Archive for April, 2010

Again on my “credibility”

April 30, 2010

People who have followed MIM carefully know that we tend not to be interested in “who-oriented” politics or intelligence. It is the province of Liberals and we’ve said that since the beginning in 1983.

It follows from that that in about 15 years of Internet work, we never identified ourselves. We spoke with general sociological facts or we cited sources. It was others who had a self-interest in destroying our work and creating a question of individual “credibility.” It was then that I had to go public as an individual, Henry Park.

So it is with the lynching of myself, a leader of MIM. The central question is not a question of my “credibility.” I learned of the rape accusation at an outdoor event along with several others. There is no way to question that a scandal occurred by questioning my individual credibility. The scandal did not involve just two people; although, it did not have to involve politicians taking advantage except by repeated interventions by conspirators.

People who think in terms of individual credibility in all circumstances only prove that they are status- obsessed, and if they are in the government or responsible circles of the media, they prove that they are incompetent as well. The ones to suffer the most in status-obsessed politics are the lumpen and oppressed nations. The status-obsessed will sort the lumpen into offenses created on the basis of the status of the lumpen. In other words, “credibility” is code words for class and nation in many situations when credibility is not an issue at all.

The Alinskyites and many illogical people handling crime questions focus on credibility even when credibility is not the issue. No one can deny that there was no process for handling the accusation; hence, it was a lynching. No one can deny there was a scandal and follow-up scandals spread over 20 years of time now. Those facts do not depend on my “credibility.”

  • See also, “Rodney King, ad hominem attacks and distinguishing lifestyle from power”

  • Promises, promises

    April 29, 2010

    To pass healthcare corporatism through the Congress and secure his presidency, Obama made a number of promises. Obama promised some House members a path to citizenship in immigration reform. Arizona promptly disproved Obama’s promises however, by passing a punitive law against migrants.

    Now Obama says that immigration reform goes on the backburner. (1)

    “By Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered little hope that the issue was still alive on Capitol Hill.

    ‘If there is going to be any movement in this regard, it will require presidential leadership, as well as an appetite, is that the word? … as well as a willingness to move forward in the Congress,” she said.

    House Republican leader John Boehner was more blunt. ‘There is not a chance that immigration is going to move through the Congress,’ he said Tuesday.

    Rep. Luis Gutierrez, the Democrats’ leading advocate for immigration reform, has said he voted for health care reform on the understanding that Obama and congressional Democrats would move a major immigration bill.

    Even though he would like to see Latinos turn out to vote for Democrats in 2010, Gutierrez said ‘many will probably decide to stay home.’ However, he added, a strict, new immigration law in Arizona may change that dynamic. The law requires law enforcement officers to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally.

    ‘On one hand you are not going to vote because you don’t believe people you voted for are doing a good enough job,’ Gutierrez said. ‘Then you say, ‘I got to vote, because the enemy is so mean and vindictive, I got to get out there.'”(1)

    What is involved is the ages-old question of having a path to go somewhere. Obama made promises concerning a path he did not have as comments by Gutierrez prove.

    The question is how naive people are. It would be easy for Arizona to connive with the Democratic Party to boost Democratic Party turnout. The question is whether Latinos are going to reward the Democrats for Arizona’s action.

    The people must decide whether the two parties are working together or not. MIM asks the Latino people to see that the Democrats and Republicans worked together to squelch the Palestinian negotiations for a state in 2007 and 2008. The two parties made a deal among themselves to protect each other against the Palestinians, Iranians and Koreans in terms of diplomacy. With his most recent statements on nuclear policy against Iranian and Korean “outliers,” Obama continued Bush’s “axis of evil” policy.

    Obama made other promises to the progressives in the House. In general, anything can be covered up with enough promises among racist Democrats.

    When Arne Duncan made some criticisms he received support for a bill on education.

    When Obama needed the Nobel Prize he simply signed a law against hate crimes against LGBT. Probably any Democrat president would have signed it.

    In the Justice Department, Obama has followed Avakian’s advice of exchanging dirt so that Holder is comfortable with Obama: they both have dirt on each other, and in this case, in both instances it concerns MIM.

    In other words, the lynching of MIM’s leaders evinces no real concern for civil rights. The various players just use it to buy from Obama what they want.

