Archive for July, 2010

And two Supreme Court Justice picks

July 31, 2010

The rewards for lynching are the presidency, coattails in the Congress, a healthcare bill and I forgot to add, two Supreme Court Justice picks. I don’t know of an individual lynching that received greater reinforcement. Power plus bias is racism.

I don’t count the stimulus or the finance bill, because whoever arrived at the White House after the financial crisis was going to have to do something about the economic crisis.

Sydney Morning Herald

July 30, 2010

The “Sydney Morning Herald” has blown hot and cold on my lynching. Just before Gillard took over the government in Australia recently, the “SMH” copy editors were sniping at me between-the-lines worse than any other outlet on the Internet.

I haven’t said in a while that the white man test is still coming. I love how when I say it, the matter is one of “conspiracy theory.” When a white man says it, it’s published material in a Harvard course. That’s exactly the kind of solipsistic world my subjectivist critics live in: whatever is good for the Democratic Party is the truth, they think.

That’s how it’s been the whole existence of MIM. Even after we founded ourselves, we suddenly had a struggle over whether the cardinal principle on the non-exploitation of white workers was true or not. Supposedly one only joined after agreeing to that and also agreeing to quit the party and form another if that ever changed; yet, we had to fend off a few people in the party on the subject. Dragged kicking and screaming — that’s how it always is in political struggle in the imperialist countries.

Gerald Ford: the standard after Watergate

July 30, 2010

The media has allowed Obama to set all the standards for how he is discussed.

I don’t recall that the standard with Nixon was who would replace him. No one said that Gerald Ford was necessarily shrewder or more talented than Nixon.

The “New York Times” and others have allowed the fiction to arise that they do not have anyone to replace Obama. It’s ridiculous.

1967 flashback and how we got to crony capitalism

July 28, 2010

From June 5 to June 10th in 1967 there was an Arab war against I$rael. Here in 2010 we at MIM and the people in Palestine and I$rael talk about the results of that war every day. We still have not overcome that war.

I was too young to have been in SDS contrary to some Internet web reports. However, I find Sara Evans’s account of female activists in the 1960s — Personal Politics — very enlightening.

A month after the war, it’s no accident that females in SDS wrote the following: “As we analyze the position of women in capitalist society and especially in the United States we find that women are in a colonial relationship to men and we recognize ourselves as part of the Third World.”(1) I didn’t know that they actually said that, but now I can say that that statement did deserve ridicule, and such ridicule is not male chauvinism. The problem is that it equated oppressor nation females with Third World oppression, this in the midst of the Vietnam War and a month after the Six Day War.

Christian Sara Evans defended the statement, but she admitted the role of Jewish females at crucial moments in 1967.


“Black power was at its zenith. . . . Black delegates shouted ‘Kill Whitey!’ as they repeatedly insisted that should cast 50 percent of the conference vote and occupy half of the committee slots though they constituted about one-sixth of the convention. In addition they demanded from this audience full of Jewish radicals a resolution condemning Zionist imperialism.”(2)

In the end, in the later 1960s, cross-ethnic organizing broke down in favor of “work on your own oppression,” which whites turned into “do your own thing” with sex and drugs.

Progressive Labor (PLP) was first to blame in falsely asserting the exploitation of white workers. The budding feminist movement was derivative of derivative and thereby went one step beyond PLP. The derivative of the derivative was Zionist “feminism” and we know when the derivative of the derivative is negative, counterrevolution is on the way.

Jewish females are the most polarized on my lynching case. I don’t want to deny their support at all. However, when we look back at the crucial moment of 1967, many things become clear. Females who did not want to take a stand on class and nation eventually took a stand on gender oppression, in isolation, in order to leave other matters unstated.

Whereas in the earlier 1960s, the movement started with pre-scientific Christian females such as Anne Braden and earned follow-up and rumors of whites sleeping with Blacks, by the end of the 1960s white females were off to “work on their own oppression.” (Sara Evans says red diaper babies (children of Communist Party parents) were the lonely positive contribution on feminist issues, but I’m not sure I buy that.)

Jewish female defender of I$rael Susan Estrich wrote a major paperback on acquaintance rape and how rape should expand to include it. Famous rape writer Andrea Dworkin wrote that she became Zionist via contemplation of the Black Panthers.

