancient Babylonians of the Old Testament. That is why he directs his aim not at white supremacy but at Black men and admits he’s “not entirely immune to nativist sentiments” against immigrants.

On the Real

Let’s be real. In bourgeois elections what the masses of people think has precious little to do with how the candidates choose their positions or which candidate wins. By the time the people get to pull the lever on election day, the terms have been set—which candidates and issues and stands are viable contenders has been determined—according to ruling class interests. And when they do vote, all they are doing is stamping those ruling interests—as embodied in one candidate or another—with the mantle of legitimacy and a “popular mandate.”

If the people who wrote this open letter don’t know that, they should. But what is really unconscionable is that this “Open Letter to Barack Obama” is not going to be heard and considered by Obama—he is more likely to blow his nose with it than to take such a thing seriously. But it will be heard and considered by those who are extremely alienated and angry with the government, who seized on the Obama candidacy as a source of hope, and who are now disillusioned as Obama articulates an increasingly unapologetic imperialist agenda.

These people don’t need to be funneled back into the dead-end of politics-as-usual, they need to be told the truth:

The real choice is not a choice between Obama and McCain. The real choice is between accepting the ruling class spectrum of Obama to McCain as the limits of what is possible—or—rejecting this whole framework and instead waging meaningful mass political resistance to the whole fascist direction the world is being dragged in. It is the difference between fighting for the change you ARE ALLOWED to believe in and the change that you understand is really needed.

Yes, political resistance of a scale and scope that could bring all this to a halt is more daunting and requires more sacrifice. But, if you want genuine change then nothing is more unrealistic than confining yourself to pulling the lever.

It is long past time people put their hope in something that can bring about change worth believing in: the power of the people acting in the interests of humanity. The people do have the power to effect change when they refuse to hold their tongues out of electoral calculations and get off their butts and go into the streets.

It is a very good thing—not a bad thing, as The Nation implies—that millions are deeply angry and profoundly alienated not just by the Bush regime but also increasingly by Obama. Many of them are casting about, wondering if there is another way. Many of them will join in resistance if they see it as an option.

All of their eyes—and millions more around the world—will be at the Democratic National Convention.

Instead of trying to convince them that what is going on inside should be accepted, shouldn’t we tell them the truth about what this represents? Shouldn’t we bend every effort to ensure they see thousands of protesters OUTSIDE making clear their refusal to swallow war-mongering and repression regardless of which candidate or party is pushing it?

And, to those who are ready to give up on banging your hearts and your heads up against the “best” that capitalism can offer; shouldn’t we go further still? Shouldn’t we get into the questions of our times that really demand answers, like what kind of society you are willing to live in and what kind of change is really required. Is it simply a matter of making adjustments to the blood-soaked arrangements of empire or do we urgently need fundamental and radical change?

To those who wonder if a better world—a future really worthy of human beings—is possible; I dare you to dream of revolution. And I invite you to explore—through the pages of this newspaper and the works of Bob Avakian—a viable vision of what that is, and to engage the leadership that can point the way.


Depleted Uranium

Posted in Uncategorized with tags on July 26, 2008 by parimon


Posted in Left wing Ideology with tags on July 26, 2008 by parimon

Another lesson in Left wing ideology, Revisionist Trotskyism. 

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party. His politics differed sharply from those of Stalinism, most importantly in declaring the need for an international proletarian revolution (rather than socialism in one country) and unwavering support for a true dictatorship of the proletariat based on democratic principles.

Trotsky was, together with Lenin, the most important and well-known leader of the Russian Revolution and the international Communist movement in 1917 and the following years. Nowadays, numerous groups around the world continue to describe themselves as Trotskyist, although they have developed Trotsky’s ideas in different ways. A follower of Trotskyist ideas is usually called a “Trotskyist” or (in an informal or pejorative way) a “Trotskyite” or “Trot”.

James P. Cannon in his 1942 book History of American Trotskyism wrote that “Trotskyism is not a new movement, a new doctrine, but the restoration, the revival of genuine Marxism as it was expounded and practiced in the Russian revolution and in the early days of the Communist International.” However, Trotskyism can be distinguished from other Marxist theories by four key elements.

  • Support for the strategy of permanent revolution, in opposition to the Two Stage Theory of his opponents;
  • Criticism of the post-1924 leadership of the Soviet Union, analysis of its features and after 1933, support for political revolution in the Soviet Union and in what Trotskyists term the deformed workers’ states;
  • Support for social revolution in the advanced capitalist countries through working class mass action;
  • Support for proletarian internationalism.

On the political spectrum of Marxism, Trotskyists are considered to be on the left. They supported democratic rights in the USSR, opposed political deals with the imperialist powers, and advocated a spreading of the revolution throughout Europe and the East.

In 1905, Trotsky formulated a theory that became known as the Trotskyist theory of Permanent Revolution. It may be considered one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism. Until 1905, Marxists had only shown how a revolution in a European capitalist society could lead to a socialist one. But this excluded countries such as Russia. Russia in 1905 was widely considered to have not yet established a capitalist society, but was instead largely feudal with a small, weak and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of Permanent Revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown, and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism winning the support of the peasantry, but that the working class would not stop there. It would seize the moment to go on to win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establishing a workers’ state, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries to come to its aid, so that socialism could develop in Russia and worldwide.

