Category Archives: Republicans

Black Republicans

My late father on Black Republicans:

I mentioned Black Republicans. He shrugged his shoulders. “Every race has its traitors,” he said.

I do not like Black Republicans because I think they are race traitors to the Black people. Everybody should support their own kind at the very least. Whites should support their fellow Whites. Blacks must stand behind the Blacks. Hispanics must promote their own kind.

I have no particular sympathy for race traitors of any kind. These are people who hate their own kind. Not sure if I respect that too much.

The Afrocentrists are all insane, but in a way I respect them because I think they really love their own people and promote the interest of their own people.

Charity starts at home. Blood is thicker than water.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Blacks, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, US Politics

Republican Platform

Get government out of my taxes and into women’s vaginas where it belongs.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Politics, Republicans, US Politics

FARC Statement on Recent Washington Post Report

On December 21, 2013, the Washington Post published a report about the latest covert action by the CIA, the NSA and the Pentagon, that is, of the United States of America, in Colombia’s internal armed conflict. This involves decisions and authorizations by at least the last three governments of that country.

Interesting revelation, that shows many incredulous people that the interest of the US government is one of the main triggers of the long war Colombians are going through. More ambitious studies could easily show that the same thing has happened since the days of Operation Marquetalia in 1964, which was publicly recognized in Colombia. However, whenever the nature of the conflict is being studied, this fact is silenced with astonishing irresponsibility.

According to the report, the covert action program has helped the Colombian Army to kill at least two dozen rebel leaders, according to interviews with more than 30 serving or retired officers in the United States and Colombia. At the same time, the National Security Agency was carrying out electronic eavesdropping and wiretaps. All these operations were financed with a secret budget of billions of dollars, additionally to the nine billion dollars aid from Plan Colombia.

President Santos, according to the same report, tried to downplay the issue when he was interviewed by that North American newspaper. Minister Pinzón (Defense), on the contrary, had no qualms about openly recognizing it in the media and abate it as part of the traditional military agreements between the two countries. It is clear that neither of them feel the slightest appreciation for Colombian sovereignty, since gringo impositions on drugs and terrorism are more important to them than any consideration of national interest. Not to speak about Colombian General and Admirals; their knees are calloused.

It is not that we didn’t know or didn’t have any idea about it, but some things do become clearer with the report of the US newspaper. For example, that the columnist Oscar Collazos is completely right when he suggests that the greatest contradiction that generates debate between former Colombian presidents, is about showing which of them is responsible for the major part of killings of their citizens. This debate is also reproduced with clear interest by the Colombian media, which are always so prone to publish and enhance the crimes of the guerrilla, as they are called by such nefarious individuals.

We could now parody Senator Piedad Córdoba, when she said that Colombia was a huge mass grave. saying that with the consent of recent governments, Colombia is a victim of the most blatant and unpunished wiretapping on behalf of the intelligence services of a foreign power.

Similarly, the cited report includes disclosures that give the shivers. The article states that according to President Santos “part of the experience and the efficiency of our operations and our special operations were the product of better training and knowledge we have acquired from many countries, including the United States”. This endorses what the report states about the transfer of the American experience in Afghanistan and the struggle against Al Qaeda to the Colombian conflict, ie intelligence procedures including bribery, illegal arrests, disappearances, torture and illegal pressure on people who are expected to give information.

This makes clear that the ongoing degradation of the methods used by Colombian military, police and security forces originates in the instruction and advice given by the Americans. The government of Juan Manuel Santos is aware of the kidnappings, blackmail, death threats and attacks employed by the Colombian intelligence service to obtain, through the families of the guerrilla commanders and fighters, the location of these in order to kill them.

Methods that have even been employed against the families of the FARC-EP members of the Peace Delegation in Havana. He also knows perfectly well, because of his time as defense minister under Álvaro Uribe, the true story of the military intelligence that led to the gruesome murder and mutilation of Comrade Iván Ríos.

The analysis of the report also mentions the opportunistic and unilateral interpretations of international law by successive U.S. governments, submissively accepted by Colombian leaders. Mr. Reagan authorized military intervention on behalf of his country in any nation under the pretext of combating drug trafficking; Mr. Clinton authorized the interventions to secure his country’s control of strategic resources located anywhere in the world; Mr. Bush acted the same way, under the pretext of preventing what his government qualified as the terrorist threat.

All this was enough for the notions of independence, sovereignty and self-determination of people to be put in the museum of history, next to the corpse of the fundamental rights of human beings.

Only such a brazen reign of arbitrariness, born out of brute force, can explain, as corroborated by the report, the aggression of the Colombian military against the sovereignty of Ecuador on March 1, 2008, and the subsequent treacherous murders of Colombian guerrilla comandantes outside of combat, through the use of the cynically called “smart bombs” or the actions of the special forces.

The report reveals the efforts of the CIA and the Pentagon to get the reprehensible legal interpretations, with which these crimes are perpetrated. It also exposes the wickedness of the American law schools in which all these new legal theories are cooked and which are responsible for legitimizing terror as a respectable method of political action.

It is true that more brainy scholars may draw many more implications from this report, but in addition to what is already said, we should ask ourselves now, when the discussion on the issue of illicit crops is coming up: What is the true role this oligarchy of vendepatrias (nation-sellers) grants to the peace talks with the FARC-EP, or possible talks with the ELN, when the interests that produce an intensification of the conflict in our country are exposed on national and international level?

