Archive for January, 2010

The useful admissions of Jack F. Matlock, Jr.

January 31, 2010

Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray–and How to Return to Reality
by Jack F. Matlock Jr.
New Haven: Yale University Press 2010, 344pp. hb

Matlock was in the U.S. Foreign Service from 1956 to 1991 with an ambassador job in the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991. He recounts being a fan of Reagan, joining Democrats and then quitting Democrats in his review of history since the Reagan era.

Matlock regurgitates a little history of the Soviet Union as totalitarian and he disapproves of Stalin in standard boilerplate language. Nonetheless, Matlock claims expertise in Stalin, not just because he read Stalin but because he created an index of Stalin’s work.

The main corrective theme of Matlock’s book is to paint Reagan as a peacemaker while neoconservatives in his administration such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick created absolutist humyn-rights problems. (e.g., pp. 48, 54) According to Matlock, the neo-conservative hardliners manufactured the Daniloff controversy (regarding a spy) to throw off arms control negotiations.

Matlock then adds that Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and the Clintons were less adept at keeping the peace especially with Russia. Matlock says the Clintons answered too much to public opinion in foreign policy questions, thereby launching wars that alienated Russia.

It is Matlock who indirectly raises that one has a choice as president: one can either represent the labor aristocracy in domestic issues or one can represent it in both domestic and international issues like Bill Clinton did. What we are seeing now with Democrats who “head for the hills” on Gitmo is that the Democrats lived in denial on the bourgeois nature of the majority of the population. They lied to themselves on analysis questions and now cannot hold firm on national security and foreign policy questions. They go so far as as contemplating the ostrich this past week as if Amerikans could not be handed their heads in Iraq and Afghanistan.

MIM would add that Obama shares the essential underlying falsehood of the Clinton administration, Noam Chomsky and the late Howard Zinn. They all believe or believed once that there is a progressive thrust imminent from the Amerikkkan majority — dumbocracy. If Avakian-Obama’s recent polarization proves anything it is that a financial tsunami can hit and just as MIM said for decades the labor aristocracy continues to hunger for the past: the labor aristocracy did not take the opportunity to rise up despite patently obvious looting of the national economy.

Obama has succeeded in polarizing public opinion in the United $tates by party lines; yet without raising a single race issue, he has alienated the white vote as of this last election as noted by Patrick Buchanan. Obama stuck to the Avakian line that there is one united working class and took Avakian’s advice on polarization, much along the lines that Lenin gave the British Labour Party in Lenin’s day. Obama has nothing to show for this effort, because there is no proletariat to rally, only a lumpenproletariat even more oppressed by Oreo cookiedom as people come to sucker themselves that race is over as a problem.

A more useful polarization would be by oppressed nations against the white majority, but here Obama fails grievously with lynching. For most diplomatic issues it does not matter, but for the most difficult issues one has to ask: if he would lynch someone to get elected, how can one trust that he would not scuttle a difficult peace process, again for popularity’s sake, even for “polarization” sake? This is why the Alinskyite approach by Democrats and pseudo-Maoists is so wrong. Desperate KKK tactics that bring one to power do backfire, no matter how much one thinks one is “infiltrating” the government. The one thing Liberalism is capable of is selecting an individual such as Jesse Jackson who does not owe the military establishment; yet, at this moment, the political class does not take advantage of even that possibility. (Of course MIM does not agree with Jesse Jackson. We only point out that Liberalism has not exhausted its possibilities with Obama.)

It would in fact be better to appeal to whites as Reagan did on a domestic basis that did not tie the president’s hands in other deals. This is not the same problem in other countries. It is the United $tates with superpower illusions as Matlock says. It is the United $tates with a complicated history of oppression to untangle.

Nixon had to contend with his pre-election faults after election as did Clinton with Paula Jones. It is a measure of the disdain which Amerikkkans hold for diplomacy that the same has not happened to Obama.