    This is as MIM said of U.$. politics, especially the Obama milieu in the left-wing of parasitism. That’s why we have to talk about the international proletariat when it comes to the revolution, because Obama cannot afford to buy off the whole international proletariat without giving up capitalism. We cannot base any revolution on a majority within the United $tates. The logic here is intra-bourgeois deal-making to unite for racism, imperialism and exploitation. By making deals to back a lynching, the rulers further reward lynching, instead of exposing it and taking it out of play as a card. People who use my lynching in the coded manner that it has been used so far reward lynching. People who use lynching in politics should have the courage to disown it.


    Is art the new opiate of the Amerikan bourgeois intellectuals?

    April 29, 2010

    Yesterday, I saw a bulletin board art exhibit that said to be a great artist one must not be stuck on reality. The exhibit covered much of the space where political posters could be up, but are not. Thanks to a well-stated exhibit, a revelation crystallized where before I had only a nagging discontent.

    When I went hunting for a college around 1979, one of the things I learned was that students put up posters everywhere–on telephone poles, bulletin boards, buildings etc. I stopped to read each one, because I had not seen anything like that in high school.

    My nagging complaint has been that now we see theater posters and exhibit posters everywhere, but little independent political activism. Politics has been corporatized to the extent that it is the “job” of the Kennedy School or international organizations to put on political events. Students do not run their own movements, especially not on a consistent basis. One exception is for local labor issues. SLAM is an organization that seems to show up in one form or another the last several years, but MIM would say that even that one is working for the bourgeoisie.

    Harvard has some dormitories with their own theaters in addition to the professional Harvard-wide theater attracting important artists from around the world. Then there are the art complexes for theater and opera in downtown Boston. In other words, there is a surfeit of artistic organizations competing for student attention, thanks to the economic exploitation of the Third World that makes art seem a way of life for a wide swath of the imperialist countries.

    My perception is that there must have been a steady downward slide in the proportion of independent political posters relative to art posters since the 1960s. I link this to questions of economic surplus. As activists took over universities they squelched the movements they came from, sometimes directly, sometimes with resources they took to co-opt movements in corporatist-bureaucratic form, and posters changed in their substance, at the same time that post-modernism came to dominate.

    Contrary to Patrick Buchanan, the United $tates is not a Christian nation. Aside from the diversity within Christianity that would make such an assertion meaningless, it is not a good idea to stress Christianity in the midst of the War on Terror, as if Jews and warmongering atheists had no responsibility. Nonetheless, perhaps it is true that in exploiter nations like the united $tates where there is a Liberalism and a history of diverging immigration cultures, there is no common denominator in religious terms or in terms of any moral code. Into such a vacuum, Buchanan suggests Christianity as the glue for Amerikkka.

    At the corporations where we find the real bourgeois intellectuals, places like Harvard, we have the “Vagina Monologues.” Perhaps we have an occasional political superstar make a speech. Independent political movements of students we do not have.

    Religion being out in the ivory tower, what we have in its place is art, the new opiate of the intellectual. What art does not suck up, the career-related departments mop up for the production of future intelligence agency professionals.

    The larger portion of intellectuals avoids reality and here we have a connection between the academy and journalism. Whereas I rave at restaurant reviewers and theater critics being in charge of questions of national security at the “New York Times” –thus producing the weapons of mass destruction articles and lap-dog subordination to the Republican and Democratic parties in their sabotaging of the Annapolis peace process for example–the “New York Times” argues back in code that art is itself politics, not an indirect influence, but a direct substitute for reality-based politics.

    So Dick Cheney and the “New York Times” eschew reality-based politics for different reasons. However, a media that can paper over a lynching to back a war and elect a president could do anything. Calling art part of the solution is acceptable to politics as it is here and also the larger part of bourgeois intellectuals. Call me old-fashioned, but if I were another country, I would not want to close important political deals where the habit of just making things up is so deeply ingrained.

    “Workers’ rights are humyn rights”: Discussion

    April 27, 2010

    In Harvard Yard right now there is a poster saying “Workers’ rights are humyn rights.” It may be a response to a post of ours that is the most popular right now or the UN discussion of wimmin’s rights.