This report leaves many doubts about the desire for peace by the Colombian state and its imperial boss. Which confirms our idea that a true peace in our country can only be achieved with the massive and decisive participation of the millions of Colombian victims of this regime, who have just suffered one more mockery with the ridicule increase of the minimum wage while the military budget grows geometrically to crush their dissatisfaction.


Colombian jungle, January 2014, year of the 50th anniversary of our uprising

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Americas, Colombia, Democrats, Ecuador, Government, Journalism, Latin America, Law, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, South America, US Politics

Hilary Clinton, Whore for the Banksters

The banksters have apparently already fixed the election. On the “left,” we have the candidate of the banksters, Hilary Clinton. And on the “right,” we have the candidate of the banksters, Chris Fat Boy Christie.

Boy, the banksters have got it made in this election. It looks they can’t lose and they win no matter what!

Hilary’s platform: On foreign policy – US imperialism. On domestic policy – Bankster rule of the US.

Christie’s platform: On foreign policy – US imperialism. On domestic policy – Bankster rule of the US.

As you can see, this is shaping up to be quite a contest!

Things are definitely looking up for Lockheed and Wells Fargo!

The Wall Streeters, who are among the biggest advocates of partnership between big government and big business, are looking forward to a presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie, a contest the bankers can’t lose.

They have already discounted any populist rhetoric Clinton may need to fight off a primary challenge from, say, Sen. Elizabeth Warren. As “one well-placed Democrat” told Politico, “Wall Street folks are so happy about [having Clinton run] that they won’t care what she says.”

Clinton recently spoke to a gathering in New York organized by Goldman Sachs, the giant, influential (and bailed-out) investment bank, a gathering that Politico says was attended by “a few hundred major investors.”

Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone. In the contentious years since the crash of 2008, they’ve grown wearily accustomed to being called names — labeled “fat cats” by President Obama and worse by those on the left — and gotten used to being largely shunned by Tea Party Republicans for their association with the Washington establishment. And of course there are all those infuriating new rules and regulations, culminating this week with the imposition of the so-called Volcker Rule to make risky trades by big banks illegal.

“But,” Politico continues, “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.”

Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.

What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy — it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

She got one thing right: The politicians and big bankers “all got into this mess together.” The financial and housing collapse of 2008 was the fruit of that malign partnership of big government and big business. (See my article Wall Street Couldn’t Have Done It Alone.) But the big banks are doing fine now, thank you, and there’s no reason to think that too-big-to-fail is over. It’s regular people who are still hurting.

So the bankers liked what they heard. Politico reports:

“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”

Back in the game? That’s a good one!

In Clinton, then, we have a friend of the bankers and a friend of the military-industrial complex, since as secretary of state she was an advocate of a muscular foreign policy, including intervention in Libya. When she was in the Senate she voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to invade Iraq, and when she was first lady, she pushed Bill Clinton to drop bombs on the Balkans.


Filed under Democrats, Government, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

The Death of Camden


A very interesting article about the death of a great American city.

Insane rightwing assholes all over the Internet are linking to this article and calling it “the long-term consequences of liberalism.”

New Right and Alt Right idiots are leading the charge.

Here is what happened.

Camden was a great American industrial city, and then all the jobs packed up and left. At first it was corporations moving to non-union parts of the US. Rightwingers will idiotically blame unions for this, when really all it is is workers trying to earn a fair and decent wage for their labor. Of course conservatives have always opposed the idea that a working man should get a fair and decent wage for a day’s labor. Then the corporations started taking off for overseas. By the 1990′s, Campbell’s Soup Company was the last one left.

As factories shuttered their doors, poverty increased. Whites increasingly moved out and the city become much more Black and Hispanic. The unemployment rate skyrocketed. As there were no jobs, crime, gangs and drugs flourished. Much of the city became abandoned or even burnt out by arson. It began to take on the look of a bombed out World War 2 city. The police had their hands full, and they had a powerful police union. Camden police ended up receiving the highest salaries in New Jersey. In a way it made sense, because Camden cops had the toughest jobs of all and had the highest chances of getting killed or wounded on the job.

People in city government did their best, but what can you do?

Some fat sweaty hog named Chris Christie, a fake “moderate” Republican who was anything but, took power as Governor of New Jersey.

“Mr. Moderate Fat Pig” did something unexpected. He decided that the niggers and spics in Camden weren’t paying their way. They were takers not makers. The makers, the good, nice White taxpaying humans, were supporting the takers, the nigger and spic animals in places like Camden.

Christie said it’s time for Camden to pay its way and quit sucking off the state’s teat. Well it would be very nice if Camden could pay its own way, but guess what? The tax base of the city is just about zero. So if the city has to pay its own way out of the tax revenues the city generates, the city government is going to collapse because the place hardly generates any revenue.

Camden has no choice. It’s either be a parasite or die. Cities, like people, want to live.

So Christie completely cut off all state revenues to Camden and said, “You’re on your own!” like a father to his wayward 18 year old son. Then all Hell broke loose. For all intents and purposes, city government simply collapsed. The police force was slashed, and the cops abandoned much of the city to the criminals, gangs and dope. Crime went nuts, and violent crime went through the roof.

Camden had one of the highest homicide rates on Earth, almost like a war zone, up there with Mogadishu and Honduras. Gangs and dope dealers simply took over whole neighborhoods. Camden gained a reputation as one of the biggest dope markets in the US and a lot of high quality dope, especially heroin, started flowing into the city. Addicts from all over started moving to the area to follow the dope. Most of the addicts were White.

Arson spread through the city, and there were hardly any firefighters to fight the fires. Over a 3-year period, maybe half the city seemed to go up in flames at one time or another. The place had a burned out war zone feel about it.

