DoubleThink!

Socialism holds in Venezuela

2006-12-04T10:15:00.000-05:00

Chavez takes the Venezuelan election again With a 60% lead over his right-wing canidate, the people of Venezuela have spoken in support of socialism.

For a better and more indepth article on this, check out Lenin's Tomb.

Indiana Anarchists on Strike!

2006-12-01T10:42:00.000-05:00

Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana, USA
Anarchist students of the Purdue Alliance of Libertarian Socialists, in solidarity with the Purdue Organization of Labor Equality and the oppressed workers of the world, are currently engaged in a hunger strike and camp-in, the purpose of which is to pressure Purdue University to stop having its apparel maunfactured in sweatshops. The hunger strike, which began on Friday, 17 November, will continue until Purdue unequivocally accepts the Designated Suppliers Program and other anti-sweatshop measures. Students have also been occupying various campus buildings 24 hours a day despite intense police harrassment. The occupation will continue throughout the Thanksgiving holiday.

Students at Purdue have been struggling for 7 years now to make Purdue a sweat-free campus. This campaign is our “piece de resistance.” We will not stop our strike until our demands are met.

THE PURDUE ALLIANCE OF LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISTS NEEDS THE HELP OF OUR COMRADES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD!

What you can do to help us:

1. Contact the Purdue Board of Trustees, President Martin Jischke, and Vice President of University Relations Joe Bennett

Purdue Board of Trustees
E-mail – trustees@purdue.edu
Phone: 765-494-9710
Fax: 765-496-7465

President Martin Jischke
E-mail: mcjischke@purdue.edu
Phone: 765-494-9708

Vice President of University Relations Joe Bennett
E-mail: jlbennett@purdue.edu
Phone: 765-494-2085

2. Send letters of support to the strikers c/o egcollective@riseup.net

3. Electronically sign our petition c/o egcollective@riseup.net

WE NEED YOUR HELP! PLEASE CONTACT PURDUE AND EXPRESS YOUR SOLIDARITY WITH STRIKING STUDENTS!

For anarchy,

– The Purdue Alliance of Libertarian Socialists

War Within a Breath

2006-11-30T10:20:00.000-05:00

President Bush really should not talk. In a press conference about the Iraqi Civil War at the University of Latvia, Mein Fuhrer Bush was quoted as saying, "There is one thing I'm not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." Keep in mind this is the same President who appeared just a few years ago in a tight flight suit, proudly toting that it was "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Try not to backtrack, Mr. Bush, you might hurt yourself.

Popapananza!

2006-11-29T12:27:00.000-05:00

I have yet to meet one person who doesn't think that the Pope has it out for him when he goes to Turkey this month. After his comments regarding Islamic scripture, the entire fundamentalist community has it out for the man. However, if such an attack were to be pulled off (sucessfully), I'm pretty sure we could expect to see large tides of people (Latin America/South Amercia in general due to high concentrations of Catholics) turn against Muslims on a large scale. So, really, an attack on the Pope has it's good sides and down sides:

A successful attack could cause world wide anti-Muslim sentiments resulting in possible violence.
A successful attack would rid us of one more authoritarian religious bafoon.

While I'm not pushing for violence against the Pope, my feelings towards religious leaders aren't that high. In all though, the Islamic community shouldn't risk the Islamophobia that will surely follow, world-wide. People don't seem to comprehend that an act pulled off by a group of extremists doesn't and shouldn't speak for everyone of that faith.

Penny Tossing

2006-11-27T19:32:00.000-05:00

While enjoying a round table discussion of money and food over lunch with my friends (where else?), a comrade of mine gave me a wonderful idea. She and I were discussing that nasty feeling of pennies (you know, the smell) when she said that she threw hers away because she never found much use for them. This came after I had just watched a wonderful video on the anti-WTO riots (Seattle '99) and heard them talk momentarily of "economic sabotage."

So, soon enough, the idea of throwing pennies away grew on me. It was a small thing but it gave me many ideas on economic sabotage. While smashing out the windows of a McDonalds are a little big yet to a boy with no drivers liscense, the idea of doing little daily things seemed so much better and something that could really promote solidarity, at least in the mind of an individual who felt a little isolated in a small town (me).

