Archive for the ‘U.S. politics’ Category

Back on break

August 7, 2010

I’m going back on break after that brief flurry of articles.

People who know me well understand that I liked role-playing games somewhat in my 20s and almost not at all now. It’s not a good idea to pitch me a role and hope that I bite. I prefer strategy games.

Increasingly I believe that key people understand my position and use it to compare notes. As someone not in an official role, I feel that there is often an ethical problem in my partaking in short-run politics and following diplomacy. Although I believe I am a more transparent writer than anyone else available in comparable position, the short-run questions also damage my writing occasionally, from an analysis mistake or opaqueness.

At this point, I believe that even my strategic thinking of the next few months may be clear to those that need to know.

I hope I am wrong, and it certainly won’t be up to me, but it seems that Obama will turn down the huge peace package and domestic deal he has had a chance to take. I am far from an expert on diplomacy and only ended up thrown into a vacuum by conspirators, but it’s clear that the Alinskyite and former New Left movements do not show much influence of diplomatic thinking and know even less. We seem to lack the key constituencies to provide political battle on behalf of diplomacy. Once again, I hope I’m wrong.

“Inception”

August 7, 2010

This is a deep movie and deserves credit for that. However, I would say it prepares the superstructure for Obama’s continued rule.

When the movie is all-said-and-done, an East Asian man completes a brainwashing scheme to help compete with an energy company owned by a white man. However, we can be pretty sure the movie is not talking about Cheney’s company or Bush’s, and that is what makes the movie negative. On the plus side, with most of the characters white, the racial danger is often softened for most of the global audience. White characters help both sides of the struggle in the plot.

Various agents go on a mission of dreaming three dreams at once. One ends up going for four dreams at once.

The positive aspect of “Inception” is the constant struggle between reality and dreams. Characters have to check on reality at all times and struggle to arrive at wakefulness. As such, “Inception” is a good metaphor for the haze of espionage and counter-espionage struggles.

In MIM’s case, there are the lowly Democratic activists who believe they did one thing innocently. There is another layer where some Democrats know they did not campaign innocently but still support lynching. Then there is the foreign element as another layer and back up a few years and there is another layer.

“Inception” may have a little of the post-911 disease. It’s not carrying around a talisman that keeps a persyn real. Certain events cannot cause certain others and there is also the matter of watching who benefits.

  • How did I force Obama to say “uncle”? I could not.
  • How did I force anyone to start the careers they did in the plot? I did not. On this it’s a question of doing one’s homework. One either understands the payouts or one does not.
  • Can you think of anything I would not have done if I were campaigning the way Obamautons say?

    Angelina Jolie’s “SALT” movie also handles the plot within the plot idea and does it better. It’s inescapable that various Soviet operations have upended around the world, and not just within U.$. borders. In simplified form, one agent kills others. In one situation, one kills pretty much the whole National Security Council. Being right about reality is important to plots within plots in “SALT” as in “Inception.”

  • Labor bureaucracy gets in on the Aesopian junk

    August 7, 2010

    I don’t want to say we at MIM never get support from any labor aristocracy, gender aristocracy or the bureaucrats that represent them. Nothing is ever 100% pure, even as we generalize that those social groups are generally reactionary. The international proletariat is not pure in its thinking either, or the whole struggle against imperialism would have finished long ago.

    Two unions have been having battles with a third union, the SEIU of my lyncher #2’s fame (and by the way, I myself worked for ACORN once). The UFW and UNITE-HERE are calling for unity with SEIU and transcending the mess Andy Stern left.

    UNITE-HERE has fought a battle with SEIU that the labor bureaucracy is painting as a defeat for outgoing SEIU chief Andy Stern. “Beyond Chron” San Francisco’s “Alternative Online Daily” shows a new truce with SEIU and the UNITE-HERE paper-shufflers getting tens of millions of dollars in property back from SEIU, thanks to an agreement with Mary Kay Henry.

    “Of all the boneheaded moves that came to typify Andy Stern’s last two years, none surpasses his belief that UNITE HERE would respond to SEIU’s raids on its members by quickly calling uncle.”

    It turns out that UNITE-HERE organizers claim to have had physical threats from SEIU going back to 1989.

    It appears that the writers covering the labor bureaucracy struggle understand very well what MIM has said about a lynching conducted to support the Afghan war. “One could say that Henry had the political courage to do what Barack Obama has failed to deliver in Afghanistan, which is to withdraw from their predecessor’s misguided conflict. SEIU cannot be happy with the exact terms of the deal, but Henry made her allies happy by getting it done.”

    MIM has also seen signs in New York that the labor bureaucracy increasingly understands that diplomacy-as-usual costs people who have nothing to do with the stodginess of diplomacy leading to war.

    People who know MIM understand we do not cater to any labor bureaucrats, but when one pulls a tight line, class struggle happens and people have to take sides. The way we think of it theoretically is that by allying with the international proletariat first, and the national bourgeoisie second, the bourgeois internationalists start to notice and then in turn some of the imperialist country labor bureaucrats also take note.

    Probably some labor bureaucrats get Russian money, others Chinese. In any case, whatever the real underlying situation, the labor bureaucracy has demonstrated a metaphorical understanding of the spy situation in my life including that it looks like SEIU got itself woven right in among federal spies, indistinguishably, politically-speaking. I hope some labor bureaucrats can win by purging themselves of Alinskyism.