Then Fat Pig Christie had another brilliant idea. He decided that the whole problem in New Jersey was government! The teaching profession needed to be cleaned out, as pubic schools were “failing.” They probably weren’t failing, but the public schools are always “failing” in the eyes of lying rightwingers. The way to fix the schools was to get rid of the teacher’s unions and slash the Hell out of their pay and benefits. The police unions were another problem. Those cops were making way too much money. The whole problem with crime-ridden cities was police unions and cops who got paid too much and got too many bennies.

How does that argument make sense?

According to this insane argument, the more money you pay a worker and the better benefits he gets, the less he works! Huh?

So if you want to get the most possible work out of a worker, you slash their pay in half, pay them a pittance, give them no bennies at all and let them fend their own in the cruel world. Just think, if everyone got paid the minimum wage, how productivity would soar!

The argument is completely irrational of course, but never mind. Tens of millions of conservative morons all over America actually believe this craziness. So Christie took on the teacher’s unions and the police unions.

Workers were making too much money! Oh no, we can’t have that!

In Camden, the police had their pay gutted, the force was cut in half and benefits were slashed. As one might expect, morale fell through the roof. Cops stopped doing their job and abandoned much of the city to the crooks. Officers called in sick in huge waves of sick-in’s. On many days, a lot of cops simply never showed up for work. Predictably, crime, gangs and dope exploded, just as any sane person might expect.

According to insane rightwing ideology, complex problems like crime, drugs, gangs, arson, poverty, failing schools and urban blight are all caused by government. Social spending especially is to blame. The more money a government spends on a city, the more people shoot each other, set stuff on fire, collapse into poverty, sell and shoot dope, join gangs and shoot up the streets. The more money you give people, the more they cause their dwellings to collapse. The more cash you spend on schools, the more they turn into blighted, violence ridden, failure factories.

The way to get people to act good and everything to fall into tip top shape is to cut off all the money.

Cut off the money and the schools will turn into mini-Oxfords overnight. Cut off the cash and the architecture will repair itself and rival Florence. Cut off the bucks and the gangsters will take off their boots and call it day. End the cash-flow and the drug dealers will abandon the streets and all become social workers and pediatricians. Cut off the income and arsonists will get Smokey the Bear religion and quit setting shit on fire. Cut off the paychecks and murderers will all become cringing pacifists and beat their guns into plowshares. Cut off the bucks and poverty will vanish as wealth explodes, tony neighborhoods creep across town and boutiques blossom on every corner.

Sound insane? Yeah.

You know what? Conservatives actually believe this bullshit. No, really, I am not kidding. This is their lunatic religion.

Well, obviously, none of Christie’s rightwing bullshit worked. In fact, it made all of the bad problems of Camden horrifically worse. After Christie’s conservative magic, the city was a horrorshow and every day was Halloween. It was a collapsed zone, a Dystopia out of a science fiction movie.

Then Fat Boy got another brilliant idea. He fired the entire city police force! Good show! And then he replaced them with “county police,” mostly from White cities surrounding Camden. He hired quite a few of the old city police back as “county police.” County police had radically slashed pay and their benefits were hacked to the bone. This was apparently done to make them work harder because, you know, when you cut someone’s pay in half, he works twice as hard, right?

Then Fat Man read an Aldous Huxley novel called Brave New World and decided to turn Camden into London 2450 A.F. He installed state of the art cameras all over the city, on every corner, in every nook and crevice. Even more creepily, he installed listening devices all over town so Fat Big Brother could not only see everything you did, but he could also hear everything you said. The listening devices were set up so they could pinpoint the location of a gunshot very accurately.

The Big Brother cops then sat back at headquarters and watched everyone’s smallest movements on gigantic TV screens that covered the walls of the police department. Every time a bird peeped or a pin dropped somewhere, the microphones strained to grab the tiniest hint of aural activity. At the same time, police got very aggressive about patrolling the city. In some areas, there was a cop on every corner, dressed like US troops in Iraq. Helicopters swept over the city, sometimes dropping cops down to rapell onto roofs in order to invade apartment blocks, once again reminiscent of a war zone. At first, it worked fairly well.

But after a while, even this started failing. Sure the cameras and the mikes worked just fine, but the population got mad. They stopped calling in crimes. Instead of getting reports of gunshots and screams, cops got a call about a dead body full of holes lying in a parking lot with no one else in sight. Residents also quit assisting the police. Nobody ever saw, heard or knew anything. It was if large sections of town had become deaf, blind and mute.

Cops would race to the scene of crimes only to find themselves surrounded by hostile crowds of up to 50-100 people. They could barely get out of their cars as the crowds pressed in. They would be just about to nab a suspect when a huge crowd would suddenly form and the suspect would melt in the glaring crowd, seeming to vanish off the face of the Earth. There was no pursuing them through the angry mobs.

The dope market continued to flourish. Many Whites in surrounding cities flooded into Camden every day to buy dope. You could sometimes see whole crowds of them walking into town over bridges in the morning. Camden started getting a reputation for having the best heroin in the US.

The work all shut down, and all the jobs vanished. The city degenerated into crime, dope, gangs, slaughter flames and decay, as one might expect.

All of this drove any remaining work further out in a nasty cycle.

Massive budget cuts made the situation surreally worse, as Camden started to resemble Iraq.

Cops outfitted like 21st century soldiers then occupied the city and helicopters swooped overhead. Cameras and microphones sprouted all over the city to keep the restless population in control, Big Brother style.

And even that didn’t seem to be working.