The capitalist or bourgeois-democratic revolution

Revolutions in Britain in the 17th Century and in France in 1789 abolished feudalism, establishing the basic requisites for the development of capitalism. But Trotsky argues that these revolutions would not be repeated in Russia. In Results and Prospects, written in 1906, in which Trotsky outlines his theory in detail, he argues: “History does not repeat itself. However much one may compare the Russian Revolution with the Great French Revolution, the former can never be transformed into a repetition of the latter.” In the French Revolution of 1789, France experienced what Marxists called a “bourgeois-democratic revolution” – a regime was established where the “bourgeoisie”, (the French term approximating to “capitalists”), overthrew feudalism. The bourgeoisie then moved towards establishing a regime of “democratic” parliamentary institutions. But while democratic rights were extended to the bourgeoisie they did not, however, generally extend to a universal franchise, let alone to the freedom for workers to organise unions or to go on strike, without a considerable struggle by the working class.

But, Trotsky argues, countries like Russia had no “enlightened, active” revolutionary bourgeoisie which could play the same role, and the working class constituted a very small minority. In fact, even by the time of the European revolutions of 1848, Trotsky argued, “the bourgeoisie was already unable to play a comparable role. It did not want and was not able to undertake the revolutionary liquidation of the social system that stood in its path to power.”

Weakness of the capitalists

The theory of Permanent Revolution considers that in many countries which are thought to have not yet completed their bourgeois-democratic revolution, the capitalist class oppose the creation of any revolutionary situation, in the first instance because they fear stirring the working class into fighting for its own revolutionary aspirations against their exploitation by capitalism. In Russia the working class, although a small minority in a predominantly peasant based society, were organised in vast factories owned by the capitalist class, in large working class districts. During the Russian Revolution of 1905, the capitalist class found it necessary to ally with reactionary elements such as the essentially feudal landlords and ultimately the existing Czarist Russian state forces, in order to protect their ownership of their property, in the form of the factories, banks, and so forth, from expropriation by the revolutionary working class.

According to the theory of Permanent Revolution, therefore, in economically backward countries the capitalist class are weak and incapable of carrying through revolutionary change. They are linked to and rely on the feudal landowners in many ways. Trotsky further argues that since a majority of branches of industry in Russia were originated under the direct influence of government measures, sometimes even with the help of Government subsidies, the capitalist class was again tied to the ruling elite. In addition, the capitalist class were subservient to European capital.

The working class steps in

Instead, Trotsky argued, only the ‘proletariat’ or working class were capable of achieving the tasks of that ‘bourgeois’ revolution. In 1905, the working class in Russia, a generation brought together in vast factories from the relative isolation of peasant life, saw the result of its labour as a vast collective effort, and the only means of struggling against its oppression in terms of a collective effort also, forming workers councils (soviets), in the course of the revolution of that year. In 1906, Trotsky argued:

The factory system brings the proletariat to the foreground… The proletariat immediately found itself concentrated in tremendous masses, while between these masses and the autocracy there stood a capitalist bourgeoisie, very small in numbers, isolated from the ‘people’, half-foreign, without historical traditions, and inspired only by the greed for gain. – Trotsky, Results and Prospects

The Putilov Factory, for instance, numbered 12,000 workers in 1900, and, according to Trotsky, 36,000 in July 1917. The theory of Permanent Revolution considers that the peasantry as a whole cannot take on this task, because it is dispersed in small holdings throughout the country, and forms a heterogeneous grouping, including the rich peasants who employ rural workers and aspire to landlordism as well as the poor peasants who aspire to own more land. Trotsky argues: “All historical experience… shows that the peasantry are absolutely incapable of taking up an independent political role.”

Trotskyists differ on the extent to which this is true today, but even the most orthodox tend to recognise in the late twentieth century a new development in the revolts of the rural poor, the self-organising struggles of the landless, and many other struggles which in some ways reflect the militant united organised struggles of the working class, and which to various degrees do not bear the marks of class divisions typical of the heroic peasant struggles of previous epochs. However, orthodox Trotskyists today still argue that the town and city based working class struggle is central to the task of a successful socialist revolution, linked to these struggles of the rural poor. They argue that the working class learns of necessity to conduct a collective struggle, for instance in trade unions, arising from its social conditions in the factories and workplaces, and that the collective consciousness it achieves as a result is an essential ingredient of the socialist reconstruction of society.

Although only a small minority in Russian society, the proletariat would lead a revolution to emancipate the peasantry and thus “secure the support of the peasantry” as part of that revolution, on whose support it will rely. But the working class, in order to improve their own conditions, will find it necessary to create a revolution of their own, which would accomplish both the bourgeois and then establish a workers’ state.

International revolution

Yet, according to classical Marxism, revolution in peasant based countries, such as Russia, prepares the ground ultimately only for a development of capitalism since the liberated peasants become small owners, producers and traders which leads to the growth of commodity markets, from which a new capitalist class emerges. Only fully developed capitalist conditions prepare the basis for socialism.

Trotsky agreed that a new socialist state and economy in a country like Russia would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, as well as the internal pressures of its backward economy. The revolution, Trotsky argued, must quickly spread to capitalist countries, bringing about a socialist revolution which must spread world-wide. But this position was shared by all Marxists until 1924 when Stalin began to put forward the slogan of “Socialism in one country”.

In this way the revolution is “permanent”, moving of necessity first from the bourgeois revolution to the workers’ revolution, and from there uninterruptedly to European and world-wide revolutions. Socialism until then had always seen capitalism as an international enemy to be replaced internationally.

Origins of the term

An internationalist outlook of permanent revolution is found in the works of Karl Marx. The term “permanent revolution” is taken from a remark of Marx from his March 1850 Address: “it is our task”, Marx said,

to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. – Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League.