I'm really not trying to suggest that throwing away pennies is a big act or even an act in itself, but just something to think about. Maybe what I'm really trying to get through with this is that little acts done by a lot of people really puts a mark. If people start ridding themselves of spare change and putting it into places where it won't be used, then I'm sure that will have to have some impact, somewhere down the line. Along with those things, I'd suggest:

Taking forks and spoons from your local government funded schools and donating them to a homeless shelter or a collective (or, if your family is like many American families and is stretched thin economically, use them yourselves. After all, they were paid for by your taxes).
Reclaiming food and/or land from corporate owned farms.
Need to make some propaganda poster? Schools in my area are notoriously short on paper, so why not help rid them of their extra leaflets and take some out of their printers to make your next revolutionary statement? After all, remember who paid for them.
Sidewalk chalk is a fun and cheap alternative to spray paint. So are sharpies. Find this richest neighborhood nearby and tell them how you feel!

So thos are tiny things,but on a rainy day, they help build a good spirit. Anyone one with further little ideas, shoot them at me.

Bulls on Parade

2006-11-27T10:47:00.000-05:00

I regret not having covered the Oaxaca struggle yet in this blog.

What is being called the "vanguard of the Mexican and Latin American struggles" by the revolutionaries in Oaxaca, this insurrection and occupation of the city, in my view, stands out as a huge milestone on the timeline of leftist revolutions. No, wait, I mean: people's revolutions. The fight for Oaxaca wouldn't be so prominent if it was fought only by insurgents or easily dubbed "guerillas" (despite what the main stream media would like you to think). In reality, the Oaxaca rebels are not just "insurgents." James Daria of Narco News said, in regards to the people's involvement:

"Throughout the course of the battle the residents of the community came out in support of the protesters. While the front lines ferociously battling police were made up mostly of Oaxacan youth, there were large numbers of older adults and many women among the ranks of the rebels. Whole families came out in solidarity with the movement. Many residents watched from their roofs and others brought out their mirrors to try and blind the pilots of the helicopters."

Could this be the forefront of a full-scale socialist revolution in Latin America? One wouldn't be alone if they thought so. This comes in tune with the election of notorious leftists Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), and even the former Sandinista and Marxist Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua). However, the Oaxaca revolt differs in its style. It is not a political revolution. It did not bring about a change of power through electoral workings. Instead, it was the mass movement of the people. In the true style of Mikhail Bakunin, it was a collectivist assault on the ruling class.

The reaction of the Oaxaca peoples may have started under the guise of an annual teachers strike, a yearly attempt that started in the late '70's with a call for more funding for public school uniforms, lunches and supplies. When it was met with police repression in May of 2006, however, it literally turned into a supernova, sparking the people to fight not just for the rights of the teachers' union, but also for the entire working class. Activists with true dedication took to the streets to battle the PFP and PRI backed paramilitary forces. Why Chicano police would continue to battle their brothers and sisters is beyond me. A police officers pay is no better than any other working person. It always struck me as ludacris that police would try and silence a working class movement, especially one that benefit all involved. Over all though, police who do not side with this struggle should not be constantly spared so as to try and gain muscle. We cannot constantly forego the dirty work to keep our hands clean, if that makes any sense.

This all being said, and my solidarity with the Oaxaca rebels clear, there are problems with their tactics and working that leave me frustrated. For example, one can look at the recent day of brutality that saw full-on gunfire coming from PFP forces.

On November 25, two days ago from this posting, a peaceful demonstration in one of Oaxaca's main parks brought the deaths of three people by gunfire and the wounding of many others. In an attempt to form a human sheild around the PFP and PRI forces (peacefully), the APPO and other revolutionaries were met with tear gas and bruising force from the police and other governmental tools. When the need for self-defense was made evident, the revolutionaries responded with stones, slingshots and small-scale expolosives, a mere set of toys next to the PFP's goliath weapons. Overreacting, but reacting expectantly, the PFP returned fire with live ammunition, wounding dozens and causing even deaths. This is where my problem gives rise.

Why haven't the Oaxaca rebels fought fire with fire?

Peace is a wonderful thing and many would give anything in their possession to attain it, namely our brothers and sisters in Oaxaca. One must be ready to fight for peace though, as backwards as it may sound. Stones can do so much in biblical times, but when facing the fascism of a coporate plutocracy, the resistance of workers with guns says a lot more. The weapons population may be thin, but in true Zapatista spirit, armed revolt speaks much louder. Every effort to peace must be tried before using such violent methods, some say. In reality though, haven't the Oaxaca rebels tried peace? They have given peace a chance but only to have that turn into the spilled blood of almost 15 innocent people. John F. Kennedy said it best when he said "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." The PFP are making a peaceful change of government impossible. The only way the APPO can/should respond now is with an explosion of armed revolutionary fervor. Only they can bring about the change, no outside governments or elections will do justice. They really do have a "world to win."

Hot Damn, it's Christmas time!

2006-11-25T23:03:00.000-05:00

With Thanksgiving over, the time for the holidays rolls in and the stress sets in.