Matlock does not mention MIM, but it is obvious he is engaging us. The farther back in time one goes, the less he agrees with MIM, but on the last 20 years of history there is much less disagreement:

  • Matlock agrees it was not the Reagan military buildup but forces inside the Soviet Communist Party that undid the Soviet Union. (e.g., pp. 98-9)
  • We can even say that Matlock is a MIM hardliner relative to Gaidar’s latest economic determinist view that Saudi oil dumping played a role. (p. 66)
  • Matlock gets into fine ideological points with MIM noting as MIM did that it was Trotskyist ideology that inspired the neo-conservatives and Trotskyist ideas about social vehicles of progress that f*ed up U.$. foreign policy views:

    “The original neoconservatives were Trotskyists who considered themselves anti-Stalin socialists. They subsequently broke with the American ‘left’ over issues like the war in Vietnam and domestic social policy. . . . They were still seeking a utopia, but instead of viewing revolution by the proletariat as the means to fulfill the mandate of history, they looked to the power exercised by the strongest capitalist country in the world, the United States of America.” (pp. 218-9)

  • Like yours truly, Matlock pointed to coming economic problems (p. 82) in the Soviet Union just prior to its collapse. He claims to have predicted it. (p. xvi)
  • Matlock goes so far as to get the mode of production right: “It was, rather, a country of state-monopoly capitalism, with the government essentially a front organization controlled from behind the scenes by a giant conspiratorial mafia called the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.(p. 91) Bingo.

    The one thing he disagrees with us on is obviously the importance of the individual Reagan. However, the more important the individual is, the better the case is for putting in a Black liberal Democrat without Obama’s baggage.

    If Matlock were correct that “International relations are ultimately controlled by people, not by impersonal forces,” (p. 73) the big 9/11 trial of the century would still be on in New York City and Gitmo would have closed on schedule just because an individual, Obama promised so. The problems confronting Obama stem not from a lack of persynality but an incorrect Alinskyite analysis of class.

    Matlock may also be seen as making specific claims against me. According to Matlock, Andropov and the KGB were really “hardliners” unconnected to Gorbachev; even though, MIM would would say they can at best be seen as having cleared the way for Yeltsin.
    The KGB did not have an analysis of class in the Soviet Union and so objectively it cleared the way for Yeltsin at best and served as a figleaf for Gorbachev prior to that.

    Matlock also argues that the majority of the Soviet foreign policy establishment disagreed with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze on Iraq and Kuwait.(p. 103) This is a case of specialistitis. In other words, here Matlock echoes our Satanists for the benefit of Obama and justification of lynching.

    I have noted that a big name CIA-sponsored Amerikan scholar and a leading Chinese scholar of Chinese Communist Party “Liberalism” also believe that it was Deng Xiaoping who was fuming in 1988 and 1989. In other words, Liberal specialists of different countries want to be the ones to claim a certain “humyn rights violation” for the “hardliners” of their particular country. (There are also Amerikan Liberals claiming it was just Amerikan hardliners behind the whole thing.)

    We published that the Soviet Union was capitalist and headed for economic crisis. We were right and even if a majority of the foreign policy establishment and KGB and military disagreed with Gorbachev, it was not the kind of disagreement that could add up to anything.

    A quasi-Liberal and quasi-sociological argument that Matlock makes is that the Republicans are a bad foreign policy influence in Congress. Many of them do not even have passports (p. xvii) he says, so little curious are they. As a finer point, I’m inclined to agree, especially with the non-signing of Kyoto thanks to Congress. However, the international united front cannot entirely fine tune its struggle to create a Republican president and Democratic Congress. On a Liberal basis, I would say that at this moment Congress would be better off with another Black liberal Democrat as president. That’s as far as I would go.

    Another notable area of disagreement — although he admits that Bush Jr.’s Iraq war was a “colonial” enterprise that destroyed morale at the State Department, (p. 278) Matlock is conscious in his arguments that the United $tates is not imperialist. (pp. 149-152) Hence, one can have a warm nationalist feeling about Amerika like Reagan and Obama and still agree with some underlying analyses of MIM.

