Archive for March, 2010

Break and Mideast update

March 28, 2010

U.$. casualties in Afghanistan doubled in the first quarter of 2010 compared with 2009(1) and the CIA has pushed forward the womyn question to sell the war to European allies.(2) The U.$. troop deaths have received little attention in the U.$. media.

Likewise, the bombings in Iraq that killed 53 people have been buried by other discussions, courtesy of Obamautonic media.(3)

The Almighty Dollar leaves the national bourgeoisie with the feeling that it has to export to the United $tates and turn around and loan the money for U.$. occupations. This is a short-term illusion that needs to be pierced. It’s not so much the exchange rate at this moment but increasing business ties to grow faster in the non-U.$. world, regardless of how those business ties look on paper in dollar terms.

Korea and China are still in strife with Japan over World War II textbook teachings. One might wonder if the non-U.$. world is more chauvinist in its internal conflicts than how the United $tates handles the rest of the world. Yet, there is a fine difference in that Japan pays for occupation and provides the surplus for it, but does not carry out that occupation so much itself. That’s why the KCNA is right to say that U.$. imperialism is the arch-enemy. With a bloated dollar and internalized racism serving Third World labor on a U.$. plate it is easy for U.$. imperialism to buy off some Third World tokens and appear less racist. However, the Third World countries can still proceed with their economic relations despite appearances of their relative value on paper and one day the Third World will be able to cast away the shell of the old economic relations.

I’m on break and still won’t be extorted into service.

Notes:
1. http://www.fox11az.com/news/world/89328992.html
2. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5404617,00.html
3. http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/6932425.html

Diversity within fascism: Don’t forget Norway and Italy

March 28, 2010

U.$. bombers are faster than Nazi Germany’s bombers were. The Predator drone above is an unmanned bomber better than what Hitler had.

Nonetheless, there are important ways in which the United $tates is not Nazi Germany. The most important is that the United $tates does not face the same urgency in occupying other imperialist countries. In his last statements before death, Hitler said he wished he had invaded the Soviet Union sooner, because Stalin was not twiddling his thumbs.

During World War II, most of the world was unaware of the extent of the genocides Hitler was carrying out. Today, most of the world does not realize the extent of U.$. exploitation and its devastating effects on Third World health. The United $tates is a far greater exploitation machine than Hitler Germany ever was.

Hitler Germany had the youth and hunger to move quickly in ways that the United $tates does not today. Yet not all fascisms have the same pace of political and historical development. If we argue that Norway was not really fascist because it was not imperialist, that leaves Italy and Japan. Italy’s pace of war was if anything less than today’s U.$. pace. Today’s Amerikkkans are older and more high tech than Hitler’s Aryans, but in less hurry to occupy all the other imperialists.

The O’Baconites are trying to prove that the Democrats and Republicans are separate and increasingly so, but they both favor the profit-system, and half the public could probably live without a Congress if the leadership wanted it. There are plenty of fascist features to observe in the U.$. case. Compared with Nazi Germany, the United $tates is already global imperialist top dog while Germany was an aspiring top dog imperialist. This accounts for differences on some questions of pace, but the fundamentals are the same.

Gender update: Clinton, Reese Witherspoon and Pakistan

March 27, 2010
  • See our gender page.

    Hollywood star Reese Witherspoon and the State Department sponsored a new website for gender bureaucratic leadership in Pakistan on domestic violence, rape and humyn trafficking. The entire content of the website would have fit into the footnotes of this article, so I was going to say that it is a perfect example of a “false flag” operation.

    When we read a website with so little substance, we should be on the look-out for false flag recruiting or disinformation. In this case, it is wrong to call it “false flag,” because the State Department seal appeared right on the website. So there is nothing being hidden. It turns out that the media uses the people involved to deliver Aesopian messages, so we should not just take the leadership project at face-value.

    If we were to take the new Clinton initiative for women’s leadership at face-value, we’d have to say it was another effort to sell Hollywood films in the Third World.(1) There was no argument, say against MIM, that if the State Department(2) is so horrified by patriarchy in Pakistan it should give all the females there a visa to the United $tates, problem solved. (Now ask yourself when you see any pseudo-feminist groups calling for that kind of solidarity? The reason we never see it–Amerikkkan nationalism is the real substance of pseudo-feminism.)

