Nazi troops rampaged through Europe in World War II and learned accountability the hard way.
The KKK dresses in hoods to hide racist acts.
On the other hand, when the KKK shows up thus, one can get a count and a place. That’s number and location accountability.
Aesopian language allows the KKK to attack and hide the count, the location and even the exact insult.
After 20 years, I’m still waiting for the accusation from my lyncher #1.
We can now see that the whole political trajectory of the “RCP” and the left-wing of parasitism took shape under the stress of two types of events and a background of white nationalism. One type of event was the general FBI/COINTELPRO repression of the political movements. In this we can count a struggle such as Wounded Knee. Another event was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which had a strong Maoist component but ended up going Islamic.
Prior to the Iranian Revolution’s solidifying as Islamic, the one thing the “RCP” did right was to agitate against the U.$. reaction to the “hostage crisis” in Iran that dogged Carter. At the time, the Amerikan public was in a war-mongering mood against Iran.
Following the decisive defeat of Maoist forces in Iran, the “RCP” overreacted and went in a permanent Trotskyist direction. Combined with the blows from the FBI, there was a deadly brew arising in the early 1980s.
Both the COINTELPRO and Iran struggles caused an overreaction favoring the CIA. MIM has pointed out that it is the CIA with the capabilities to rot out a revolution from within and in that sense it is more dangerous than any police organization. An arrest and railroad charge will be seen by the people, but some of what the CIA does in diplomacy and various covert operations is difficult for the people to see.
The FBI activities also made it “cool” to side with the mafia. The whole approach where every extortion, every threat, every violation of privacy is called “free speech” is mafia-inspired.
After the Maoist defeat including repression of Maoists in Iran, the Amerikan Maoists did not maintain united front with Iran against U.$. imperialism. Articles paid lip service to opposing war, while in action, the organization synchronized with the neo-conservatives. The “RCP” also built fraternal ties with an organization openly favoring U.$. invasion of Iran.
Trotskyism has always had a bigger emphasis on party-building than the united front and so it was in the direction of Trotskyism that “RCP” lip service articles turned, most notably in “Conquer the World.”
On the surface, it may seem to activists that the “RCP” did the right thing by leaning to the CIA and mafia side against the FBI. Yet it all depends on how far that tactical approach goes, and unfortunately, the “RCP” turned it into a strategy.
Not in lip service in its newspaper, but in deeds, the “RCP” was by the late 1990s in lockstep with imperialists preparing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the neo-conservatives who like the “RCP” now placed absolutist value on U.$. gender culture being superior to Islamic gender culture.
The mafia has an interest in selling weapons in war-created black markets and the CIA has an interest in penetrating everywhere. Yet the “RCP” had no difficulty joining in counter-terrorism operations against MIM, lynching to support the coming Afghan war.
Careful study of the Che-Libs will show the “RCP” attacking MIM for the benefit of cops. More importantly, activists have to open their minds to the differing interests of the mafia and CIA. If one puts all the focus on the FBI, it boils down to self-preservation of the left-wing of parasitism only.
Staying free of the FBI and its repression is not a victory if the cost is to help the CIA, mafia and neo-conservatives with their war preparations.
I am pleased that in recent weeks, a decisive portion of the professional national security community, a separate swath of the intelligence community and now non-intelligence community intellectuals have gained access to some documents from the late 1990s in connection to what I refer to derisively as Che-Libs. They have given me Aesopian confirmation of being able to participate in what was only a small circle of debaters.
For the most part, obtuse racism as demonstrated on the labor aristocracy and superprofits questions blocked my struggle of the late 1990s. Supposed Marxists who did not give a hoot when there was no evidence for white worker exploitation also naturally did not give a hoot when a middle-class professional like myself ended up lynched. The people involved were gullible and presumptuous racists of the sort who did not EVER think to ask me about the CIA, KGB and U.$. military intelligence involvement in the story presumptuous people thought they understood.
Perhaps the only successful thing I did was say so many outrageous things that people collected the struggle to hard drives. Especially of note I did get British government attention, which is important not because the Brits are leading anti-militarists but because the British government might have had specific objections to the peculiar deal going down and had no vested interests in the Democrats per se. Alternatively, perhaps a portion of the British government was involved in the whole scheme.
Now people are picking up on various racist nuances of that struggle that I had not mentioned. This is a bright spot. In the old days, struggles like mine would have disappeared under the rug.
I have increasing confidence that though I may have sold my own ethnic group short by not taking up intra-bourgeois professional struggles and allowing myself to be sullied, there are now increasing percentages of people who are taking up the struggle.
As a recent You Tube video about Michael Jackson saying he was assassinated asks, I also ask what the agenda was for running a Black candidate with a background in lynching. An example of one answer that comes to mind is again the KKK, which long ago took to appearing with Black nationalist leaders to advocate for a white national state and Black national state. MIM also supports national liberation, but we have not called for any lynchings.