Big celebrity Gloria Steinem was not so much known for rape discussions, but she spied on communists. Then there was Phyllis Chesler. A 1974 book by “New York Radical Feminists” again targeted rape. Chesler was the most analytical of the bunch of its writers. She did not start from an SDS “heavy” position on nation and class, but she opposed the Vietnam War and the U.$. prison system(3) even then when it was not as proportionately great as it has been since. Yet decades later we find Chesler openly recruiting for both the U.$. and I$raeli intelligence services while working with the Avakkkianites. Lately Chesler seems to say that opposing Islam is enough to be feminist, with no stance necessary on other typical pet issues of Amerika.

Today it is painful to read the New York Radical Feminists’ book, even as many people became even more watered down and less radical since that time. The male anti-war movement petered out too.

We know that the samples the New York Radical Feminists considered for most questions were too small. At one point we hear about a sample (n=263) of child abuse that did not include a single heterosexual adult female, “because the boys were victims of male homosexuals.”(4) Now we know that the majority of child-killers in the United $tates are female, and the anti-gay barb was typical of the SDS whites of just a few years earlier than the 1974 book.

Young U.$. men are several times more likely to commit suicide than U.$. females, probably because of gender role rigidity. In one major study, females now also report that they are more likely to instigate domestic violence physically. Social reality is difficult. Sometimes it’s not so easy to go find something and “work on your own oppression.”

It was tough being Phyllis Chesler at the time. SDS females knew it was men that went into the Vietnam draft. Chesler had the added disadvantage of understanding that males vastly disproportionately filled the prisons. So what was “working on our own oppression” became the question for females. To her credit, Chesler discovered that females disproportionately went the mad route, not prison, hence her book, Women and Madness.

MIM would like to credit Betty Friedan’s work in 1963 on the idiocy of housewife suburban life. On the whole though, it was not the fault of male students in SDS that the females wrote such a poor statement for “New Left Notes” in 1967 as quoted for the first footnote. It should have been possible to raise Friedan without making her contribution the principal contradiction globally.

No doubt the intimidation that females felt in SDS stemmed from college admissions policies and mistaken societal preferences. If males outnumber females 3 to 1 in big meetings and perhaps even more in serious sub-committee meetings, then there is going to be a problem. MIM would not deny it while not equating it with the Six Day War either. The MIM generation had none of that gender ratio problem.

It took 20 years for Catharine MacKinnon to really reply to the male “heavies” of SDS known for their greater ideological consistency. She’s still writing that females should not surrender theory to men.(5)

When we read Feminism Unmodified, we can say that is what SDS should have discussed in 1967, but it was not available. So we have to understand that the SDS, the student movement and civil rights movement of the 1960s had many weaknesses.

To us of the MIM generation, SDS was from a time when a million students considered themselves revolutionary; however, we should not go too far in assuming what they figured out. In the main, the student movement embraced and then rejected Huey Newton and Arghiri Emmanuel, who tried to tell the student revolutionaries that the white workers were not a revolutionary vehicle and not exploited.

White females in the 1960s went from receiving death threats for being “nigger-lovers” in the South to backing off class and nation entirely to write about rape. It’s not an accident. “Do your own thing” became supporting I$rael and consciously failing to wrap heads around all the intersections of class, nation and gender.

What remained of SDS was what it always had, a white-collar career network behind it. The communists such as Huey Newton were not able to impose a single dominating view of nation, class and gender on a majority and the resulting “do your own thing” paved the way to what SDS became, the intellectual milieu that produced the crony capitalism and corporatism of 2010.

Zionist or not Zionist, opposed to exploitation or not opposed to exploitation, the SDS movement individuals had career contacts. The ultimate expression of this fact was in vulgar sociology and the “resource-mobilization” school, which was nothing but revisionism’s Bernstein writ-large. Bernstein said the goal was nothing and the movement was everything and a wag of the “resource-mobilization” school of thought regarding social movements said that where there were resources, movements appeared later.

That was exactly what the 1960s generation ended up doing–appropriating its share of the swag. SDS went after surplus-value first and asked questions later, the modus operandi of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Notes:
1. Sara Evans, Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement & the New Left (NY: Vintage Books, 1980), p. 240.
2. Ibid., p. 197.
3. New York Radical Feminists, Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson eds., (NY: Times Mirror, 1974), p. 78.
4. , Ibid., p. 66.
5. “While sympathetic with the resulting impulse to jettison theory, I hope to persuade you not to give it to men. . . . New theories help make new realities.”
Catharine MacKinnon, “Theory is not a Luxury,” Are Women Human and Other Dialogues (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 34.