    Hollywood movie star Reese Witherspoon will tower above everything else in the Clinton initiative. She is an example of a top gender aristocrat being turned into a gender bureaucrat, a leader in political explanations of gender.

    It turns out that even the motivation of selling more Hollywood films is over-simplified. The source of money is a cosmetics company. Avon is a cosmestics company with $10 billion in annual revenue.(3) According to itself “The Avon Foundation for Women (http://www.avonfoundation.org) is the world’s largest corporate-affiliated philanthropy focused on women’s issues.”

    In the rich countries today it is ONLY the MIM line attacking the mutual reinforcement of class and patriarchy. Without MIM’s theory of gender privilege creating a gender aristocracy and gender bureaucracy, we are not attacking the Hollywood sales approach to feminism.

    As MIM has stressed since the early 1990s, the pseudo-feminist movement was a reaction against the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers and all anti-racists since have taught that racism is a bad attitude backed by power: ethnocentrism is not enough. Pseudo-feminism did not agree, did not want to talk about power, wanted to avoid responsibility in situations of power and was fine with the occupation of Vietnam. Pseudo-feminism to this day seeks to have it both ways, a pretense of interest in power kept along with a possibility of retreating to non-public child-like status.

    That’s why pseudo-feminism made the subject language and feelings, as a refuge from the attacks of the anti-racist and anti-imperialist movements. If MIM targets lynching for political power and war, pseudo-feminism is sure to point to the use of pornography by over 90% of men under 40. At the same time, pseudo-feminism will do nothing but complain.

    MIM does not disagree with complaining but that complaints should aim at patterns of power that can be changed. There are countries that abolished profit and pornography.

    That’s why we agree with Carrie Hamilton. People who want to go missionary on gender in the Third World should favor the State Department’s opening the borders, completely–something we have said on our gender pages, but we never hear from complainers about humyn trafficking.

    If they are going to complain about general male desire for pornography and models, then pseudo-feminists should be for taking away the rights of females to be models, strippers and prostitutes. Yet we never hear that, because the pseudo-feminists want to have things both ways. They want females to have the rights to do things they are going to complain about the men having.

    In imperialist countries, there will be models, strippers and prostitutes. Believing otherwise is lying to oneself.

    People who don’t like it have to get on board with socialism, making it illegal to make profits and outlawing the “right” and “freedom” to strip etc. Yeah, that includes banning the use of female bodies in billboards and ads.

    We agree with Gloria Steinem(4) that if males were paid the way females are, male sexuality would be in the air. We’re opposed to that approach to equality and instead favor getting rid of capitalism, so we harp on not having things both ways.

    Steinem is also correct that people should get angry instead of depressed. Some people find it hard to relate to MIM’s angry feminism. We try to stress the reason for that is too much fussing with Witherspoons and Drew Barrymores.(5)

    Gloria Steinem did pretty well for herself despite Hugh Heffner. This may cause many doubts about getting too angry, but Steinem does not come off angry by MIM standards.

    Perhaps if one is raised at the right or sheltered schools and then launches into a rarified professional circle, one never witnesses anything to get really angry about, or only very rarely. Yet there is also a Looksetariat. Beyond that, we should try to visualize violence and harassment against Down’s Syndrome children as the substance of feminism, and start from there: it happens and pretty often.

    Yes, we can feel badly for Princess Di and even be angry. To be sure though, it is better to reconceptualize gender and really start at the bottom.

    People who can be paid to be female agents to seduce men are not good examples of gender oppressed people. That’s why it’s better to think about the Looksetariat a little more.

    The gender aristocracy question is also related to class. The Democratic Party campaign coffers, mega-corporation coffers and FBI and CIA coffers can afford to hire gender aristocracy ‘hos to chase after and spy on revolutionary men. The proletariat generally cannot afford to hire ‘hos to chase after the bourgeoisie.

    Another aspect of class is that the world’s majority of females are super-exploited wimmin, who see Witherspoon, Barrymore and Steinem and don’t get angry at the actress, model and pornography angle but think, “that’s a nice job opportunity they got.” It’s reminiscent of the joke I saw by a comic on television who said poor is not having a donkey: poor is seeing a three-legged donkey and wishing one had a three-legged donkey.