Whatever blew up Camden, it sure as Hell wasn’t liberalism. Blown up cities tend to stay blown up until some work comes back. They stay ruined under conservative or liberal city or state administrations alike. Neither conservative nor liberal policies tend to make cities implode in the first place (it’s economics) and neither conservative nor liberal governments seem to be able any Humpty Dumpty cities back together again when they fall off the wall (probably only economics can patch up a ruined city).

However, the limited available evidence does seem to show that rightwing policies of cutting off all the money to a ruined city makes things dramatically worse as a hellhole turns into a literal charnelhouse, and in that way, conservative policies fail badly, making bad things into even worse things.

Conservative policies of slashing police forces and teacher ranks and gutting the pay of teachers and cops seem to cause police departments to collapse, drive the morale of cops and teachers into the ground, and probably make failing schools fail worse than ever. So in that sense, too, conservative policies also seem to make a bad thing worse.

One thing is for sure. For the life of me, I can’t possibly see how liberalism turned Camden from a showcase city into scary, crumbling dystopia. How did liberalism ruin a great city? I don’t get it.

But hey, liars will always lie, won’t they?


Filed under Blacks, Conservatism, Crime, Education, Government, Heroin, Hispanics, Intoxicants, Labor, Law enforcement, Liberalism, Local, Narcotics, Northeast, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Republicans, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies, US Politics, USA, Whites

“The Mandela Barbie,” by Greg Palast

This is the honest to God truth here.

Mandela was forced to submit to neoliberalism as a condition of seeking the Presidency. The South African Communist Party (SACP) went along with it too. The SACP had a significant role in Mandela’s administration because he had a good relationship with them. Mandela was a party member for several years around 1960, but then he left the party.

Mandela was never a terrorist. He led a guerrilla war, and nowadays, all guerrillas are called terrorists by the United Snakes. The word terrorist was invented by the Israeli scum in the 1970′s as a way to characterize the Palestinian guerrillas who were attacking them. Every since then, just about every guerrilla army on the face of the Earth (except the ones that Washington and Israel love) are automatically terrorists, go on a terrorist watch list, and Americans are banned from helping them. After the war ends, there are usually calls to try them for war crimes at the Hague, which increasingly is just the Judicial Branch of US.

The guerrillas that Washington likes act just as bad as the others if not worse, but they are never terrorists, and Washington shovels money and aid at them. We even fly planes overhead to bomb in support of them as in Libya. Most of the governments fighting the guerrillas act just as bad as the guerrillas if not worse (they slaughter the civilians who are supporting the guerrilla) but they are never terrorists – only non-state actors that Washington hates are. The whole terrorist game is a gigantic propaganda lie, like everything the US does.

At any rate, Mandela did start the guerrilla war when he was head of the ANC, but the guerrillas were under strict orders to only commit property damage and to avoid hurting civilians at all costs. After Mandela went to prison, the ANC changed its tune and some of its attacks hurt and killed a lot of people, but Mandela was not in charge of the party then as he was in prison. So Mandela was not a terrorist, and he was not a Communist either, except that he was for several years 40 years ago, but then he left the party. So really he was an ex-Communist.

Mandela was threatened with a capital strike and capital flight if he tried to do anything economically progressive. That’s one reason that even a basic land reform has never been able to get off the ground and most of the Blacks are still living in hovels.

It is interesting that neoliberal liars say that Vietnam has now gone to 100% neoliberal capitalism. It’s not true, but that’s what they say. If that is so, then what were the rightwing Vietnamese neoliberals doing advising the ANC’s military wing up until 1990? I don’t get it.

For all of you idiots out there who call me racist, I have always supported Nelson Mandela, even when it was uncool to do so, and I also supported the ANC, even when they were fighting a guerrilla war.

The Mandela Barbie

By Greg Palast for Truthout
Sunday, 15. December 2013

I can’t take it anymore. All week, I’ve watched Nelson Mandela reduced to a Barbie doll. From Fox News to the Bush family, the politicians and media mavens who body-blocked the anti-Apartheid Movement and were happy to keep Mandela behind bars, now get to dress his image up in any silly outfit they choose.

It’s more nauseating than hypocrisy and ignorance.

The Mandela Barbie

Poor Mandela. When he’s not a doll, he’s a statue. He joins Martin Luther King as another bronzed monument whose use is to serve a new version of racism, Apartheid 2.0, worsening both in South Africa – and in the USA.

The ruling class creates commemorative dolls and statues of revolutionary leaders as a way to tell us their cause is won, so go home. For example, just six months ago, the US Supreme Court overturned the key parts of the Voting Rights Act, Dr. King’s greatest accomplishment, on the specious claim that, “Blatantly discriminatory evasions are rare,” and Jim Crow voting practices are now “eradicated.”

“Eradicated?” On what planet? The latest move by Florida
Republicans to purge 181,000 voters of color – like the stench from the shantytowns of Cape Town – makes clear that neither Jim Crow nor Apartheid have been defeated. They’re just in temporary retreat.

Nevertheless, our betters in the USA and Europe have declared that King slew segregation, Mandela defeated apartheid; and therefore, the new victims of racial injustice should just shut the f$#! up and stop whining.

The Man Who Walked Beside Mandela

To replace the plastic and metal Mandelas with flesh and blood, I spoke to Danny Schechter. Schechter knew Mandela personally, and more deeply, than any other American journalist. One of the great reporters of our generation, Schechter produced South Africa Now, a weekly program seen on PBS, from 1988-91, bringing Mandela’s case to Americans dumbed and numbed by Ronald Reagan’s red-baiting.