Insider problem at CNN

July 28, 2010

The recent CNN reaction to the Department of Agriculture firing hullabaloo is in-between-the-lines proof that CNN knows it is part of the news in my lynching case. I suppose CNN deserves some credit for bringing this to my attention, since I have not mentioned it before. (I don’t watch television much, so it easily escaped my mind.)

A regular on CNN who only a few years ago was disinforming listeners that there was no threat to Social Security from red ink was a Democratic candidate for Congress, whose campaign manager was the Fruitfly. One would think that an active candidate for Congress would be sign enough that maybe CNN should not rely on die-hard Democrats as sources for a news story about die-hard Democrats.

For that matter, the Fruitfly himself often pointed out that the First Amendment protects the press from the government. There is no legal protection of the government from the press. Breitbart is press. So am I. Getting a little foamy around the mouth CNN?

Ironically, here I am: I did not campaign for Jesse Jackson and Batman and Robin did, but it’s me who said Jesse Jackson should be president right now. That’s what gets me qualified as an “enemy” who just chips away at reputations. It goes to show that even offering Democrats a Democrat that die-hards already campaigned for is not loyal enough to the die-hard Democrat agenda.

But wait, it gets better. The dynamic duo’s usual international defender has made a big point of ceasing defense of them at this moment. It’s a miracle. That’s how wrapped into the story the dynamic duo and a couple people at CNN are: they didn’t even notice.

Note:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/23/ltm.03.html

Shades of gray

July 27, 2010

I’ve been accused of not seeing shades of gray. That is false. It’s just that I don’t talk about shades of gray. Lynchers #1-3 are not shades of gray. They are clearcut problems. There are many other spies and decadent females I could talk about.

In the same vein, one of the most difficult aspects of being the focus of media lynching for five years is that Amerikan females generally ARE a shade of gray different than the lynchers. It is especially true that intellectual females think about sex the same way as spies do — that it has no intrinsic value and that it might as well be exchanged for something regarding a supposed secret of Washington, Wall Street, Moscow or Beijing.

MIM’s approach is to defend LGBT rights and remove rigid role pressures from asexuals. In our opinion, this will also do the most to remove decadence from heterosexual relations. Too many pseudo-feminists do not understand that pursuing a man for his alleged extrinsic connections to something going on in the world in power is degrading, moreso than what they spend most of their time attacking if they do bother to attempt feminism.

While pornography protects females, because we do not want to send our Lindsay Lohans to prison and combat, females readily assent to sending males off to war, prison, murder and a disproportionate share of youth suicide. Females are now the vast majority of college graduates being minted as well. The gender aristocracy movement simply misses cause and effect.

In pornographic magazines, females say they like sex, and never tell us the complicated and possibly stupid and evil things they have been doing. Nonetheless, attraction to the body is at least intrinsic to the individual who has the attractive body, and it does vary from individual to individual. What spies want is the same thing as money, extrinsic to the individual.

  • An 18-year-old sleeps with an 18-year-old for the purposes of a spy database. Wrong? Yes. In Egypt it would be horrible. In the United $tates, it’s a shade of gray, to be taken lightly.

    Then there are questions of fact. I don’t always report what I have been told, because in many cases the media and secret services disinform me to protect the Democratic Party at this time. Taken together the gray areas below do complete a picture. Maybe some of them are false, but some of them likely are true, and overall the gray areas help a reader to understand what has to be evaluated.

  • A Castroite and then a Gus Hall hack date someone for the purposes of extortion 25 years later. Wrong? Yes. Factually solid? — OK, the facts add up for this tip, but I don’t report it. It’s gray. One could question whether I’m just in denial, because I don’t want to think about all females that way.

  • A Gus Hall follower blocks my career path by pushing retraction of a job offer I received from someone else. It makes sense and I did not draw the party connection. It’s a shade of gray.

  • Yahoo! says the Brits don’t do Romeo/Juliet spies, but they recruit LGBT. This I consider a joke, and put it at 15% likelihood, but an increasing likelihood over time, just given the numbers of the situation.