    That’s not to leave aside the question of male spies sleeping with females, another kind of oppression of the class system. The British just found some examples of their police sleeping with female political activists while spying.(6)

    Pseudo-feminists are not really aiming to advance the cause of wimmin. They are simply reacting against attacks on the System. They sense that their nation and class privileges are under attack.

    Notes:
    1. http://asiaprnews.com/2010/03/11/38712
    2. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/138217.htm
    3. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1002/S00151.htm
    4. http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2115614,CST-NWS-steinem22.article
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G4H220100317
    http://www.wowowow.com/politics/what-your-reaction-newly-signed-health-reform-law-lesley-stahl-gloria-steinem-457932
    5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/mar/27/drew-barrymore-interview
    6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/21/activists-demand-inquiry-undercover-police

  • Noam Chomsky, “one working class” and international relations

    March 27, 2010

    Noam Chomsky is the one who talks about international relations the most as if people everywhere agree. His approach is consistent with the idea of there being one overwhelmingly numerically preponderant working class, that is preponderant everywhere in each country in the world. In contrast, we argue that in a minority of countries, the capitalists have bought off the majority.

    Hence when Chomsky speaks of Palestine, he’s inclined to tell us that I$raelis and Palestinians have common interests as workers. When he speaks of elites, he sees them as being more reactionary than general U.$. public opinion and now he is saying that even Iranian and U.$. publics see eye-to-eye on the nuclear question.(1)

    Chomsky’s is the extreme version of the left-wing of parasitism in the United $tates. His views fit in nicely with the RCP=CIA international line.

    In the RCP=CIA line, we have an exploited working class that needs to be polarized or woken up out of its slumber in the United $tates. Hence, according to these deluded people, it follows to pay Democrats to pull various stunts such as creating phony attacks on Democrats, such as racist remarks aimed at Black Congresspeople or carrying a rifle within two miles of Obama.

    According to a Zogby poll, Democrats have a more midway position on settlements and Republicans a more pro-I$raeli position.(2) However, we do not see this as a justification of Obama foreign policy.

    In actuality the same is true in I$rael, with Kadima taking the centrist position and Likud the rightist position, with no party in a particular hurry to make sure Palestinians have control of their own borders thereby ending colonialism.

    History is full of examples of “Nixon goes to China,” so these polls of specifics are not worth much, especially in the case of the U.$. public looking at the Mideast. At least in the Livni vs. Netanyahu contrast, they are talking about conditions in their own country. Only 10 or 15% of Amerikans pay attention to foreign policy, which is why leadership plays a more important role than in deciding whether duck shooting should be allowed in the backyard or whether Janet Jackson’s nipples should have been allowed at the Superbowl.

    Anyone who has kept up with MIM over the years should see that Chomsky is far removed from reality on international public opinion questions. Barack Obama’s father’s homeland Kenya and I$rael are the only countries with majorities supporting sending more troops to Afghanistan as Obama did.(3) Things do separate based on class in the world. Most imperialist wars poll highest in the rich countries and lowest in the Third World, contrary to Chomsky.

    The left-wing of parasitism in the rich countries unconsciously does all the spadework for fascism. Chomsky fudges reality because he cannot let go of the dogma of majority-rule (democracy) being good in all places and times. Since I asked him in the 1980s and maybe before, he has belonged to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which has a strategy of working inside the Democratic Party. In contrast with the RCP=CIA which works in the Democratic Party covertly in order to fool the internationally exploited and fulfill counterrevolutionary duties, DSA works inside the Democratic Party openly.

    There is no progressive content to majority rule in the United $tates. Failure to deal with this reality about being out-of-step with the international proletariat ends up contributing to fascism. It is not MIM’s fault that half the public would pull the lever to oust every single member of Congress if it could. When we leave traps like that unexposed and unexplained, just because we want to do some soft-headed spin to match the spin of the Establishment pundits, we set ourselves up for a big reactionary fall. Chomsky should forget about the U.$. majority and explain the whole truth to the youth and hope for some dragons to appear. However, at least in his case, Chomsky has an open belief in the Democratic Party as a vehicle: the RCP=CIA and Obama are pulling the wool over the eyes of the international proletariat.