Wait, I'm sorry. That was terribly incorrect of me to say "the holidays." It's quite clearly just another way of me to help wage the "war on Christmas."

That's right, comrades, the time of year has come for right wingers to start accusing the non-extremists of committing a war on Christianity, Christmas, Jesus, tradition, theocracies, the family, and anything else that's synonymous with "moral values." That is, their moral values.

Around this time last year, Bill O'Reilly and his ilk started accusing leftists and anyone else not allied with the Grand Ol' Pedophiles of supporting a war on Christmas and a "secular regime." I'm not sure where he got that. Maybe it was when corporations tried to appeal to diverse neighborhoods by saying "Happy Holidays" instead of alienation anyone. In true "Go Christian or go home" fashion, Bill shot out a poorly written article against the "leftists" (Yeah, calling Wal-Mart and the like leftists seemed a little odd to me too).

So, when reviewing this problem, I can only say that my solution would be to leave it alone. If you'd like to say Merry Christmas, I think our Constitution grants you that right. If you'd like to say Happy Holidays, do so. If you'd like to say "Kill Bill," that's even more acceptable (at least, in my book it is).

The confusing part about this is the fact that O'Reilly is such a proponent of people who would want to choose not to follow a "controlling...government". He lashes out at anyone who advocates a program in school that teaches, say, Islamic traditions but supports forcing corporations into honoring Christianity, even if their customers aren't Christian. Hey Bill, if you really support a true republic, then you should support the freedom of people to choose what they say. Not that it is a big deal, but really, you shouldn't try to force people into accepting Christianity while at the same time bashing "totalarion leftists."

In the end though, does it really matter?

WTO Riots: Sad to Miss

2006-11-25T21:41:00.000-05:00

I was running a YouTube search and I found this video. I really wish I would have been old enough or in the area to experience this. It was a great collective of people fighting a common enemy and something I sadly missed. Seeing the Black Blocs in action was great and I hope I can participate in something like that someday.

Howard Zinn Speech in Madison, Wisconson

2006-11-25T20:42:00.000-05:00

'Madison is a very special place. I always have a special feeling when I come here. I have a feeling I am in a different country. And I’m glad, you know. Some people get disgusted of the American policy, and they go to live in some other country. No. Go to Madison.

So, now I’m supposed to say something. I am glad you’re there, whoever you are, and this light is shining in my eyes to wake me up.

Well, do you get the feeling sometime that you’re living in an occupied country? Very often that’s a feeling I get when I wake up in the morning. I think, “I’m living in an occupied country. A small group of aliens have taken over the country and are trying to do with it what they will, you know, and really are.” I mean, they are alien to me. I mean, those people who are coming across the border from Mexico, they are not alien to me, you see. You know, Muslims who come to this country to live, they are not alien to me, you see. These demonstrations, these wonderful demonstrations that we have seen very recently on behalf of immigrant rights, say, and you’ve seen those signs saying, you know, “No human being is alien.” And I think that’s true. Except for the people in Washington, you see.

They’ve taken over the country. They’ve taken over the policy. They’ve driven us into two disastrous wars, disastrous for our country and even more disastrous for people in the Middle East. And they have sucked up the wealth of this country and given it to the rich, and given it to the multinationals, given it to Halliburton, given it to the makers of weapons. They’re ruining the environment. And they’re holding on to 10,000 nuclear weapons, while they want us to worry about the fact that Iran may, in ten years, get one nuclear weapon. You see, really, how mad can you be?

And the question is, how has this been allowed to happen? How have they gotten away with it? They’re not following the will of the people. I mean, they manufactured a will of the people for a very short time right after the war started, as governments are able to do right after the beginning of an armed conflict, in order to able to create an atmosphere of war hysteria. And so for a short time, they captivated the minds of the American people. That’s not true anymore. The American people have begun to understand what is going on and have turned against the policies in Washington, but of course they are still there. They are still in power. The question is, you know, how did they get away with that?

So, in trying to answer the question, I looked a little at the history of Nazi Germany. No, it’s not that we are Nazi Germany, but you can learn lessons from everybody and from anybody’s history. In this case, I was interested in the ideas of Hermann Göring, who, you may know, was second in command to Hitler, head of the Luftwaffe. And at the end of World War II, when the Nazi leaders were put on trial in Nuremberg, Hermann Göring was in prison along with other of the leaders of the Nazi regime. And he was visited in prison by a psychologist who was given the job of interviewing the defendants at Nuremberg.