  • Brits pull punches on Iraq, again

    January 29, 2010

    MIM is still wondering about how long the Brits will go on living in cloud cuckooland. The latest round of Iraq inquiries is still not hitting the nail on the head. Meanwhile, British soldiers who have died are dishonored by political falsehoods.

    Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair are probably not the world’s leading problems right now. On the other hand, yet another British inquiry which fails to hit the mark is another slap at the Arab people.

    “Saba Jaiwad, an Iraqi protester who opposed the war, said Blair, now envoy to the quartet of Middle East peacemakers, should be taken to The Hague to ‘face criminal charges because he has committed crimes against the Iraqi people.'”

    A thorough inquiry would set off recriminations between Bush and Clinton, who at the moment are in lockstep.

    A question of strategy arises for the international united front. No one can deny that Iraq deserves its own inquiry in its own right. If pursued independently of other issues it would tend to rob Obama of protection he is making use of right now on other issues. Hence there is some merit in bringing the Iraq issue to the fore.

    On the other hand, it is Obama in power now. He has his own issues and Palestinians continue to die on a daily basis. Looked at in a Liberal way from my perspective we should highlight Obama. Yet precisely because there is an individualism question involved, the international united front should chew over this question itself. Perhaps it is best to advance against all three simultaneously at the same exact time.

    Though I have not emphasized it, I certainly see the reasoning for holding the Brits accountable for not doing a thorough Iraq inquiry and even prioritizing that above other issues. It should be considered.


    The Tea Party movement is not “extreme right”

    January 28, 2010

    Former Clinton cabinet official Robert Reich was on National Public Radio in an interview yesterday. Without calling it “corporatism,” Reich nonetheless came the closest to addressing corporatism with his discussion of what he calls the “Mad as Hell Party,” which he says the Tea Party movement and extreme left can join.

    Reich correctly points out that the left distrusts Big Business and the right distrusts Big Government, so when Big Government bails out Big Business, both left and right can be disgusted. The unprincipled and naive of the Obamautons believe their movement is “progressive” when nothing could be further from the truth. They are recycling fascism.

    Real socialists and communists should recall that corporatism is distinct from worker control. We did not see any worker uprising when Obama recently strengthened government ownership of the GM financial arm. What we have seen is maybe a handout to some unions, the labor bureaucracy and labor aristocracy — especially at Chrysler. Such benefits the Democratic Party’s narrow special interest base of control.

    We did not see any heightened worker self-determination, that being impossible anyway when Amerikans with legal working rights are not exploited. So in other words, the corporatist Democrats handed over benefits for their Democratic Party as their underlying motivation and figleaf for spreading corporatism into practice.

    The only part that I disagree with in Reich’s opinion piece preceding Obama’s State of the Union address is that the Tea Party movement is “extreme right.” The Tea Party movement people are passionate conservative Liberals opposed to corporatism, which is the economic organization of fascism. “Extreme right” would be David Duke and the Strasserites — fascists.

    True, Hitler offered up anti-communism that would also appeal to the Tea Party movement. We should be careful to distinguish what is unique to fascism and what is not or we will end up taking a failed anti-fascist strategy. Anti-communism existed before fascism. Likewise, the pro-union sentiments that Strasser exploited so well existed before fascism. What is unique about Obama fascism is that it appeals to the Democratic Party interest groups including vague pro-union sentiments ungrounded in an analysis of exploitation and it harnesses those sentiments for corporatism — not worker uprisings or worker control or worker democracy.

    The “extreme right” put Obama in power and regardless of figleafs regarding vague pro-union sentiments. If anything, Strasser’s claim to being “progressive” would have been greater than Obama’s because at the time, there was a better case for worker exploitation, especially in the Great Depression in which Strasser lived.

  • If anyone can name anyone who has done more than Barack Obama and Bob Avakian to popularize lynching in the North since 1965, I’d like to know about it.

  • If anyone can name anybody other than Barack Obama who has put a more popular face on corporatism since 1945, I’d like to hear about it.