    Notes:
    1. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0325/chomsky-us-israel/
    2. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1836
    3. https://mimdown.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/nice-going-counterrevolutionaries-v/

    Anti-Amerikkkan vacuum: proletariat pays the price

    March 27, 2010

    When the national bourgeoisie outside the United $tates slacks off in the anti-Amerikkkan struggle, the oppressed pay the price. Two I$raeli soldiers and four Palestinians died in fighting in Gaza on March 26.(1)

    Meanwhile, the U.$. media has regaled us with the stylistic differences between Netanyahu and Obama. Noam Chomsky called them “stylistic”; even though, Chomsky supported Kerry, Obama and the healthcare bill.(2)

    Russia and the Saudis should set the tone for the Arab League meeting.

    Note:
    1. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=17189
    2. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0325/chomsky-us-israel/

    Contempt for parliamentary democracy: another condition of fascism

    March 25, 2010

    The favorability ratings of the leaders of Congress are 11% and 8% respectively for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid respectively.(1) Meanwhile Obama’s ratings continue to hover around a break-even point.

    The numbers for the top Republican Party leaders in Congress are not much better. The Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has a 31% favorability rating. In the House, the top Republican John Boehner has a 25% favorability rating.(2)

    The disrespect for Congress (parliamentary institutions) relative to a persynality cult is another hallmark of fascism, right out of Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was the disrespect for Germany’s Weimar Republic and its legislature in particular that cleared the way for Hitler.

    Pelosi’s ratings dipped 8 points in December, 2009 when questioners added that she headed the House of Representatives.(3) When asked if they could pull a lever to oust every single member of Congress, would they do it, half of those polled in a different survey said yes.(1)

    Although MIM also has contempt for parliament and the politics of pornography lifted right out of Weimar days, we know that the Amerikkkan style of contempt for Congress is not a good thing. It comes from the fascist side. We don’t have a proletarian side here to take up a communist opposition to parliament, because the vast majority of people are economically petty-bourgeois.

    Notes:
    1. http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/24/why-vote-same-politicians-into-office-if-we-disapprove-of-them/
    Reid at 8% and Pelosi at 11%. The original CBS poll document is here:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_health_care_032210.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/nancy-pelosi-is-very-powerful-but-not-very-popular/
    2. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_favorability_ratings
    3. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/pelosi_negatives_go_up_when_she_s_identified_as_house_speaker

    Geopolitical update

    March 25, 2010

    Just before the healthcare vote, someone threatened to out Obama for the third party infiltration gambit I have written on. However, the claim by the press supposedly pointing to Robert Gates at the Pentagon was that the third party doing the outing should not have a grudge. Readers will recall that I myself did no particular maneuvering in the nine days leading up to the health vote.

    Hence, the healthcare bill has passed and there is no reason for a grudge by Avakian anymore. Yet, we do not see Avakian and a secret service step forward. On the other hand, Putin did just push through an arms deal with the United $tates.

    Pelosi has now said that Obama’s threat to resign is the model going forward. The Republicans deserve what they got for being too anti-communist to stand for the civil rights of people like me, but the Pelosi formula is no good for the international proletariat going forward.

    The Tea Party movement was wrong to target Obama’s Marxism: there was no worker uprising or worker control at stake. So the Tea Party movement should have asked, “where is Obama REALLY getting his support?” Even at face-value what he is trying to do is force rich youth to shoulder more of the burden of the older generation’s healthcare, in what is an inter-generational transfer of wealth greater than the federal deficit, but he is doing that with state power for corporate profits–the corporatist formula of fascism, not Marxism. The Tea Party should always calm down and ask itself, “do you see any worker uprising? Are factories being taken over? Who is Obama really giving benefit to?” If the Tea Party movement would stick with reality, it would be more effective in its opposition to fascism.

    Defense Secretary Robert Gates is arguing that they will be shooting to make a deal with the Taliban after the war against the Taliban has tipped now that Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan.


    “‘The shift of momentum is not yet strong enough to convince the Taliban leaders that they are, in fact, going to lose,’ said Gates. ‘And it is when they begin to have doubts about whether they can be successful that they may be willing to make a deal. And I do not think we are there yet,’ he said.(1)”

    Ever since Obama agreed to send more troops to Afghanistan, Gates has spoken forcefully on Obama’s behalf.