  • Various papers and tabloids try to tell me a whole relationship in the 1980s was CIA. This I give a higher probability rating to.

    The following points I believe might not have super-high probability alone, but together add up.

  • Out of nowhere, an Army brat tells me he is going to see if he can get me into the Cabinet — in the 1980s when I showed no such interest. Did he know something already?

  • Two NASA brats tell me one-liners out of the blue in the 1980s that would seem to point to lyncher #1.

  • A friend of mine tells me out of the blue a two-liner in the early 1980s that I will have to sue for racial discrimination or get stuck in middle management — this when I was not looking for a job and was yet to head to graduate school.

  • “SALT”

    July 27, 2010

    This month we’ve had the Anna Chapman story and now the “Salt” movie, and Angelina Jolie has noted the timing.

    I will take this opportunity to note the difference between our line on femme fatales and R¢P’s. The R¢P raises the femme fatale idea only to relieve themselves for responsibility on their own backwardness. They say that femme fatales happen because “there are no other positive role models.”

    Excuse me, that was no positive role models in the 1950s when Avakkkian was growing up. That’s not the same thing as nothing for lyncher #1 to see. Lyncher #1 also lived in an era of approximately equal college enrollments by gender, unlike the 1960s.

    Saying there were no positive role models for lyncher #1 is a poor excuse for their support for Obama and lynching. In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro was already on the Mondale ticket for president as vice-president. In 1988, D. Wilder won as a Black man in a mostly white southern state, Virginia. That same year we had the consensus in the press regarding Willie Horton. In other words, on all these points the R¢P went further backwards than what the backward imperialist system had already vomited up.

    Instead of defending existing historical gains, the R¢P took its usual hydra-headed approach to two-line struggle in which it claimed credit for both sides, the same way the CIA enters both sides of a civil war to get information. In contrast, MIM comes from Marx, who since the “Theses on Feuerbach” stressed that reality and change are not two-sided recycling of history.

    Here’s what I have to say to the SVR located in suburban Moscow and other secret services. There are a lot of things you could have done to help me out.

  • You could have helped me out by telling me who in my circles was sent to disrupt monogamy, because you know darn well that “do your own thing” is never going to produce a real communist movement here.
  • You could have sent me a girlfriend, sure, and told her why the mission was a good one, since we in the revolution are at a disadvantage in attracting money-obsessed females, obviously.
  • Barring a girlfriend, you could have sent people with other skills, such as language interpretation.
  • You could have sent someone to argue with me about the Aesopian class, and if I did not agree, your agent could have done the Aesopian analytical work instead.

    I fully believe that the 95% of progress of the United $tates comes from outside. You overrate the value of the left-wing of parasitism. All it has done is rediscover the joys of the mafia and crony capitalism. Look at all this great corporatism we have now under Obama.

    There is an infinite possible role for outsiders to play. The vast majority of the world benefits from a communist movement in the United $tates, regardless of what it thinks of communism elsewhere.


    Note:

    http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/arts-and-entertainment/movies/Art-Imitates-Life-in-Spy-Thriller-Salt-99233314.html

  • Senate re-discovers brain drain

    July 26, 2010

    Orders change in constitution to favor those families that have been here longest

    Not!

    Twinkies revolt, not!

    The U.S. Senate has rediscovered the brain drain by which Third World countries pay for primary, secondary and even college education only to have their educated people sucked into the United $tates. The Senate first discovered the brain drain in the 1960s. It remains a mystery which great Senator rediscovered it.

    Senator Leahy said, “gosh, I didn’t know we took all those tens of thousands of Chinese after Tiananmen Square, and gave them citizenship, after China paid for their educations, usually in the hard sciences. That’s terrible. We should not have used our citizenship that way, because only Amerikans who have been here a long time should have graduate degrees.”

    Ex-KKK spokespersyn David Duke said, “I concur. When are we going to close the visas to Asians down completely?”

    Senator Webb called for a constitutional amendment requiring hiring and education decisions to favor peoples that have spent the most generations here. Applicants will wear a tag with a decimal point for the average length of years one’s ancestors have been inside the United $tates.

    President Obama promised to ship back all the people invited to the United $tates under his administration. “We didn’t mean it,” he said. “We just didn’t know it,” he added.