Schechter notes that George W. Bush kept Mandela on the Terrorist Watch List — no kidding — even after Mandela was elected President.

Schechter has just completed the difficult job of making the official documentary companion to the Hollywood version of Mandela’ s life, Long Walk to Freedom.

The fictional movie is about triumph and forgiveness. Schechter’s documentary, Inside Mandela, and book, Madiba A to Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela, has this aplenty. But knowing Mandela, Schechter includes Mandela’ s anger, despair and his pained legacy: a corroded South Africa still ruled by a brutal economic apartheid. Today, the average white family has five times the income of a black family. Welcome to “freedom.”

The US and European press have focused on Mandela’ s saintly ability to abjure bitterness and all desire for revenge, and for his Christ-like forgiveness of his captors. This is to reassure us all that “good” revolutionaries are ones who don’t hold anyone to account for murder, plunder and blood-drenched horror – or demand compensation. That’s Mandela in his Mahatma Gandhi doll outfit – turning the other cheek, kissing his prison wardens.

Schechter doesn’t play with dolls. He knew Mandela the man – and Mandela as one among a group of revolutionary leaders.

Mandela’ s circle knew this: You can’t forgive those you defeat until you defeat them.

Despite the hoo-hah, Mandela didn’t defeat apartheid with “nice” alone. In the 1980s, says Schechter, South African whites faced this reality: The Cubans who defeated South African troops in neighboring Angola could move into South Africa. The Vietnamese who had defeated the mighty USA were advising the ANC military force. Mandela was Commander-in- Chief.

And so, while Mandela held out a hand in forgiveness – in his other hand he held Umkhonto we Sizwe, a spear to apartheid’s heart. And Mandela’ s comrades tied a noose: an international embargo, leaky though it was, that lay siege to South Africa’s economy.

Seeing the writing on the wall (and envisioning their blood on the floor), the white-owned gold and diamond cartels, Anglo-American and DeBeers, backed by the World Bank, came to Mandela with a bargain: black Africans could have voting power…but not economic power.

Mandela chose to shake hands with this devil and accept the continuation of economic apartheid. In return for safeguarding the diamond and gold interests and protecting white ownership of land, mines and businesses, he was allowed the presidency, or at least the office and title.

It is a bargain that ate at Mandela’ s heart. He was faced with the direct threat of an embargo of capital, and taking note of the beating endured by his Cuban allies over resource nationalization, Mandela swallowed the poison with a forced grin. Yes, a new South African black middle class has been handed a slice of the mineral pie, but that just changes the color of the hand holding the whip.

The 1% Rainbow

In the end, all revolutions are about one thing: the 99% versus the 1%. Time and history can change the hue of the aristocrat, but not their greed, against which Mandela appeared nearly powerless.

So was Mandela’ s life a waste, his bio-pic a fraud? Not at all. No man is a revolution.

We have much to learn from Mandela’ s long view of history, his much-lauded pacific warm-hardheartedness as well as his much-concealed cold and cruel resolve. The crack in the prison wall of apartheid, the end of racial warfare, if not yet racial peace, is a real accomplishment of Mandela – and his comrade revolutionaries – most of whose names will never be cast in bronze.

Reading Schechter’s new book Madiba (as Mandela is known to Black South Africans) and seeing Schechter’s un-Hollywood film, you can take away one strong impression: From Moses to Martin to Mandela,
our prophets never reach the Promised Land.

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Economics, Guest Posts, Journalism, Left, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Revolution, South Africa, Terrorism, US Politics

Cuba on the Verge of Collapse, Says Miami Gusano Herald

The Guano Herald of course is the premier mouthpiece for the Miami gusanos, the fascists who run Miami. It prints many a tall tale, but this one is perennial.

Check this out:

Cuba’s masters are fighting desperately to avoid an economic and political collapse.

Well, that would be interesting if it were true, but it isn’t. And guess what? The gusanos have been saying this crap for 54 years now! Yep, when the new year rolls around, sure as clockwork, Cuba is always “on the verge of political and economic collapse.” And “this year it’s for real.” One wonders exactly how a nation can be on the verge of collapse for 54 straight years, yet the great crash never happens. I suppose like Second Coming of Jesus, the collapse of Cuban society is coming any day now. Right?

What a bunch of idiots these gusanos are. How could anyone in their right mind believe all the crap the Gusano Herald publishes about Cuba? I think the only people who believe this nonsense are the people at the Herald itself.

Commentary: Cuba democracy funds should be released
The Miami Herald
Published: Friday, Jun. 17, 2011

At a time when Cuba’s masters are fighting desperately to avoid an economic and political collapse, Washington is caught up in an increasingly silly and pointless dispute over funds to promote civil society and democracy on the island. This nonsense could not come at a worse time.

Sen. John Kerry has put the brakes on funding previously approved by federal lawmakers without supplying clear reasons for his actions or his intent. This is both a significant departure from the usual script involving U.S. policy toward Cuba and a surprising — and disappointing — role for the senator from Massachusetts.

Cuba policy is a perennial target of controversy inside the beltway, with Democrats and Republicans offering competing visions of the best way to fulfill the U.S. interest in promoting freedom [made in USA] on the island. This time, however, it’s a leading Democrat against a Democratic administration. The situation is made even more bizarre because Mr. Kerry has rarely, if ever, evinced overriding interest in Cuba policy and can usually be counted on to act as a reliable ally of the Obama administration on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has put a “hold” on Cuba funds disbursed by USAID, the foreign-aid arm of the State Department, to block $20 million “to support human rights and civil society initiatives in Cuba.” These programs cover a wide range of activities. They include the provision of “food stuffs and over-the-counter medicines” to political prisoners and their families, and training for grassroots organizers and “democratic engagement at the community level.”

