Archive for the ‘lynching’ Category

20 years & still waiting for the accusation: Stages of accountability

April 17, 2010

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.



Progress in struggle: 1990s documents

April 16, 2010

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.

Andrew Stern

April 13, 2010

NPR is reporting today that Andrew Stern is resigning the presidency of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The reason is simple: the SEIU paid my lyncher number two to spy on me in my house. (An audible reference is made to this in a Harry Potter movie partly based on the Cheney vs. Ward Churchill phony struggle at the University of Colorado.)

On the day I purged her, the spy suddenly raised questions that Huey Newton already answered more definitively and transgressively before me. The reason she did so was to have blackmail scandal material against me when I answered as the Black Panthers before me did.
(It would only work in electoral politics, not with genuine Maoists.)

When Clinton and Obama were duking it out in the primaries, the SEIU was the first to endorse Obama. It’s not to say my lynchers would not have worked for Clinton had she won the primaries, but I just comment on the actual order things happened.


Supreme Court watch

April 13, 2010

There appear to be some signs that Obama is considering appointing my lyncher number one to the Supreme Court; hence, I shall have to pay attention to the news. The rumor-monger has spent time buttering up “Fox News,” the “New York Times” and I am told China over the past few years. However, that’s not to say all of those in “counter-terrorism” against me will support her.

On the other hand, it is possible for the Republicans and Democrats to trade cards and for Obama to appoint another female with greater accomplishments outside the sex and lies department. While there is a good chance that lynching will be rewarded, one has to consider that the game could be an attempt to head fake the Muslim people. References to nuclear terrorism abound in the April 12 and April 13 news.

A pseudo-feminist speaking on India made positive metaphorical references to supporting my lyncher on NPR today. Among other things, the afternoon of the 13th on NPR she spoke for using only humyn energy in farming.

Metaphorical references of certain sorts are heating up right now. Nuclear terrorism or just “nukes” has become a metaphorical reference to information on 9/11 covered up by the likes of Indian pseudo-feminists for serfdom and Washington.

India is the only country of the Third World that regularly polls in agreement with I$rael. That’s on account of Hindu-Islamic tensions. We can and should discount people who want the whole world to become peasant serfs. Such justifications of agriculture came out in published book form by slave-owning agriculturalists of the South over 100 years ago.

What the talk points up is how desperately the NPR maneuvers to support the Democrats. The rape issue often attracts this sort of pseudo-feminist who believes the world would have been better off if it had stayed agricultural. It’s really a symptom of how when wimmin emerge from the household, they do not carry norms of politics with them and instead recreate in miniature all the political debates of time since they did not participate in politics.

While men in politics globally have absorbed the lessons of the French Revolution, we still find people wishing to go back in time to agriculture or in the case of my lyncher’s handler, before there was agriculture. We refer to the pseudo-feminists and the men who have no courage to criticize these reactionaries.

Here is what the new constitutional principles of the Enlightenment said as expressed in the key French Revolution document “The Declaration of the Rights of Man,” August 27, 1789: “No man can be accused, arrested, or detained except in cases determined by the law, and according to the forms which it has prescribed. Those who solicit, draw up, execute, or have executed arbitrary orders must be punished.”

Before the French Revolution, the law did not always protect serfs from being accused by the lords without process. For that matter, the lords had the right to corvee labor from the serfs. That’s what is going on in my case, where counter-terrorists are cooperating to extract labor from me for free by dragging me into their sordid business.

P.S. The organic farming metaphor used by the speaker above could be interpreted in my favor. When I believe a metaphor is ambiguous, it goes to the lyncher’s camp, because Aesopian language favors racism, because it is essentially the intellectual way of wearing a white sheet at a KKK rally. True, the speaker attacked Monsanto as I did in a previous article. Some are arguing over my life with the farming reference, and it’s somewhat appropriate because it was a favorite topic of my lyncher’s handler and also because there is something unnatural about sending females at me and paying them to seduce me. These are not the very core issues of the lynching, but they are of related importance.

Rodney King, ad hominem attacks and distinguishing lifestyle from power

April 8, 2010

As Obama brings out endless ad hominem attacks on me, it’s useful to remember the standard of Willie Horton. He was a convicted murderer. That is the cause of a supreme ad hominem attack as to whether he should have been used in a 1988 Bush campaign ad. Nothing Obama has on me is going to match that. It goes to show a racist, anti-Asian standard in applying ad hominem attacks. That’s not surprising because ad hominem attacks are stock in trade in fascist movements.

In point of fact, Bush’s argument in 1988 was that Dukakis was soft on crime. In that context, Horton’s being a murderer was a relevant, not illogical point. Nonetheless, we at MIM and in the liberal media generally believed the ad was no good as “lynching,” because of the history of this country. Both money and career power were at stake, and the media was right to come down against it.