    What the poster raises at this time is that possibly the road that humyn rights activists go is obliterating nation, class and gender questions by calling them all “humyn rights.” Indeed, a selection of posters at Harvard these past few years could easily give one the impression as “humyn rights” often seems to fill the space where international politics should be. There seems to be little other way to interest Amerikkkans in international issues in their own right.

    MIM holds that the humyn rights movement exists as a continuation of the religious missionary movement of the colonial era. After gender and class are gone, what is left is one more slogan to make: “National rights are human rights.” By this approach the neo-conservatives, Trotskyists and other simpletons argue that they have the right to go around the governments of existing nations and intervene within those nations for “human rights.” The poster “boy” case for this is the genocide in Rwanda, where many feel that intervention had to come from outside; although, the divisions in Rwanda originated with interventions from outside.

    In the end, “human rights” attempts a supra-class politics, and MIM objects. There are faults on both sides of the class divide–on the side of the exploiters and on the side of the exploited. However, for a president Bill Clinton who put sanctions on Iraq and killed 500,000 children according to his own Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for such a persyn to come forward and say Rwanda needed his intervention–it’s clear that simplistic thinking will not do. One must choose sides, choose a path. No path will be perfect and only those who live in mental fantasy worlds have no blame on their side. Where intra-exploited fighting happens the blame goes at least somewhat on our side.

    The supra-class position of humyn rights energizes the petty-bourgeoisie attempting to have questions both ways. The humyn rights movement ends up being used to oppress the Third World, as the for-profit media selling to mostly white people uses it as an excuse to drum in negative images of Third World peoples via constant criticism from well-fed exploiters.

    The slogan “workers’ rights are human rights” has its strong points, as does the slogan “women’s rights are human rights.” The history of how constitutions have been written since the French Revolution is a focus of the identity politics movement. How much better some old Western bourgeois documents would have been if they did not refer to “man” or white men exclusively and instead used the word “people” or “humyn.” In other words, apply existing rights for white men to everybody. Certainly this is an idea we can support, even as we seek to go beyond the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the UN Charter.

    Another example of the strong points of merging things into one “human rights” approach was at Harvard recently where there was a case of racial smearing of an employee. It’s easy to see how his case belongs to “human rights” and not just “worker rights.”

    On the other hand, the left-wing of parasitism refers to the employee involved as a “worker,” while we see this persyn as a member of the “petty-bourgeoisie.” So concretely from the beginning, even though we might agree with the demand to stop discrimination in the workplace, we do not evaluate the persyn concerned as a “worker.” False use of the “worker” terminology leaves the humyn rights movement at Harvard out of international context. The union struggles at Harvard then become opposed to the interests of 90% of the world’s people.

    In fact, most of the union struggles at Harvard, Yale etc.; although they be for manual workers or clerical workers, are still petty-bourgeois struggles, not worker struggles. Without this understanding we also do not understand the question of international exploitation and why Amerikan politics is reactionary as it is.

    Obamauton media defend crypto-fascist eugenics, make backdoor argument for female infanticide

    April 27, 2010

    Now that we have a crypto-fascist president, at least two newspapers that shall remain nameless have taken up the fight to defend eugenics. It seems that the Obamautons thus obliquely acknowledge that to defend Obama they have to defend the eugenics MIM attacked among the Satanists in the 1990s.

    Readers will recall that MIM favored biological engineering and genetic engineering, while the Satanists tried to sell the idea of “selective mating” repeated over and over again in the Church of Satan publications. The original ideas of eugenics pointed toward family and race purity through selective mating. Hitler only took these ideas already in the air to their logical conclusion by seeking to eliminate chances of Aryan mating with other ethnic groups that he sought to exterminate. Very relevant is a particular slur on me that said I had insufficient minority blood to have a minority scholarship in graduate school. The thinking is very similar, an obsession with race purity.

    There are no serious or important writers of politics, sociology and history that do not regard eugenics as discredited racism. The arguments used in favor of eugenics by the “RCP,” “Church of Satan,” Che-Libs, Kasama and other crypto-fascist organizations rely on a trick of including all biology within eugenics.

    Although no serious study of eugenics fails to find its racist roots and separate it from biological and genetic engineering, at the research grant level we find many ill-informed opportunists taking research money for eugenics studies. The confusion arises, because historically many biologists and founders of statistical methods generally favored eugenics.