In the past, some federal funds for Cuba have been ill-used or misspent, and the Herald has long called for vigilance in these important democracy-building programs. They should not be exempt from accountability.

But in this case, funds to assist Cubans who dare to dissent are undergoing an unusual and unwarranted level of scrutiny. Neither Sen. Kerry nor members of his staff have produced a “smoking gun” or evidence of wrongdoing. They have demanded answers to intrusive questions, reportedly including the identity of individuals at the ground level in a totalitarian state — information that the administration guards jealously and sensibly because improper dissemination would jeopardize their safety.


Filed under Americas, Caribbean, Cuba, Democrats, Florida, Government, Journalism, Latin America, North America, Politics, Regional, Republicans, South, US Politics, USA

From the IWW to Genderqueer – the Transformation of the Left from Class War to Culture War

MrCain writes an excellent piece on Cultural Marxism, the death of the Left and merger of the Democratic and Republican Parties into two wings:

Liberal Republican Party: Corporatism, neoliberalism, imperial foreign policy and an emphasis on the upper classes combined with cutting edge Cultural Left and Identity Politics, some environmentalism and a generally more sane and sober view of things. Some gay, Black or Hispanic who wants to wallow in their identity and stick it to the workers and the poor quite happily joins this party. Neoliberalism + genderqueer. What could go wrong. Obviously from a progressive point of view, this is nearly worthless, as the Left is all about economics, not the accommodation of every weirdo, freak or dysfunctional minority that comes down the pike.

The Conservative Republican Party: Corporatism and neoliberalism, albeit in a much stronger form than the Liberal Republicans push, a radical near-Libertarian out and out dismantling of government, combined with the usual rightwing nuttery such as ludicrous paranoia of Communism, socialism and the economic Left, crazy conspiracy, exaggeration, lies, constant propaganda, racist dog whistles for bigoted White people, homophobia, misogyny and sexism, puritanism, Fundamentalist Christianity, jingoism, xenophobia, paranoia and hatred of the state itself.

A wildly imperial neoconservative and even openly neocolonialist foreign policy, a celebration of inequality, authoritarianism and police state tendencies combined with a bizarre fetish with arming ordinary citizens as if they were the an official army. Sheer contempt for workers and a warlike attitude towards labor unions. Hostility to consumers and contempt for environmentalism, a destructive attitude towards Gaia and our fellow creature, a celebration of pollution in every form and even apocalyptic manipulation of the Earth’s very climate itself. A head in the sand attitude towards and the future and a focus on immediate profits at the expense of all long=term goals.

A general backwards, retrogressive and Medieval tone and even a celebration of a primitive, Neandertal-like mindset. An all out class war designed to immiserate the working, lower and even middle classes and transfer their wealth and income upwards to the upper middle and upper classes A celebration of the market over all other human values to the point where it is the very reason for existence itself.

Obviously there is nothing for any sane human being to like in the latter, but if you differ with Cultural Marxist lunacy, idiocy and even depravity of the freak show called Cultural Marxism, you are cast out of the Democratic Party and thrown in with the Republican lions to be eaten in the Coliseum.

Or to put it another way:

The Democrats are corporatism and neoliberalism with Cultural Marxism.

The Republicans are corporatism and neoliberalism minus Cultural Marxism.

Not a lot for the sane and decent to choose.

Although I understand your point of view, I fear it does not include that of Republicans nor Tea Partiers themselves, which, quite indicative, you can’t find but in a different world. I could say Here I come, if I weren’t European.

Liberalism is as widespread as ever, one doesn’t need a strong sense of history to see what the press and the media infuse, and what the people think, say and do, in comparison to the 80′s and the 50′s. Off with all the rules! But as often, technical advance makes up the continued inequalities in welfare, and today, general decrease for the majority.

Definitions of the Left, Socialism, Communism vary from time, country and perspective. There used to be an era when most Marxists thought that the working class should get conscious, order itself with a party, start a revolution and take power to form a classless society. But this idea barely went past the Channel, let alone the Atlantic, where the power resides since WWII.

Meanwhile Marxists invented other domination theories such as feminism, Freudo-marxism (the sexual miseries ought to be solved with even more sexual freedom), and other what-is-it-under-your-belt-that-you-have obsessions which the old guard in the unions find increasingly dull, if not false. Except that any voiced criticism now brings them into right-wing populism.

Today’s ideological platform, and social structure of the Democratic party has little to do with equality. It is more of a cluster of minorities at war with each other to get the right to lecture everyone else about good and bad. They have completely replaced workers with post-materialists, and for a reason. Whether in Eastern, Western Europe, or Asia, workers refuse to uproot for the post-modern cattle-like way of life, and with time, communist parties would conform to this non-orthodox-Marxist reality.

Post-materialists on the contrary are more obedient: provided that you move to the right-of-center economically, they will snobbishly take up any social theory as being ‘progress’. Of course, a longer discussion on uncontrolled immigration or gay adoption will lead them to admit “it’s a very tricky issue”, but, they won’t admit they are wrong . . . how would they distinguish from the hayseed then?

It would be easier to explain things by recalling that those behind ‘cultural Marxism’ are the same breed that fled from Russia, Hungary or Poland as those countries inverted orthodox Marxism against them, ‘the rootless’.