According to recent “Rasmussen Reports” polls, the public does not support the liberals, conservatives or center but seeks self-government. That is Rasmussen’s explanation for the turbulence in politics we see. Connected to that could be that the youth are increasingly oppressed nationalities that may want to go their own way in self-determination of nations, whether they consciously know that or not.
It may seem odd to readers that ANY Blacks would join a group with KKK ideologies, but it has in fact happened and there are records to that effect. The “RCP” marched with the KKK in the Boston school integration struggle and published self-criticism along those lines, self-criticism MIM would ordinarily honor, except that we see the follow-up with Islamophobia and my lynching. There is no doubt that there are some Blacks in the “RCP.”
Well it’s not too much mystery. The “RCP” has a multi-million dollar budget. People like Obama and other organizers are paid. The only mystery is why various “activists” do not question the source of money and the motivations of the leaders, and this in connection to a newspaper repeatedly kissing William Kunstler’s ass.
There may be a gap in perceptions because I am not in the government and hence have no real consistent source of knowledge; however, my impression as of 2006 was that it was not Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons per se that bothered the Bush administration. Later, Noam Chomsky confirmed that plans were underway for an embassy in both northern Korea and Iran.
Thus, some of the discussion I am seeing in the media now does not impress me. If Bush were going to attack Iran, it would not have been accelerated on the basis of concerns about nuclear weapons. It would have been about some drivel about regime change.
The “New York Times” keeps reporting verbal changes in Obama administration stance on the Mideast. However, new bombers keep flowing to the I$raeli regime and there is no real change on the ground.
For Obama to say the “truth is” that I$raelis and Palestinians have their own reasons not to make peace is wrong. At the very least, his claim would have more credibility if the Congress had instructed Obama to break the Gaza siege, the same way Amerikans airlifted supplies to Berlin during the Cold War.
Also this past week, Egyptian journalists report hundreds killed or injured in Iraq in three days;(1) yet, today the “New York Times” reports in its lead story in the paper version a change in phrase by the Obama administration on I$rael. If the U.$. media believes the Egyptian reports are disinformation, then there should be articles along those lines.
Reported in several I$raeli and Arab media outlets are the latest Zionist provocations. It seems that the Zionists have prepared to oust thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, with references to the Palestinians as “infiltrators.” The proposal is being called “ethnic cleansing.” “‘”The Palestinians have been morphed into criminals in their own homes,’” said a Palestinian peace negotiator.(2)
The Democrats look like the more right-wing party to the international proletariat, in part because the Democrats stepped on Palestinian diplomatic cards repeatedly during the Annapolis peace process thus leading to the current predicament. It did not have to be that way, but it turns out that the McCain-Obama deal during the campaign regarding telecomm related scandals did put an end to that leverage in Annapolis negotiations. Obama’s gaffe on “unified Jerusalem” was only the most minor transgression. Also sent was lyncher number three, while negotiations still might have produced something.
British pundits such as those at the “Guardian” have already pointed out that U.$. campaigns are too long. Here I point out nothing particularly communist, merely something any ordinary bourgeois Brit has noticed.
Education Secretary Arne Duncan should answer some simple questions, no in depth innuendo required.
1. When he talks about providing “access” to Black and Latino students, does he believe that scholarships for Asian-Amerikans should be eliminated?
2. If there is a merit scholarship for various minorities, does he believe it a good decision to eliminate the Asian-Amerikan one and turn the scholarship into a need-based one for Blacks and Latinos?
3. If a scholarship has already been awarded does he not think that changes and policy should go through new funding and new policies, rather than backstabbing existing scholars who need continuous funding but also post-graduate professional gathering? In other words, even if one wanted to eliminate Asian-Amerikan scholarships can that not be done with a change in emphasis of new monies?
Attorney General Eric Holder’s appearance April 14 2010 before the Senate Judiciary Committee has produced much discussion. Most assuredly off-base is the “Washington Post” coverage(1) which made it sound like Holder had a tough time of it.
The “Wall Street Journal” says the Obama administration has those who would like to put the Gitmo prisoners on civilian trial to show that there was torture of those prisoners.(2) At the same time, I have argued the Democrats fear the coverage of these trials also, because Obama took over Bush Jr.’s political debts in connection to Gitmo. If I were not correct, the Defense Intelligence Agency would have answered a certain FOIA two or three years ago.
Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General from 1997 to 2001 in the Bill Clinton administration. Since it was in that period that I saw events leading up to 9/11, it can’t be said I have no conflict with him. Nor am I letting him off the hook for various attorneys who have no standards and have not done their jobs.
Two polls on the Tea Party movement that flatly contradict each other have appeared in the liberal Democratic press. A Gallup poll(1) found no difference between the Tea Party movement and the general public in terms of education and age distribution, while the New York Times/CBS(2) paints a picture of the Tea Party movement as much older and much better educated than the general public.