  • If anyone can name anyone more responsible for shutting down the MIM website, the leading communist website of the West in terms of traffic if we exclude historical reference sites, if anyone can point to someone more responsible for that repression than the Obamautons, we’d like to hear about it.

    It is incontrovertible historical fact that Hitler infiltrated and took over the leadership of the German Social Democratic Party. Hitler’s number two Strasser was especially adept in positive references to Stalin and worker economic demands. If we go over to the Huffington Post today, we will see some of the same thing where soft-headed “progressives” demonstrate all the same illness as cleared the way for Hitler.

  • Noam Chomsky should come clean

    January 28, 2010

    Noam Chomsky has done some talks over the decades for the Avakianites. He should come clean on collaboration with the state.

    To his credit, I never saw Chomsky call himself “revolutionary.” Quite the contrary, he joined the social-democratic Democratic Socialists of America and endorsed “In These Times.”

    Because Chomsky opposes Pol Pot and Stalin while calling himself a libertarian socialist, some have called him an anarchist. However, such would be to fool with the definition of anarchist.

    People inside the government often criticize each other without calling for abolition of the state. Hence, criticism of the government should not be called “anarchist.” At the very least an anarchist should work independently of the government, while members of the DSA could very well believe in recruiting to the CIA. The DSA is for reforming the government, not overthrowing it or struggling from an independent base of power.

    The naive among us are seeking to romanticize joining the government and drawing a parasitic “union” or “green job” salary. There are those calling themselves “Maoist” who say it is “infiltration” to join the government. However, it’s not “infiltration” when the FBI, CIA and the top leaders of Congress know what is going on. It’s called “recruiting” for the imperialist state, including the CIA in the case of the Avakianites.

    “Infiltration” is a term that should be reserved for secret activity — secret from the state it targets. The Avakianites keep their revisionism secret from the international proletariat, not the imperialist state.

    In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky mentions in passing the recruitment of (pseudo-)Maoists to the state. He sounds critical as his book title would indicate. He’s just critical enough to round up some people in a failure to make a radical break from the state.

    I have specific who-oriented knowledge of the secret services at Harvard and MIT. I highly doubt that Chomsky does not have a general idea of that as well, perhaps even moreso in some areas. Chomsky endorsed Kerry for president. Now even Newsweek has published my version of the 2000s decade in naming Kerry’s pick of Obama for keynote speaker as an event of the decade. I was the first to name the significance of that event.

    The infiltration gambit involving me, lynching and the Avakianites/Strasserites was done in the open on the Internet in front of multiple members of the CIA while it was kept secret from the international proletariat. There should not be any doubts left about that and that is why I say Chomsky should come clean on what he knows on pseudo-Maoist fronts recruiting to the state.

    Daily update

    January 28, 2010

    I acknowledge a number of points, sometimes just to keep the media from barking up the wrong tree entirely.

  • Yesterday, two ex-senators called for someone to be promoted in the biological weapons of mass destruction area.
  • The U.$. media dug into an Indonesia connection involving me, and I’m not referring to the statue controversy.(1)
  • The British and Russian media are digging into things I did not know about.
  • The entire Sunday section of the New York Times sports pages was Aesopian.
  • China rightly pointed out that the U$A engages in cyberwarfare, including erasing yours truly’s documents, not just taking down a website.
  • Huffington Post writers are divided, but with some zombies supporting Obama for his speeches.
  • I passed the TV during a second of the State of the Union address to see some lawmakers rising to give a lyncher a standing ovation.

    Obama says he won’t resign, but some seem to say he may have to offer an explanation. At the moment, the main thing I see is that we are cheating at diplomatic cards here because nothing is happening, with the justification that Obama is an attractive package for Democrats. That has to do with the neo-colonial attitude that I have a lower status than Willie Horton, because I’m criticizing people who sought benefits from Democratic Party heroes. The main thing is not cheating at cards: the United $tates can do its diplomacy a favor by increasing its credibility, even if it comes in the midst of various attacks on my character. Such a struggle is what I am calling the re-civilizing stage of struggle, parallel to new democratic struggle in the old Maoist lexicon.