    Ironically, members of both the investor class and the labor bureaucracies can see that money is going to waste on wars carried out because of the federal government’s unwillingness to go to the all-out diplomacy that MIM has come to represent — if only for heuristic purposes right now. Currently, the federal government and die-hard Democrats are active in throwing up all kinds of COINTELPRO junk in our faces.

    On the need for unblocking diplomacy, fiscally conservative tax-cutters and portions of the labor movement can agree. When the politicians are gutless, it’s not just the 19-year-olds sent to fight in the developing countries who pay.

    I have to express gratitude to anyone has bothered to pay attention to what I’ve been saying.

    Note:
    http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8357
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dolores-huerta/an-open-letter-to-seiu-pr_b_668660.html

    “Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore”

    August 7, 2010



    This particular poster has metaphorical meaning for me.

    The two reviews I checked say the movie is no good, other than the spoof of James Bond. Spy mania is still running huge at this time, as befits a country with as many spies as the United $tates.

    “Red” due out October 15

    August 7, 2010

    I have thought of three reasons for an incorrect approach to “two-line struggle.” First, some have it both ways by sending people to both sides of a cause, because they are CIA spying. Secondly, some set up career networks, spying or otherwise. Thirdly, there is the petty-bourgeoisie infecting the communist movement with a have-it-both ways approach.

    Now apparently, MIM fans will have to take into account another possibility — that the CIA has internal demographic conflict. There has been much hiring in the intelligence community since 9/11. The “Red” movie trailer suggests that sometimes the CIA actually has real conflicts within.

    In my situation there has to be some truth to that, because I’m reviewing history of the Cold War and the Mideast, not just the last 10 years, which taken alone are misleading.

    October 15 is the birthdate of the Black Panther Party in 1966 and so we are on the look out for political significance in another upcoming Hollywood movie.

    Unemployment and what MIM can do right now

    August 2, 2010

    The unemployment rate is twice what U.$. people would like it to be. Some Harvard Business School authors have already argued that government’s role is not associated with increased employment in the United $tates. Just calling for the government to fix unemployment might not work, and Marx provided reasons why that could be true in a situation like the U.$. one. By MIM’s calculations of surplus-value, there is not a straight-forward solution of the types being discussed in the media.

    What I find more interesting in this question is the employment-population ratio. There is now a nifty little Internet tool for data available: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

    I obtained data from 1948 to 2010. Employment of people 16 years and older never crossed 60% annually till 1985. True, it was not till January 2009 that that number fell below 60% again.

    There is no doubt that the figure implied crushed dreams of prime working age men and some would say female employment is in a bad trend too. Yet, every generation has its unique aspects.

    At 58.9% in June, 2010, the employment ratio is still higher than the 1950s numbers. Gender roles may have to change. Competent females may have pushed men aside or perhaps men are too pussy-whipped to push aside incompetent females. Given what happened in the 1950s and 1960s no one can say that there might not be a new pattern ahead for the 2010s.

    The central Keynesian proposition is over-debated and confined to a national space. Increased GDP right now means more military activity, more climate degradation and delayed intellectual grappling with how the crisis came about — various forms of waste. Maybe there are some people who really could use a break from work too, if they thought about it. Questions of trade and immigration along with cultural trends are under-debated, not that we favor dumbocracy.

    My civil rights should not depend on my stand on unemployment, taxes, Arizona’s new law or any other domestic issue. I don’t mind talking about foreign affairs seeing as the situation I am in requires allies from somewhere.

    In any case, talking to MIM on a reformist basis points to geopolitics first. If it were up to us, there’d be no unemployment and Ayn Randians would be calling us slave-drivers, but socialism is not on the agenda here, despite the delusions of the 20%. Without the international proletariat in position to fix things the way we think they should be fixed, we go to where the gains can be had more in line with bourgeois internationalist thinking. How far in the reformist direction the international economic system can go by ganging up on the labor aristocracy and gender aristocracy is more along the lines of what we can think about for buying some time for the species to survive militarism and climate degradation.

    It may be that global class struggle can be structured in a more orderly way after we seize the key link of geopolitics. Hence, in place of a domestic debate about unemployment, if MIM were forced to come up with something for right now it would be about reforming the entire global capitalist system and going from there. While some would see that as buying some time against militarism and climate change, others might see that as patching a system that might have collapsed sooner. On the whole, it’s an incalculable question, overly heavy in its implications; however, Niall Ferguson reminds us that young people make revolution. At the moment, we do not see class consciousness to allow the sooner collapse of the system with revolution right now. What we see is class consciousness developing and pushing the system down, so that more likely, developing country youth will break through more and more often.

    MIM’s readers should appreciate that most of MIM’s writing is for the youth. It’s only in recent years that the imperialists give me a ring-side seat on questions of “national security,” thereby obliging me on questions of reform and short-run geopolitics.

    MIM reminds the social-democrats that long before the current economic crisis, our position was that social-democrats stir up imperialist country fears of economic degradation, which fascism then harvests. The perverse effect of talking about unemployment all the time is sociological, not economic. The result will be guilt followed by anti-social activities ranging from alcoholism to murder to fascist movements.

    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

    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