If we take an average of the Gallup and New York Times/CBS polls, then the Tea Party movement is still above average in education level and age. The “New York Times” is claiming that the 18% of the public in the Tea Party movement is 75% from the over 45 category.
The older age reputed by the “New York Times” is a finding that cuts two ways. By virtue of being older, it becomes redundant to say that the Tea Party movement is more white, because older age groups have smaller minority proportions than younger generations. This becomes important to point out because the Gallup poll actually suggests the opposite of what the papers have emphasized on race.
Combined, the two polls suggest that if the Republican Party managed to field candidates that attracted demographics like the Tea Party, the Democrats would be thrashed handily in 2010 elections. Yes, 6% Black is under-representation of Blacks as Gallup says, but less so in older age groups and compared with past Republican vote getting efforts.
While past Republican efforts to attract Black votes have achieved single digit success, the 6% figure translates to approximately 30% of all Black votes if extended nationally in a close election as recent elections have been. The Democratic Party would not be able to afford that high a defection rate of Black votes, not to mention better educated whites.
The image of the Tea Party movement as southern Bubba is probably not correct. Quite the contrary, if the “New York Times” is correct, it could be the Democrats are disproportionately hillbilly.
Then too, we have to ask whether the Tea Party movement is disproportionately ’60s generation. Perhaps it is just that one generation produces all the social movements.
2. New York Times 15Apr2010, p. a19.
We’re seeing many signs of ferment in public political discussion. “Fox News” just published a piece which will tend to show Amerikkkans that they are in the top 10% of the world by class; even though, that’s not what “Fox News” says it is doing. “Fox News” endeavors to show that the U.S. government spends more than people think, even excluding military spending.
“Most of Europe is thought to have much larger governments than the United States.
Unfortunately, this isn’t true any more. Even after adjusting for differences in the cost of living and taking into account how many people live in the country, total U.S. government spending — at all levels of government — accounts for more real resources
per capita than 95 percent of the countries in the world. In fact, 166 out of 175 countries have governments that spend less money than the United States [click here for Table 1]. Our government spends 276 percent more than is spent by the average government of another country around the world. That comes out to about $17,400 per person living in the United States — almost $70,000 for a family of four.
Sweden’s famous ‘welfare state’ spends only about 8.6 percent more per capita than the United States.”(1)
John Lott is definitely barking up the right tree. He also says 93% of countries spend less per capita on non-defense expenditures.
Even if some details prove wrong, Lott is asking the right questions, so the left-wing of parasitism should check it out. The basic point is that cross-national variation in class is where class struggle really occurs. Everything within U.$. borders is really just intra-bourgeois variation.
People have said MIM is academic, but the people like Avakian and others saying MIM’s third cardinal does not matter deserve no trust. Now the Obama administration is considering cutting AIDS spending in Africa.(2) George W. Bush tripled African AIDS spending. Let’s say that again: George W. Bush tripled AIDS spending in Africa. Now it’s $7 billion a year.
True conservatives support charity over government spending abroad, but MIM says if we are going to be social-democratic it should be for the world’s true poor. We ask when it is that the social workers, hospital workers and teachers are going to realize that when they increase government spending here in the united $tates, that means less for money abroad and more deficit spending draining loans from abroad.
In other words, people opposing MIM do so for nationalist reasons: they are too loyal to Amerikans. There is a relative economic gap within the United $tates and any other country, but the relative economic gap within the United $tates is unimportant compared with the global gap. The left-wing of parasitism putting the focus on the internal relative question is not taking up corporatism by accident: it’s exactly where Democratic Party politics have been leading all these years of being in denial of the MIM thesis.
Lott has identified the culprits in resistance to MIM’s thought: all dependent on government funding–much of academia and of course political leaders on government salaries. They don’t want to admit that those with legal working rights in the united $tates are the plurality of the world’s bourgeoisie.
The underlying cause of the fermentation at the “Wall Street Journal” and “Fox News” is that people are starting to wake up and notice that the left-wing of parasitism was unable to rebut MIM in over 20 years on the question of white worker exploitation, which does not exist in the United $tates and the other Western imperialist countries.
Thank you to Ann Coulter for pointing to this Lott column. Most of the past 20 years, I skipped opinion writers of liberal or conservative variety, but I especially credit Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd for pointing out more things than I used to give them credit for. They are prototypical corporate writers, but especially in their regard, I gave them too much blanket condemnation.
Now if we can go to the next step, and get Amerikans to see their global position and understand the class roots of why they always look down on Third World countries, always want to be social missionaries to those countries and don’t agree with them politically for their Islam or communism, we’d be making more headway. Along these lines, we need to see Republicans arise to oppose the Afghan, Pakistan and Iraq wars along with the occupations of Korea and Boricua and the military bases in all Third World countries. Yes to paying for AIDS medicine in Africa, no to counter-productive political, missionary and military activity rooted in class.