    As we head into the important decisions of this week, the international proletariat should be aware of the special deal and unity of imperialists in attacking Afghanistan. This is a factor that has to be considered.

    The international proletariat should skip all the corrosive Liberal pornography spewed by the U.$. media and focus on the overall balance of geopolitical forces and strategy. It is correct that the international proletariat is on the offensive this week. “Seize the time” is important for us. The cards are on the table as they rarely are, but they have to be pulled into play the right way.

    In other news I received three more bits of information I was not expecting after the healthcare vote:

  • I received Aesopian confirmation on the beating (of someone else) I mentioned.
  • There was recognition of identity theft problems.
  • I received answers to questions I asked, much to my surprise.

    Gates has indicated that he has a variety of tools at his disposal. That’s why it was especially stupid for the Obaconites not to reconcile with me BEFORE 2008. Not only was it stupid, but also it was complicity in war crimes.

    Some may feel that I err in not playing along with psychological games of the imperialists; however, the winning course is behaviorist, not ad hominem, at least when it comes to the national bourgeoisie and other leaders of the international proletariat. We pay attention to behaviors and patterns in them in fact, not mostly individual motivations. It’s easy to get sidetracked into the national, class and gender oppression of the system otherwise.

    Note:
    1. http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Gates–Low-Level-Reconciliation-Growing-in-Afghanistan-89030962.html

  • Media Iraq/Palestine coverup

    March 24, 2010

    On March 22, seven people died in Iraq and March 23, another eight in explosions.(1) These events would have made U.$. television coverage under a Bush administration. With Obamautons in power, the media shuts up.

    Meanwhile, the Egyptian media claims a third intifada is underway in Palestine. While the U.$. media has gone into depth over the Netanyahu-Biden-Obama flap, we have not heard anything about an intifada here.

    The Iraq and Palestine situations have taught MIM some fine details of communications and diplomacy in the U.$. power structure. The disparity between war coverage under Bush and Obama is either on account of Democratic undermining of diplomacy or because of fascism’s steamrolling effects: the choice is up to Democrats.

    Also of note is that the Egyptian paper has been down a couple days.

    Meanwhile, the Saudi king supported Obama’s healthcare victory.(2)

    Note:
    1. https://sites.google.com/site/weeklyahramorgegissue990/
    2. http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Id=1247864&SM=1

    The Watergate standard

    March 24, 2010

    On November 17, 1973, President Richard Nixon said: “I am not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.” He also condemned the Watergate break-in that he himself was linked to.

    The word “Watergate” itself refers to a break-in by the government into Democratic Party campaign offices June 17 1972. As such it gave the Republican Party benefit.

    After the Watergate break-in, Richard Nixon won by a landslide in the November, 1972 election against George McGovern.

    In other words, something happened during the campaign season that became much more widely understood down the road and Nixon resigned in 1974. There is not a campaign season and then a free-pass season.

    I have pointed to more than three people involved in ransacking my home and violations of my privacy to benefit the Democratic Party. It is difficult to condemn the CIA, FBI etc. for their COINTELPRO-type activities when we cannot stop the Democratic Party from doing the same thing in its campaign activities.

    Because of the anti-communism of the Republican Party, even the conservative media dares not report activities by the Democratic Party far more significant than the Watergate break-in.

    The words of Nixon are reminiscent of the Obama administration’s claims that all its conflicts with me are “civil matters,” not criminal. The idea that some Democrats are waiting till 2012 to talk about this as if that were in any way standard in the United $tates is clearly only a racist standard, not based on Watergate.

    The Paula Jones case involved a supposed sexual interaction with Bill Clinton in May, 1991. Clinton won election in 1992 and faced the Paula Jones case thereafter.

    The people conspiring against me engaged in identity theft, a beating (not of me), household property theft, wiretapping and extortion. Yet none of this adds up to a “crime” or even a matter worthy of coverage by the media, because my status is that much lower than a Democratic Party campaign office’s or Paula Jones’s or even Linda Tripp’s.

    All of this was already known during the Annapolis negotiations. There are no longer any excuses for the information not to come out except Democratic partisanship and Republican anti-communism.

