Archive for the ‘Mideast’ Category

Generational divide: overreaction to the 1970s

April 16, 2010

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.


Mideast update

April 16, 2010

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.


Eric Holder

April 16, 2010

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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


Violence in Iraq and Afghanistan removed from headlines

March 12, 2010

Patrick Kennedy took on the media March 10, regarding Afghanistan and Kucinich called for getting out of Afghanistan in 60 days.

“[T]he press of the United States, is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that is the laying of lives down,” Kennedy screamed on the House floor.(1)

CBS News defended itself against Kennedy.

MIM would add that when Bush Jr. was president, diplomacy drew benefit, because the Democrats covered every death in the wars. Now Kennedy points out that even U.$. troop deaths don’t get the coverage of the Massa alleged gay scandal in the House.

The situation in Iraq is similar. Deaths of Iraqis that made regular television coverage now disappear.

“The number of Iraqis killed in war-related violence increased by 44 percent — to at least 255 — between January and February.

Figures compiled by The Associated Press show that at least 30 unidentified bodies were found in January and February across the country. That was still a low number compared with past years but a number large enough to suggest that sectarian killings may not have entirely ceased.”(2)

At his speech at MIT on the 10th, the British Foreign Secretary took the opportunity of his delivering the “Compton Lecture” to speak for political steps toward Afghanistan reconciliation.(3)


Iran gets it: class

March 9, 2010

“[President of Iran] Ahmadinejad said, ‘the fact that the US has 14,000 billion dollars budget deficit and has issued over 29,000 billion counterfeit dollars during the past 30 years, buying goods with it, is the biggest theft in the history of human kind,’ as reported by IRNA. He said D8 countries have the potential to become a major economic block in the future.”

It has to be said I have more in agreement with Iran than with any organization in the left-wing of parasitism in my own country. I agree with the President of Iran on the question of international exploitation, as a matter of line. He concluded that he should organize religiously.

Meanwhile, the Obakianites organized back-asswards from tactics and strategy up to line without ever doing the overall analysis. Consequently there is vastly more scientific content in Iran’s religion than in Obakianite secular politics. Every racist Pilgrim in the West is worth 10,000 converts to religion.

It is the dogshit pragmatists of the West making religion most attractive. Meanwhile the real Islamists are attacking icons as Avakian organizes persynality cults.