    Ex-President George W. Bush apologized for letting Obama stay in the country, when many other Blacks of longer generational standing have been around. “The Reagan administration should have deported him to allow another spot at Harvard Law to a sixteenth generation Black,” Bush said.

    A communist proposed that the United $tates open the borders to other Third World peoples, including laborers to even out the disparities. “More Asian poor should be allowed to live in the United $tates,” the communist said. “That would even out affirmative action questions.”

    Henry Park, a former minority scholarship holder added, “Gee, I’m sorry I took the scholarship that whites applied me for and recommended me to take while using me as a photo op for merit in scholarship. Now that I understand that the Constitution says people who have been here longest are superior to those who have been here shorter time, I’m sure I should have taken the Regents fellowship (publicly funded, merit-based) instead. Because I didn’t take that fellowship, it went to — a white female, from a southern state and a military background and a family of long generations going back. Wait a minute, isn’t that what you said you wanted to happen? Wasn’t that who started the complaint to begin with, a white female?”

    A MIM investigation found that no matter what twisted words politicians use, they mean that white females should have benefited from all programs.


    Note:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html

    Reply to James Webb

    July 23, 2010

    Senator James Webb finally comes out and says what I believe is the implicit neo-colonial alliance of the moment. “Many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.” He is calling for the ending of programs except for Blacks with the reasoning about an 1866 law that cited Blacks only and with an argument about “the injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government.”

    I consider this a coded reaction to my lynching.

    How often we hear from the white majority inclined to Anglo-Saxon virtues not to wait for the government. Good deeds come from the private sector, the Liberals say.

    The CIC scholarship I won and which Webb is targeting had its funds from the private sector. There were two major sources, and it’s a testament to the inefficacy of the private sector press that it has yet to examine who was on the boards of those sources of private funding.

    True, a public sector university, the University of Michigan offered me the scholarship. (I did not know about it to apply for it; yet, that did not stop its being ended.) When it argued with the state legislature at the time, the University of Michigan said it was mostly private because it obtained tuition money and other funds that outweighed the state’s subsidies. At MIM, we do not believe that the University of Michigan and similar places should try to escape their public obligations.

    The CIC also included the University of Chicago in the program and the University of Chicago had a better case for being private, as did Northwestern University, another member. Even in their cases, MIM would say they get some federal assistance and that courts often choose the wrong way in that matter in determining university status, but it appears Webb did not consider that sort of implication in his argument.

    Another favorite argument we hear in the United $tates is that affirmative action is wrong because scholarship and job questions should be decided on merit. The CIC scholarship attempted to have it both ways by being disproportionately for Blacks by merit, yet allowing a handful of Asians by merit. The whole scholarship was supposed to be by merit. The ratio of Blacks to others–one might guess the private sector had the say, and in the end, the private sector ended it for Asian-Amerikans first with words about priorities.

    I only raised this issue because of diplomacy that has arisen in the last few years. (Readers can find out about that situation by reading more articles on this web page and another one, http://mimdown.wordpress.com .) I did not start a campaign for this scholarship at the time. When I learned of the cancellation of the minority funding for Asian-Amerikans I said I did not necessarily oppose it and I left the University of Michigan with a question whether it was going to be a “world class university” as it did in fact claim to be. In such a case, we cannot be surprised to see the University become 50% Asian as universities compete to pull in international students.

    James Webb concocts a very particular argument to oppose what I am saying and justify what happened. In the real world of universities, “merit,” “the private sector” and “world class university” propaganda are the norm, not the 1866 law Webb referred to. That’s not to say I would oppose setting up a federal university. It would be a good place to put all the spooks running around campuses today.

    Note:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    Patrick Buchanan on race in the North

    July 23, 2010

    In a syndicated column, Patrick Buchanan just said that “for the first time in our lifetimes, outside the South, white racial consciousness has visibly begun to rise.”(1)

    He credits a series of Obama missteps.

    I don’t know if Obama has yet succeeded in polarizing whites beyond what they were under Bush. Buchanan has yet to provide more than anecdotal evidence.

    I do know that the strategy of the Avakkkianites is the northern version of the KKK. And as I said before, they demonstrated with the KKK in Boston in the 1970s.

    My conflict with Obama is a dream-come-true for divide-and-conquer. It was set up that way.

    Notes:
    http://www.globe-democrat.com/news/2010/jul/23/losing-white-america/