To put it in one sentence, there has been a massive strategy change from Jews, which makes demonization of the most conservative the necessary driving force for the snobbish acceptance of what appears to be a demographic and moral revolution, both by the old guard (like you, who’s left with communitarianism) and the suburban capitalists.


Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Scum, US Politics

Is the Far Left In Control of the Democratic Party?

A commenter notes:

30-40 years lowered taxes for corporations and the wealthy and a rate of unionization that’s been slashed to 1/3 of its size as a percentage of the economy. CEO pay that continues to skyrocket while average workers continue to see their gains fall behind rising costs of living. An infrastructure that continues to crumble while R&D budgets continued to be shifted to military projects. If the far left is really that much in evidence within the Democratic Party they are the single least effective force known to man.

It is an article of faith on America’s Right that the Far Left, the Hard Left, the Radical Left, the Communists, the Socialists and the Maoists, are in control of the Democratic Party and have been for many years. Of course that’s completely insane, but incredibly enough, these people actually believe such things.

In other words, American rightwingers are utterly out of their minds. They are living in an alternate universe where everything is the opposite of the way it really is.

Now I would not mind having a conservative faction in the US. I don’t like Canadian conservatives very much, but I have met a few of them, and I actually sort of liked them as people. They are to the Left of the US Democratic Party in a lot of ways. I asked one of them about US conservatives, and he shook his head. He said he was a conservative too, but that US conservatives were insane. I knew a British man, a proud conservative, who always voted Tory. He said the same thing. He stated that over in the UK, the conservatives like him were basically reasonable people, but that US conservatives were bat shit nuts out of their freaking minds.

I could live with conservatives like that.

There will always be conservatives. It would be great if we could, but you can’t rid of conservatism. There will always be conservatism in any society. Not because conservatism is a good idea – generally, it’s a terrible idea – but because conservatism is simply a natural trait in human beings. In order to get rid of conservatism, you would have to get humans to stop being human.

The truth is that there is a left wing of the Democratic Party. There is also a rightwing and a center. The rightwingers have been in control of the party for a very long time now. They hate the leftwing of the party and hold us in utter contempt. We feel pretty much the same way about them.

Left-wingers and even liberals have been fleeing the Democratic Party for at least 20-25 years now, ever since 1990. And even before then, Lefties didn’t support the Democrats. They often either voted 3rd party or they didn’t even vote at all. I remember my Mom once introduced me to a friend of hers and her husband. Later my Mom said incredulously, “They’re socialists. They’re so leftwing they don’t even vote for Democrats! They vote ‘socialist’ instead.”

If you go to real leftwing websites like Counterpunch and The Nation, they have been screaming about Democrats for over 20 years now. They attack Democrats almost as much as they attack Republicans if not more. The basic attitude on the Left is that the Democrats are nothing but a bunch of Republicans anymore (DINOS), there is no Democratic Party – instead there’s a Republican Party with two wings, there’s no difference between the parties, etc. That last phrase is not exactly true, but I think there are two parties in the US now:

  • A Left wing of the Republican Party (Democrats)
  • A Rightwing of the Republican Party (Republicans)

The people who stay in the party anymore are party stalwarts for whom the Democrats can do no wrong. You can never say one bad thing about the Democrats. Everything the Democrats do is right. No matter how many rightwing outrages the Democrats commit, either they weren’t rightwing, or they weren’t outrages, or it’s really not so bad, or it never happened, or we are leftwing fanatics for bringing it up.

Basically, it’s “the Democrats are always right,” and to speak ill of the Democrats is treason. These people would call themselves liberals, but really anymore they are just mushy Centrists. As the Democrats continue to get pulled further and further right by the Republicans, these “liberals” scurry after them to the Right and reflexively support every rightwing outrage that the Democrats do. So a lot of Democratic Party “liberals” aren’t even liberal anymore.

The other argument is “they had to do it.” Any rightwing outrage the Democrats do is because “they had to.” Why did they have to? Because if they didn’t, they would lose the next election. So we have to put up with untold numbers of rightwing outrages, each one crazier than the last, because otherwise the Republicans (who admittedly are far worse) will get in. Those of us are on the Left are called traitors and told to suck it up.

All of the real liberals in the party are told that we are “leftwing extremists” and part of the “loony left.” It’s really painful being a liberal Democrat anymore. The party hates you, and most of your fellow Democrats hate you as “traitor” and a “leftwing nut.”

A lot of masochists like me stick around and suck it up, but there is a continuing exodus of pain-phobic liberals and leftwingers from the party. Every time you turn around, there are more leaving and more calls for a third party that would be truly Left or liberal. So there’s a civil war going on in the party between the corporatist Obama suit and tie millionaire types with the private jets and the regular old liberals, and both sides despise each other.

The war has been going on for 20 years now and shows no sign of ending.

On the other hand, there are always crazies splitting off to the right, saying that the Democrats have become “leftwing extremists.” Most of them say that the Republicans are “rightwing extremists,” and they see themselves as “the reasonable center.” Those of us in the party Left think all of these Right defectors are obviously insane since of course they are experiencing hallucinations and delusions about the party. Hallucinations and delusions are the symptoms of psychosis after all.

These folks claim that they are “the rational ones.” While they were in the party, they were continually trying to pull the party to the Right because if we didn’t keep moving Right, we would lose elections.

The latest mass defection was something insane called “The Third Way.” These are corporate suit and tie folks with tons of money who live lives of luxury on high incomes. Most of them are connected with the corporate world. They split off to form a “Third Way” movement that did not succumb to the “extremes of the Left” (the Democrats) and the “extremes of the Right” (the Republicans). Right now, these crazies are trying to pull the party even further to the Right and threatening to run candidates against Democrats. Of course we were perfectly happy to see their backsides (the Republicans can have them), but the whole phenomenon is disturbing.