And this psychologist took notes and, in fact, a couple of years after the war, wrote a book called Nuremberg Diary, in which he recorded -- put his notes in that book, and he recorded his conversation with Hermann Göring. And he asked Göring, how come that Hitler, the Nazis were able to get the German people to go along with such absurd and ruinous policies of war and aggression?” And I happen to have those notes with me. We always say, “We happen to have these things just, you know, by chance.”

And Göring said, “Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country.”

I was interested in that last line: “It works the same way in any country.” I mean, here, these are the Nazis. That’s the fascist regime. We are a democracy. But it works the same way in any country, whatever you call yourself. Whether you call yourself a totalitarian state or you call yourself a democracy, it works the same way, and that is, the leaders of the country are able to cajole or coerce and entice the people into war by scaring them, telling them they’re in danger, and threatening them and coercing them, that if they don’t go along, they will be considered unpatriotic. And this is what really happened in this country right after 9/11. And this is happened right after Bush raised the specter of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and got for a while the American people to go along with this.

But the question is, how did they get away with it? What about the press? What about the media? Isn’t it the job of the press, isn’t it the job of the media, isn’t it the job of journalism to expose what governments do? Don’t journalists learn from I.F. Stone, who said, “Just remember two words,” he said to young people who were studying journalism, he said, “Just remember two words: governments lie”? Well, but the media have not picked up on that. The media have gone along, and they embraced the idea of weapons of mass destruction. You remember when Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations just before the onset of the Iraq war and laid out to the UN this litany of weaponry that Iraq possessed, according to him, and gave great details in how many canisters of this and how many tons of this, and so on and so forth. And the next day, the press was just aglow with praise. They didn’t do their job of questioning. They didn’t do their job of asking, “Where? What is your evidence? Where did you get this intelligence? Who did you talk to? What are your sources?”

Isn’t this what you learn as a freshman in college? “Hey, what are your sources? Where are your footnotes?” No, no. They were just -- the Washington Post said, “It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.” And the New York Times, you know, it was just beside themselves with admiration for Colin Powell. Of course, it all turned out to be untrue, all turned out to be lies. But the press did not do its job, and as a result, the American people, watching television, reading the newspapers, had no alternative source of information, no alternative opinion, no alternative critical analysis of what was going on.

And the question is, why still did the people believe what they read in the press, and why did they believe what they saw on television? And I would argue that it has something to do with a loss of history, has something to do with, well, what Studs Terkel called “national amnesia,” either the forgetting of history or the learning of bad history, the learning of the kind of history that you do get, of Columbus was a hero, and Teddy Roosevelt is a hero, and Andrew Jackson is a hero, and all these guys who were presidents and generals and industrialists, and so on. They are the great -- they are the people who made America great, and America has always done good things in the world. And we have had our little problems, of course -- like slavery, for instance, you know -- but we overcome them, you know, and, you know. No, not that kind of history.

If the American people really knew history, if they learned history, if the educational institutions did their job, if the press did its job in giving people historical perspective, then a people would understand. When the President gets up before the microphone, says we must go to war for this or for that, for liberty or for democracy, or because we’re in danger, and so on, if people had some history behind them, they would know how many times presidents have announced to the nation, we must go to war for this reason or that reason. They would know that President Polk said, “Oh, we must go to war against Mexico, because, well, there was an incident that took place on the border there, and our honor demands that we go to war.”
They would know, if they knew some history, how President McKinley took the nation into war against Spain and Cuba, saying, “Oh, we’re going in to liberate the Cubans from Spanish control.” And in fact, there was a little bit of truth to that: we did go in, we fought against Spain, we got Spain out of Cuba, we liberated them from Spain, but not from ourselves. And so, Spain was out, and United Fruit was in, and then the American banks and the American corporations were in.

And if people knew their history, they would know, you know, that President McKinley said, when -- as the American army was already in the Philippines and the American navy was already in the Philippines, and Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great presidential heroes, was lusting for war, then people would know that McKinley, who did not know where the Philippines were, but very often now presidents need to be briefed and told where something is. You know, George Bush, “This is Iraq is,” you know. Lyndon Johnson, “This is where the Gulf of Tonkin is.” You know, they need it.

And president -- they would know, if they knew history, that President McKinley said, “We’re going into the Philippines to civilize and Christianize the Filipinos.” And if they knew their history, if the history books spent some time on the war in the Philippines in the early part of the 20th century, instead of, as history books do -- they spend a lot of time on the Spanish-American War, which just lasted three months -- they spend virtually no time on the war on the Philippines, a bloody war which lasted, oh, seven years, and which involved massacres and the extermination of populations. That history doesn’t appear. You know, we had civilized and Christianized the Filipinos and established our control.