    I don’t have specific ideas anymore about internal U.$. policies, because I don’t see them as valid (time era) trades for a lynching. The Mideast was where I was working, and I see the U.$. media as irresponsible to diplomacy by not following the timing of the diplomatic struggle instead of the timing of Obama’s polls or media profits. I’m sure the world can forgive that the United $tates does not think highly of a communist or that the United $tates believes a communist might have persynal problems, but this incident affected several other people, and within U.$. political logic, it’s not right that I have no standing to run a website or defend Asian-unAmerikkkan civil rights. Frankly, what is happening is both cheating at diplomacy and also a slap in the face of all Asian-descended people.


  • How long will they be able to cover up the truth?

    January 26, 2010

    In the opening scene of the latest Harry Potter movie we see Harry chided for telling his story too soon. That’s easy to say for a wizard on a Hollywood screen. We here at MIM knew our website’s time was limited and that the failure to reach a Mideast peace agreement in 2008 meant that there would be great pressure to shut us up for all the wrong reasons.

    Nonetheless, there is an ever-growing Aesopian buzz in which attentive readers can see that the truth leaks out. Just this month Yale University Press published Superpower Illusions by Jack F. Matlock, Jr., a Foreign Service officer from 1956-1991, mostly in the Soviet Union.

    Matlock admits that the government carries out intentional disinformation, as students of COINTELPRO should already know. Yet, he argues that Bush could have prevented 9/11 and hence avoided the Afghanistan war.

    The ole’ boys’ network makes use of pointers and symbols to  convey information that is supposed to be classified. To convey information about a cabinet official, one could introduce someone by the same name for example to use a pointer.

    Sometimes one can be dragged into dangerous situations via pointers and Aesopian buzz, places where the mainstream media did not seem likely to do anything. Matlock makes the following admissions regarding COINTELPRO-style activities:

  • Clinton administration FBI director Louis Freeh framed Richard A. Jewell for the Olympics bombing. (p. 168)
  • “KGB external intelligence had moles in both the CIA and FBI from the late 1980s, and also had gotten crucial communications intelligence from the U.S. Navy and National Security Agency. As intelligence agencies go, the KGB was spectacularly successful.” (p. 75)

    Matlock Jr. does not call it an “inside job,” but he says the information necessary was in the administration’s hands at it was “Asleep at the Switch” as a chapter title says. (p. 188) From what MIM knows and observed, the FBI may not have had the same briefing material as the president,(p. 191) even days after 9/11.

    You heard it from MIM first, but now you have a career Foreign Service officer saying it: “In this instance, leaders of the Democratic Party inexplicably chose to help the president cover up his incompetence,” (p. 199) and of course that led to the Iraq
    War. (MIM would not call it incompetence, because we don’t like Liberal emphases, but the idea of how the two parties went to war together is what needs probing.)

    The BBC is another organization paying attention very carefully. They are among the journalists following me around.

    British troops are dying in U.$. wars: the British media should feel no obligation to bail the Democrats’ ass out of the fire. Let the Democrats take their hits and then we’ll see how much support for the wars is left.

    The BBC has run the following stories:

  • “EU warns of pretty blonde spies.”(1)
  • “UK’s Ashton seeks ‘more credible’ EU.”(2)

    In December and January, I received another three separate confirmations that people know the worst of what one could imagine about the lynching story is in fact true. One confirmation came at a conference in which several people knew what was going on.

    The problem in the United $tates is that there is no firm line against lynching. Media and academic profesisonals who talk about the Willie Horton case endlessly believe that in my case what should be discussed is a “whole package” including what Obama would do as president. Broadly speaking post-modernism has had a strong influence.