The British Guardian recently pointed out the same thing in an article titled as follows:
“Inside the closed ranks of Scotland Yard’s top secret deep infiltration squad

For four years, Officer A lived a secret life among anti-racist activists as they fought brutal battles with the police and the BNP. Here he tells of the terrifying life he led, the psychological burden it placed on him and his growing fears that the work of his unit could threaten legitimate protest.”

About Rodney King, the Guardian pointed out in that context:

“In this video, Rodney King is referred to as an ‘innocent motorist’ but we should clarify that he was driving while under the influence of alcohol and had led the police on a high-speed chase because he was on parole for a previous robbery conviction. None of this justifies the beating he received.”

In an ad hominem attack, the illogical persyn changes the subject from a question of substance (an argument) to a question attacking the speaker of the argument. In the above, the Guardian recognizes two separate questions, thereby successfully maintaining logical distinctions.

A critical mass of the country was able to make logical distinctions in the Rodney King case. When talking about what paid state professionals do, it is not relevant to bring up every detail from a persyn’s persynal life.

Some people see my struggle as an excuse to have a lifestyle movement covering every aspect of life with no element of paid professionals involved. In this way, they cover up for spies, bad cops etc. If I were to lay out my complaints against all the individual whites in my life, we’d never have any focus and we’d never get done. What does the most good for society is to focus on where power backs racism or sexism.

The reason Obama is an Oreo racist and anyone can be a racist is by applying power to back up white ethnocentrism. If Rodney King didn’t do his homework in sixth grade, that’s not relevant in discussion of what paid professionals do to him. People who raise that sort of attack are proving their racism.

Before joining a discussion of racism and sexism, one should have a sense of proportion. That means distinguishing what people were paid to do from ordinary lifestyle conflicts people have in everyday life. My lyncher number one gave benefit to two Democratic campaigns and her handler says she received a large sum of money. My lyncher number two was paid by the first union that endorsed Obama. Lyncher number three tried to draw my attention to money from the Democratic Party to shut me up. I am not just picking on three white females for lifestyle aberrations, so I hope people will not respond in that manner.

The Congress is also well aware that more professionals involving money or career motivations were involved. Yet the Congress failed to take action. In the Cultural Revolution, the extremists most useful in restoring capitalism also could not draw the distinction between power and lifestyle. When Mao said to focus on the people in power on the capitalist road and thereby ask questions about policy and overall direction of society, ultra-leftists attacked everyone on lifestyle grounds, thereby letting the capitalist-roaders off the hook. The rightists drew the most benefit.


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.

Lynching update

March 19, 2010

Rumor has it that the Senate version of the healthcare bill has something on my lynching in it. I have no direct knowledge or proof myself.

If the healthcare bill passes Sunday, March 21 as scheduled for a vote now, we can expect the launch of ad hominem attacks against me afterwards to distract from the lynching and infiltration gambit.

Questions to ask about the lynching cover-up

March 11, 2010

Why was there no procedure for confrontation of evidence regarding the lynching (despite my request) and why are you changing the subject from that to various rumors two decades after the fact?

Why have you not released government transcripts from the 1989-1991 period, including phone intercepts?

Why did the Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center (SAPAC) cancel its appointment with me after I told them who violated my consent by name?

Why are you pretending there was not a scandal at the time when I signed my name in the open on a letter to several people? Why have I to this day not received a detailed accusation in writing? (I only received an implied insinuation in recent years.)

How can you deny there was a scandal at the time when I wrote a signed letter of complaint to the SAPAC?

Who is denying that there was a rape rumor created against me?

Questions and answers on the lynching

March 11, 2010

March 9 2010

What is the latest?

The “Drudge Report” is volleying back-and-forth with the Democrats about my lyncher. It’s important to point out that I have not received any explanation directly from my lyncher to this day, only a general insinuation no where near as specific as what was recently admitted in Aesopian terms.

The reason for that is that the point was to create a scandal, not communicate with me, even in the “relationship.”

I heard that you tried to reconcile with your ex-. Is that true?

Yes, I did make great efforts to reconcile with my ex-/lyncher in the 2006-2007 time period. I have already explained the context of death threats several times.

If I had succeeded in reconciling in 2006-7, it would have eliminated the whole aspect of trading the lynching for power, the presidency. Then the matter would have been a very bad story between two individuals.

However, in these scandal set-up situations, the attackers usually attack more than one persyn, in order to have a choice of targets in reserve. That was one reason to have her drop the card in the open in the 2006-7 timeframe, beyond just my own life.