    Christopher Hitchens, the Pope and war

    March 24, 2010

    Christopher Hitchens is a famously aggressive atheist we have written on before, including reviews of his books. He has gone to great lengths to describe Henry Kissinger as a “war criminal” for the Vietnam War, but Hitchens supported both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also says that violence in Pakistan attributed to Al Qaeda is actually Pakistan’s own secret service.(1)

    If there is a war against religion, Hitchens is for it. He called on liberals to up the anti-religious rhetoric to support the wars:


    “Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the ‘good’ war in Afghanistan with the ‘bad’ one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can’t quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he’s ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.”(1)

    There are a lot of naive and ineffective anti-war Democrats who should read that and wonder why MIM and Hitchens both knew what Obama stood for in practice.

    It’s not an accident that in the lead up to the healthcare vote, we heard so much more about child abuse by the Catholic Church. Christopher Hitchens was all for the broadsides,(2) and had nothing to say about the Pope’s recent involvement in diplomacy.

    MIM has criticized the Catholic Church including the pedophile aspects before. Unlike the ’60s crew with spokesman Avakian who says if you don’t like women “there’s something wrong with you,” we don’t think the clergy should be harassed just for being celibate or gays for being gay (a position Avakian has now done self-criticism for without retracting the underlying problem). Nor do we believe that it is likely that all the bishops and cardinals are pedophiles, so as with the Toyota lynching, we want to see comparative stats.

    If we browse through Avakian’s paper and books, we find nothing but antagonism toward religion this past decade, right in synch with the imperialists’ war plans against Islam. Oh sure, the paper says it wants troops out of countries, but on 9/11 the party sounding most like MIM was silent — and for months afterwards while war rage built up. That’s ACTION. In previous months, the same party was spreading anti-Islamic warmongering in the Internet groups along with others interested in wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. So we don’t read the left-wing of parasitism’s papers except as gossip rags for dupes. The anti-war movement collapsed in the United $tates by design of the organizations sounding like MIM and all the rest even further to our right.

    Hitchens told the truth about Obama and war. Hitchens deserves credit for that even as he favors the wars. Obama and Avakian lie to their zombies.

    The Pope’s response after 9/11 was more restrained than that of Obama and his ilk: “The papal message asserts that ‘criminal culpability is always personal and cannot be extended to the nation, ethnic group or religion to which the terrorists may belong.'”(3)

    In contrast, to this day, Obama and Clinton both say Taliban-ruled Afghanistan “attacked us” and is in a more culpable situation than Iraq. By this measure, since the mafia kills people around the world and has major economic operations (the bulk of its profits) in the United $tates, most countries would be justified in attacking the United $tates for harboring the mafia. That’s not to mention what harboring I$rael means to the Islamic world.

    In other words, on the question of war, the Pope has stood to the Left of Obama and Clinton. What the Pope said in 2001 was already to the Left of where Obama and Clinton are today on war, now that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are much less popular even among Amerikans.

    The “Boston Herald” was surprised to see Cardinal O’Malley(4) come out against the Obama healthcare plan and Susan Estrich perceptively noted the opposition of bishops as well.(5)

    MIM would have readers read between the lines. The nuns were for the healthcare plan because they did not know the diplomatic situation, so the Obamautons gladly went to the nuns and 1960s congregations saying they faced child abuse from priests.

    The Pope is not blameless in the imperialist war situation. The Catholic Church has tolerated its own ineffectiveness on the war question instead of mobilizing the world’s truly exploited. Hence, we can hear treats in the news about exorcisms and pedophiles, a political dynamics of scandal that can hardly add up to anything but more imperialist decadence and Liberalism at best.

    Nonetheless, everything is relative. With the predominance of the left-wing of parasitism full of praise for the war profiteering mafia and William Kunstler while opposing the “fucking Pope,” things have turned upside-down. Some in the Catholic hierarchy probably opposed Obamacare because they knew full-well that a president Jesse Jackson could have raised it later without lending political support to a lynchmob for war and occupation.

    Notes:
    1. http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/
    2. http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/
    3. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_8_38/ai_81515866/
    4. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal_omalley_rips_pro-obama_catholics_on_health_care/
    5. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/catholic_wars