    The general belief here is that Third World descended people should agree to be lynched and prove their loyalty by keeping quiet: that’s what makes a good government official. It’s a conception of racial puppet — Oreos, Twinkies, Coconuts and Radishes — that is probably inevitable in terms of the deep impersynal forces at work in the United $tates. It is not inevitable however, that the communists would be the ones to clear the way for such puppetry.


  • Republican update

    January 23, 2010

    Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda
    by Michael Steele
    Regnery Publishing, DC: 2009, 208 pp. hb.

    Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government
    by Glenn Beck & Kevin Balfe eds.
    Threshold Editions, NY: 2009, 325 pp. hb.

    In the good old days, MIM did not have to read Republican or Democratic Party campaign books. As we have been sucked into mainstream bourgeois politics, we find we cannot do without Michael Steele or Glenn Beck and similar writers.

    Michael Steele is the Chair of the Republican National Committee. However, we would advise anyone but beginners to skip his book Right Now. Attentive readers should have heard all the corporatized politics before without shelling out $27.95 for a campaign flyer.

    Steele says he thanks George W. Bush for preventing terrorist incidents after 9/11, but mostly Steele harkens back to Reagan. He admits that Bush ended up growing the federal government at a faster pace than Democrat FDR.

    “From 2001 to 2004, while the federal government was under mostly Republican control, discretionary spending (that is, optionial spending–what’s not mandated by law) rose by almost 50 percent. In other words, for every dollar we were spending in 2001, we were spending $1.50 by 2004.” (p. 15)

    Beck wisely started his book with a chapter on economic development, because the less one knows about economic development the more books one can sell about it. In addition, there are jokes and cartoons throughout, so I can see why many would buy Beck’s book for entertainment. I had many a good laugh.

    More libertarian than thou

    Steele continues the awful Bush rhetoric about freedom, while Bush headed the world’s leading prison-state percentage-wise. There could hardly be greater totalitarian Doublespeak than the following from Steele in capital boldface:


    Steele goes so far as to define conservatism as being for individual rights against liberal Democratic community emphasis. (pp. 77, 87) If this were true, debate would be simpler, but Beck’s program and the facts about imprisonment prove Steele wrong.

    Beck spends many pages explaining that every government program starts small and temporary. Then Beck calls for a $40 billion wall with Mexico. (p. 146) That’s while admitting Medicare started at an estimated cost of $12 billion a year. (p. 208) Medicare is now $456 billion a year (not inflation adjusted) and 15% of the federal budget.(Steele, p. 21)

    That’s not to mention that Beck does not have a chapter on how all the wars are expanding government. The sociology of bureaucratic self-interest does not just apply to Democratic programs. Steele and Beck are communitarians too: their community is rich men,  prison guard unions, military contractors and the Berlin Wall Fan Club.

    Nonetheless, Beck has to toe the oppressor communitarian line in order to gain millions of listeners and readers for Fox News. Maybe some day Beck will be as libertarian as the Maoist Internationalist Movement. At MIM, we admit we plan a spike in imprisonment when the socialist revolution arrives imposed by the international proletariat. President Lincoln undertook draconian repressive measures and Lincoln was a Republican. Nonetheless, we agree with Lincoln and the radical Republicans after him that there is a spike in repression followed by an offer to the oppressors to get over how they did things in the past. That’s in contrast with now when the United $tates leads the world in imprisonment per capita decade after decade, not just on an emergency or transitional basis.

    The Cold War fanatics like to talk about “Soviet satellites” or how the Russians dominated Eastern Europe with Russian-imposed governments until Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War. Yet the imprisonment rate in all of Cold War Eastern Europe was lower than in the United $tates today, because Amerikan rulers hate the Amerikan people more than Russians hated the peoples they dominated. Before imperialism twisted language into Doublespeak, rulers who hated their own people that much would have been called unpatriotic. Now they are called “tough on crime.” Hitler was tough on crime too.

    What it’s like never to hit the nail on the head

    With MIM claiming to be more libertarian than people calling themselves libertarian and more patriotic than the rulers, we have made some nasty funnies and uncovered how Amerikkkans always manage to frame issues incorrectly. They always argue for incorrect positions against other incorrect positions regarding a stupid question.