Reconciliation also became more difficult because of the example set for people in the future. I asked my lyncher to drop the Cold War era card in 2008, but instead it ended up played. At that point, reconciliation became absolutely impossible. I now have to visualize all the racist lynching going forward from here inspired by this spectacular trade of lynching for the presidency.

It is the reward for lynching that spurs future lynching. Barack Obama smokes as an individual, which is a bad example for the public. However, we can imagine that if he obtained the presidency only because he smoked a particular cigarette, there would be a rush to go smoke that brand of cigarette. People would see that power comes from it.

Why do you say the recently created rumors 20 years later do not matter?

A lynching is a lack of process. I asked for one repeatedly and did not get one at the time. I am asking now to have to answer to one story, not as many variations on a story as the fascist movement wants to try out to see which will work 20 years later.

Whether my lyncher “left something behind to remember her by” and applied a salt or whatever agent is irrelevant except for a legal point of whether there is a criminal action involved. Others have argued that with other connected circumstances people should just get a clue.

But haven’t you changed your story?

As I said above, I tried to reconcile with my lyncher in the 2006-7 period. I knew the whole thing was headed for a third party infiltration gambit showdown.

There is not really a way to “change your story” for the essentials of this sort of gambit. What matters is merely that there be two or more scandals interlinked many years apart such as that they at least create the appearance of a scandal for the government. I have yet to see anyone deny that there was a scandal in the 1989-1991 period or that various connected scandal appearances happened in the George W. Bush administration. I have only seen people vary the details of the scandals to provoke various knee-jerk responses.

In other words, the question is not tracking down every rumor that has percolated over 20 years, but a much simpler thing: were there two interlocking scandals created? And the answer is yes. From there, it is just tracing who benefits.

The public had easy access to several websites created to make me believe in the second scandal. Many others have gone further and said it was not just an appearance, but the scandal involved the real people behind it, an uncle in the government. Others have pointed out the vigilante aid from the scandal-mongers against me during the Bush administration and how that connects to 9/11.

My lyncher and the media changed their story day-to-day and week-to-week over the past few years instead of taking one accountable stand. My lyncher and an academic supervisor were responsible for spreading a false rumor against me on the publication of a racist cartoon that I fought. They’ve also spread other false rumors that could not have been made without their spying on me to begin with. When they get caught in the Aesopian world, they simply change their stories and make up another rumor.

Wouldn’t it be better to just make a deal for political power yourself?

In the first place, the point is to put the scandal-monger in power. So I am averse to that deal. Secondly, people may not realize that the scandal-monger would indeed feel rewarded not just that Obama got into power, but even if *I* got into power. That’s what’s so vexing about being lynched out of a career and then being lynched into a Republicratic career. The whole thing about a third party infiltration is that you don’t get your mirror image into power quickly, but you get someone who would not otherwise make it, perhaps 20 years later.

For me to be in office, it works best if the scandal is exposed and not rewarded. Even then, getting office just because I had the goods on Republicans and Democrats would still be a reward for lynching. I would have to wait for existing political parties to pass from the scene and that political capital to disappear for office not to be a reward for lynching. I was only willing to consider it for the Mideast peace process and I have made that clear repeatedly. At this point I have further detailed that I won’t be appointed or running for office, and rather hope for revolution in 2017.

Appearances created by lyncher number three

March 11, 2010

This article is background for another article titled King Arthur’s court. It’s about Aesopian struggle. Aesopian struggle is the symbolic literary approach of run-and-hide racists.

We have the following appearances created by lyncher number three related struggles. I was never informed of any sexual complaint by this persyn, but I refer to her as a lyncher because she met me at a bar and used that to gain access to me which in turn Democratic Party activists have started using this year in a sexual innuendo game.

1. There is a pro- and anti- Henry Park struggle going on in the Catholic Church.
2. In 2008 there was a pro-Obama campaign move to lure me to Democratic Party money for obvious reasons.
3. There was a conspiracy to have me mention the status of the female so she could sue me in connection to her ex-boyfriend!
4. There is a related bid in the Catholic Church to get me to support Obamacare including an implied willingness to arrange a lynching.
5. The Democratic Party has people spreading rumors recently that lyncher three is the reason that I never ran for office. Yet I never received any of the rumors created for that till this year.
6. NPR has run a commentary by someone else of the same exact name I was given for this lyncher. Her commentary on Victorian era post offices seemed to admit in Aesopian fashion that my lyncher number one’s handler was involved in extortion against me.
7. What concerned me at the time was she was trying to do me a favor on behalf of another country which would then leave me framed. Another possibility is that I was being informed of this occurrence.

I don’t think people obviously speaking in Aesopian code should be taken seriously except as more proof of a civil rights conspiracy against me.