    Thus, poorly informed story-tellers in the media and medical grant-grubbers tarnish science through guilt by association, a common logical error of fascists. The great biologists of the early 20th century favored eugenics. However, they grew up in a period when between 1860 and 1890, whites hanged nearly 5000 Blacks according to Wikipedia. The picture on the Wikipedia page shows a Black being hung from a tree in 1925. Guys like Henry Park and Barack Obama were not available as serious political leaders to the United $tates as a whole, at all. Nor was racism just Jim Crow segregation in the South as murderous race riots also occurred in the North.

    In other words, the fact that the great Amerikan and European scientists of the early 20th century supported eugenics does not mean that biology is eugenics or vice-versa. Rather the people at the time had certain cultural habits and customs. An exception would have been W.E.B. DuBois who was “impure” in blood himself and writing at a time when sociology was starting as a professional field.

    One media outlet used an argument to defend Obamauton eugenics that if extended would also even more appropriately justify female infanticide. In the world’s most populous countries in Asia, there is a preference for boys and there is also among many East Asians an idea of family continuity. It is not possible to defend Obama’s eugenics and also oppose female infanticide. If eugenics includes the use of biology in birth questions, then there is nothing to oppose female infanticide. And that is all the more appropriate to lay at the door of eugenics, because many theories of race are rooted in myths of ancestry and bloodline purity. Even if the eugenicists say they oppose female infanticide, they don’t, because they are spreading the same fallacy by association.

    While we hear today talk of a “Jewish media” just as we heard in Weimar days in Germany, what is more surprising is that all the same errors of Weimar days are being repeated. The media needs to disassociate selective mating questions of race, ethnicity and family from biological science.

    Noam Chomsky lifts “fascist” label from Tea Party movement?

    April 26, 2010

    Various media outlets are reporting some recent remarks by Noam Chomsky. I hope it’s true that Chomsky is attacking Obama, corporatism and a dread of fascism,(1) but I also fear that it’s not really true given Chomsky’s erroneous political economy.

    The “Communist Party” paper “People’s World” is taking the loyal Obamauton line against Chomsky.(2) It’s not surprising that Gorbachev spawn are still heavily invested in Obama. People who could not tell socialism was down the tubes in the Soviet Union might just be Soviet revisionist pensioners who cannot criticize the paycheck.

    According to the “Tehran Times,” Chomsky does agree that we are in a period similar to Weimar.

    “‘It is very similar to late Weimar Germany,’ Chomsky told me when I called him at his office in Cambridge, Mass. ‘The parallels are striking. There was also tremendous disillusionment with the parliamentary system. The most striking fact about Weimar was not that the Nazis managed to destroy the Social Democrats and the Communists but that the traditional parties, the Conservative and Liberal parties, were hated and disappeared. It left a vacuum which the Nazis very cleverly and intelligently managed to take over.'”(3)

    Chomsky should stop using the 1930s reference point. The “Communist Party” of today is a loyal Obamauton hack.

    The most thorough discussion of the Chomsky and Tea Party ideas was in “Monthly Review,” a good sign of the illness of the left-wing of parasitism. None of the discussants is able to drop the idea that there is an “exploited” “working class” in the United $tates today.

    The inability of Richard Levins to directly address what we have said in our Peru-related articles is another sign of the lack of accountability in the left-wing of parasitism. He settles for supporting tourism to Cuba, a country where there is no Maoist movement attempting to overthrow state power that I am aware of. In Cuba, Richard Levins’s allies are in state power, but Levins is unable to distinguish that from the situation in Peru where the Maoist rebels faced off against a U.$.-backed military regime. One might suspect that handling tourism from Amerikkka is a lot easier when one already has state power, but Richard Levins is incapable of addressing that obvious point. “Monthly Review” is too far off to discuss anymore and a good sign of the inability of the left-wing of parasitism to learn from its own repeatedly wrong predictions.


    Big numbers and fascism

    April 24, 2010

    Lawyer, Ted Kennedy activist and Democratic Party insider Susan Estrich recently argued that blame for the immigration problem should not go on the U.S. citizens complaining about it. She took issue with Cardinal Roger Mahony’s forthright stand on immigration.

    it seems to me that Mahony’s strident criticism is unfair to the angry, frightened and frustrated citizens who live in fear of the violence that illegal immigration is bringing to the border.