    The one question where Beck does get the root of a question correctly is the Second Amendment. Too often we hear the question is rural hunters vs. urban-pacifist-vegetarians. Beck correctly states the original premise of the United States and how it was that citizens were supposed to prevent tyranny. The founders had a sociological theory of tyranny and it’s very similar to the types of questions Mao and the Gang of Four raised in the Cultural Revolution. The Maoists talked about pitting a militia against the army in case revisionists took over the army.

    Beck also correctly points out that the weak public discussion of the Second Amendment exposes educational problems in the United $tates. It’s a character problem in which a minority of liberal Democrats tries to sleaze their way around a simple statement in the highest law of the land. So one can have the studies on one’s side, but the solution is supposed to be amending the constitution.

    A proper education teaches not just how to conduct studies of gun control but also character and integrity. The United $tates has no moral code like Confucianism or Khomeini’s version of Islam. If in addition the law means nothing, all decisions end up made by liberal elitists, otherwise known as the ole’ boys’ network. In this it is better to be a one-party dictatorship, because at least the party that dominates a society cannot avoid accountability and responsibility for what happens.

    Steele says the Republicans are the party of individual freedom; (pp. 87, 90) thus, he lives in the same world of denial as Beck. Perhaps Republicans think of themselves as growing the total size of the government more slowly than Democrats. Beck and Steele would like to move back to that definition of Republican, with Beck going so far as to call Bush “progressive-lite.” In fact Beck sees every president since FDR as progressive except for Reagan.

    Former diplomat Jack F. Matlock Jr.’s 2010 book Superpower Illusions is another excoriating Clinton and Bush with favorable references to Reagan. When Republicans need to run in insurgent mode, the insurgency turns to Reagan with proclamations how the Republican Party got away from its roots. In this way, intellectuals can take cover behind Reagan while taking shots at the last 20 years of history.

    Cadre struggles

    January 21, 2010

    Sometimes we distinguish between professional government officials and party members able to lead in a Marxist fashion. With the Internet, we now have people able to take MIM Thought and apply it without being Marxist party members themselves. The interest in doing so is professional and sometimes we refer to it as action by “cadres.”

    In this past month there have been some amazing struggles by people who do not consider themselves communist but who have a professional interest in politics. There was yet another amazing application of the MIM gender aristocracy line. Others have applied other aspects of MIM line in practice.

    The “cadres” work at arm’s length and through their ole’ boys’ networks sometimes. Probably most believe they are coopting Marxism and anti-Amerikanism by bringing some change or unusual processes of struggle to bear on the system. In any case, they act independently and without concrete leadership by the party. In a real dictatorship of the proletariat, comrades would concretely lead cadres in struggle toward communist goals.

    Satanism tidbit II

    January 21, 2010

    There may be confirmation or challenge of my Satanism tidbit. The real answer would involve tracking down a third party I showed the book and comparing notes on dates.

    Certainly there was other foreshadowing of a more important nature about “speeches.”

    No status update

    January 21, 2010

    7:30 a.m. EST January 21 2010

    Usually it’s called a “status update,” but what is really going on is a lack of status to bring a public defense. Willie Horton and Paula Jones have the status to be worthy of a controversy, but I do not: I can only be accused.

    I do not want to be in a position where I effectively vouch for rulers who have never done anything but string me along with Aesopian language. The rulers have recently allowed certain events to come and go obliviously.

    The Amerikan reactionaries blather endlessly how they are not a one-party state, but they are always one deal between two parties away from being a one-party dictatorship. George W. Bush recently counted Bill Clinton as his “fourth brother.”

    The media is somewhat more credible in attacking a Republican than a Democrat. We should not assume any ability of the U.$. media to break an important story against Democrats.

    There is a sense in which we have advanced diplomacy and we are grateful. Legend has it that AIPAC can replace individual Congress members at will. Certainly our side of the struggle cannot match AIPAC in that regard. We must seek our strengths elsewhere.