As you can see, those of us on the Left think that all these people yelling that Obama is a Leftist, a Communist, a socialist, a Maoist, etc. are obviously out of their minds. There isn’t one single socialist on the face of the planet who thinks that Obama is a socialist, and most socialists despise him as a rightwinger.

Why does every conservative in America think Obama is a Communist? The only possible answer is that apparently they must be mentally ill. Or perhaps they are on another planet. Or in another universe, maybe an alternate one like Alice’s Wonderland.

So not only are we liberal/Left types not in control of the party, but most of us have already left the party, often a while back, are leaving now or will be leaving soon. Those of us still in the party are masochists with spurned lover syndrome. Even the liberals are not in control of the party anymore (forget the Leftists), and nowadays most Democrats who call themselves “liberals” aren’t even very liberal. They’re about as liberal as Barack Obama was this month (since they reflexively adopt every position he takes), and that’s not very liberal!

1 Comment

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Left, Liberalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, US Politics

Does Bill Ayers Represent the Democratic Party?

Stealth writes:

I’m not paranoid. I’m just telling it like it is. You seem to believe that there’s a clear distinction between the Democrats and the far left whereas I believe there’s a great deal of overlap. For instance, you claimed that the far left is a strong force primarily at universities. Well, universities are a big ass deal. That means that radical leftists wear the pants in many, if not most, of our colleges.

Why, for instance, was Bill Ayers, a former terrorist, hired as a professor at the University of Illinois? If the Democrats don’t condone far left bullshit, then someone needs to explain that one to me. I doubt Republicans were responsible for him getting that job. It’s not like a taxpayer funded university is some sort of club that meets in its members’ living rooms.

It’s a university. He also apparently collaborated with the Democratic mayor of Chicago on education reform issues. Ayers is pretty much unrepentant, so we can’t say they gave him a second chance because he reformed. (I do not believe, however, that he penned Obama’s autobiography because I don’t buy conservative bullshit)

I’m not saying the entire Democratic party is far to the left, but they feed the wacky left.

Well you see, I supported those guys when they were running around setting off bombs and whatnot. There were over 50,000 bombings in the US during that period , almost all carried out by the Far Left. Hardly anyone ever got hurt, except they accidentally killed one guy at the University of Wisconsin. They also blew themselves up in that apartment building in New York. And a lot, I mean a lot, a lot, a lot of people helped them, all over the whole country. That is how they were able to stay underground so long.

In fact, in the late 1980′s, I was even on the mailing list for the Weathermen’s aboveground organization. I got their magazine called Breakthrough. The aboveground front was called the John Brown Book Club, and they were out of the California Bay Area. I suppose by that time they were no longer setting off bombs, but the Weatherman as an organization were still active around 1990.

Sure he’s unrepentant. I do not blame him. They were trying to stop the Vietnam War, and I think they were doing the right thing personally.

So you see, I come out of 1960′s radicalism, and I still believe in a lot of that stuff.

However, Ayers has totally mellowed out and so has his wife, and he doesn’t even advocate anything radical anymore. They are both education professors and all they talk about is education stuff. The universities are full of leftwingers, especially hard leftwingers. That’s who got him his job. His fellow leftwingers in the university system.

After that, he mellowed out and turned into just another professor guy without any particularly extreme views, he got involved in city politics in the realm of education. He wasn’t preaching anything radical. All he dealt with was education. Barack and really everyone in Chicago politics worked with this guy on education stuff. So did Rahm Emanuel and he despises the Left. Obama hates the Left too, but he worked with Ayers. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

You do find some Left types in the Democratic Party, but they are focused on economics. This woman I dated in Hayden and Fonda’s Campaign for Economic Democracy lived in Corona del Mar with her 17 year old son. She was basically a grownup hippie. She lived in a fancy house in this very rich neighborhood and once we were in the car, and I said, “Wow those people who live around you sure are rich, aren’t they?” She said, “Yep they sure are, and I want to take it all away from them!” And then she cackled like a maniac. I said, “Me too!”

The truth is that both Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel hate the Left. They hate the leftwing of their own party. They hate their own base. You could say that the Republican Party fears its base, but the Democrats actually hate their base. We have quotes from many conversations that Obama and Emanuel had in the White House.

Once Emanuel called the Democratic Party base “those fucking hippies.” The Obama types are corporate centrists who wear suits and ties. They are just like any other corporate type. Not all corporate types are conservatives. They all share a certain mindset, but some are rather more liberal than others, but not by much. The DNC types are just regular suit and tie corporate types who are somewhat to the left of your typical boardroom guy.

The see the Democratic Party base as a curse, and if they suck up to the base, they lose elections. The base are the people who want the Democrats to lose elections. And they blame us every time they lose an election. The DNC types like Obama are trying to get as many independents and centrists and maybe even conservatives to vote for them as possible. So they chase the Republican Party to the Right to try to get the votes of these swing voters.

According to the DNC types, if you act like a Republican half the time and a Democrat the other half the time, that’s how you get the “centrists” to vote for you. All these guys care about is winning elections. They don’t really have too many values other than that. They will practically say and do whatever they have to to get elected. The White House is full of Ivy League types in suits and ties who sit around all day long crunching numbers and working on data sets. They have broken down every demographic and group in the country down to the last man and they are constantly reading and conducting polls.


Filed under Democrats, Left, Obama, Politics, Republicans, US Politics