    We disagree with Estrich, because what is good for the Democratic Party is not what is good for fighting fascism. If the blame does not go to the right place, blame will go to the wrong place.

    There are certain kinds of discontent that we should all learn not to voice in a story-teller vein. Story-telling leads to simplistic moralizing, that we should deport all the illegal aliens for instance. That’s a bread-and-butter stand of fascist parties since World War II.

    On many questions in a country with no proletariat, it is better to be conservative than to voice any discontent, because fascism is worse than conservatism. The Vietnam War peaked with 500,000 U.$. troops in Vietnam, a six digit figure of people that took all the Pentagon’s efforts to manage and ended up changing a youth culture.

    Our state and federal prisons have a low seven digit figure of people. In other words, get much beyond six or low seven digits and even the U.S. Government has a huge difficulty beyond its reach. Being able to recognize that is key to fighting fascism on any number of topics. It’s also a matter of balancing the budget, which MIM has connected to questions of international class struggle.

  • The immigration question is eight digits in numbers, a problem beyond citizens’ grasp as a number. There is no easy answer and building a wall would cost money that should not be spent. Economic equality among nations is the real answer and that can happen through class struggle.

  • Hitler killed 6 million Jews and an eight digit figure of people total in the world to make himself a candidate for all-time worst villain. It’s incomprehensible.

    Tell me that Jews today are exploiters and I can agree as a generality, but focus on that because you are ignorant of the exploitation by a nine digit figure of Amerikkkans and it’s a different story.

  • Many of the professionals most involved in studying child sexual abuse believe it involves an eight digit figure of children. Ditto some studies of adult rape.

    Tell me the Catholic Church has pedophiles and I believe you, but show me a newspaper that reports Catholic priests in the midst of a political battle with the Catholic Church and when no such stories appear for Jews or Protestants, and I have a problem with that newspaper. I’d rather hear the sociological facts denuded of lurid details in individual cases.

  • Pornography is a nine digit use question in the United $tates. Tell me you don’t want people viewing pornography on the government dime and I’m OK with that, because it narrows in on a question of power. Tell me an individual story about pornography use, and I have a problem with you.

  • The ‘ho question is a nine-digit question. Tell me you don’t want government cars to transport officials to their girlfriends, and that’s OK, a narrow question of power. Tell me you don’t want prosecutors responsible for prosecuting prostitutes seeing prostitutes at the same time, and that’s OK. Tell me that you think your relationship is not sex-for-pay and I probably think you’re a rube.

  • The Great Leap in China and the Cultural Revolution also had questions of violence ranging from six to eight digits. MIM has shown that Roderick MacFarquhar and the editors of the Black Book of Communism had problems with eight and nine-digit numbers. Ditto people who quoted fascist sources against communism. They tended to have quantitative literacy problems.

    Quantitative literacy is important in leading the fight against fascism. Blame for fascism should go on the fascists, the labor aristocracy and any philistines who open big questions in story-teller vein.

    The United $tates has no big transformative powers and it is best to recognize that and not get frustrated. Only 18% of Amerikans think socialism is better than capitalism.(2) That 18% tends to raise complaints which contribute to fascism. For a strategic length of time, we should not act as if that 18% is going to create socialism domestically. Our efforts should go to anti-imperialist solidarity and mitigating the U.$. exploitation of the world outside U.$. borders.



    April 24, 2010

    On April 6, the FBI mailed us their negative reply written April 1 regarding our FOIA request.

    You can read details on MIM’s FOIA page.

    “Keep your laws off my body”

    April 24, 2010

    It’s a slogan of the “National Organization for Women” (NOW) and many pro-“choice” organizations covering the abortion issue. Yet many of the same people were the ones clamoring for Obamacare.

    Reportedly, Obamacare itself is consistent, because it does not support abortion. That makes it a program consistent with Nazi Germany line, which favored corporatism and opposed abortion.

    On the whole, Amerikans have no consistency in their politics. It’s all fetishistic belief in the parties and the parties’ advertising.

    Unemployment inaccuracies

    April 24, 2010

    I would not put too much stock in recent unemployment reports. They’re probably overstating unemployment.

    Biden may have reason for thinking it won’t be hard to show that the economy is growing jobs robustly. He says that it will be 250,000 to 500,000 jobs a month in job growth soon.