They would know, if they heard the President say, “We are going to bring democracy to the Middle East,” they would know how many times we brought democracy to other countries that we invaded. They would know if we brought democracy to Chile, when we overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973. They would know how we brought democracy to Guatemala when we overthrew, again, a democratically elected -- oh, we love democratic elections, we love free elections, except when they go the wrong way. And then we send either our army in or the CIA in or secret agents in to overthrow the government.
If people knew that history, they would never for a moment believe President Bush, when he says, oh, we’re going into Iraq, you know, because of this reason and that reason and liberty and democracy, and they’re a threat, you know. I mean, it takes -- yeah, it takes some historical understanding to be skeptical of the things that authorities tell you.

When you know history, you know that governments lie, as I.F. Stone said. Governments lie all the time. Well, not just the American government. It’s just in the nature of governments. Well, they have to lie. I mean, governments in general do not represent the people of the societies that they govern. And since they don’t represent the people and since they act against the interest of the people, the only way they can hold power is if they lie to the people. If they told people the truth, they wouldn’t last very long. So history can help in understanding deception and being skeptical and not rushing to embrace whatever the government tells you.
And if you know some history, you would understand something which is even more basic, perhaps, than the question of lying about this war or lying about this invasion, lying about this intervention, something more basic, if you knew some history: you would understand a sort of fundamental fact about society, and including our society, that the interests of the government and the interests of the people are not the same.
It’s very important to know this, because the culture tries very hard to persuade us that we all have a common interest. If they use the language “national interest” -- there’s no national interest. There’s their interest and our interest. National security -- now, whose security? National defense, whose defense? All these words and phrases are used to try to encircle us all into a nice big bond, so that we will assume that the people who are the leaders of our country have our interests at heart. Very important to understand: no, they do not have our interests at heart.

You will hear a young fellow who is going off to Iraq. I remember hearing the same thing when a young fellow went off to Vietnam. And a reporter goes up to the young fellow and says, “You know, young man, you’re going off, and what are your thoughts and why are you doing this?” And the young man says, “I’m doing this for my country.” No, he’s not doing it for his country. And now, she’s not doing it for her country. The people who go off to war are not doing fighting for their country. No, they’re not doing their country any good. They’re not doing their families any good. They’re certainly not doing the people over there any good. But they’re not doing it for their country. They’re doing it for their government. They’re doing it for Bush. That would be a more accurate thing to say: “I’m going off to fight for George Bush. I’m going off to fight for Cheney. I’m going off to fight for Rumsfeld. I’m going off to fight for Halliburton.” Yeah, that would be telling the truth.
And, in fact, you know, to know the history of this country is to know that we have had conflict of interest in this country from the very beginning between the people in authority and the ordinary people. We were not one big happy family that fought the American Revolution against England. I remember, you know, in school, that’s how it seemed, you know: they’re the patriots, and there’s all of us, working, fighting together at Valley Forge and Bunker Hill, and so on, against the Redcoats and the British, and so on. It wasn’t that way at all. It wasn’t a united country.

Washington had to send generals down south to use violence against young people to force them into military service. Soldiers in the revolutionary army mutinied against Washington, against officers, because there was class conflict in the army, just as there had been class conflict all through the colonies before the Revolutionary War. Well, anybody who knows the military, anybody who’s been in the military, knows that the military is a class society. There are the privates, and there are the officers. And in the Revolutionary War, the privates were not getting shoes, and they were not getting clothes and not getting food, and they were not getting paid. And the officers were living high in resplendence. And so, they mutinied, thousands of them.
I don’t remember ever learning about that when I studied history in school, because the myth comes down: oh, we’re all one big happy family. You mean, including the black slaves? You mean, including the Native Americans, whose land we were taking from them, mile by mile by mile by mile? We’re all one big happy family? The women, who were left out of all of this, were -- no, very important to understand that fundamental fact: those people who run the country and we, our interests are not the same.

So, yes, history is useful for that, for understanding -- understanding that we are a nation like other nations, for understanding that we are not, as again we are taught from early on, we are the greatest, we are number one, we are the best. And what -- it’s called American exceptionalism in the social sciences. The United States is an exception to the rule of nations. That is, the general rule of nations is they’re pretty bad. But the United States, our country, we are good. We do good in the world.

Not long ago, I was on a radio program, interviewed by -- this was sort of a regular commercial station. I like to be interviewed on regular commercial stations, where the guy really doesn’t know who he’s invited, you see. And he says, “Professor Zinn, don’t you think America has, in general, been a force for good in the world?” “No, no, no.” Why not ask me, “Do you think the British Empire was a force for good in Africa, or the Belgians were a force for good in the Congo, or the French were a force for good in Indochina? You think the United States was a force for good when they sent the Marines into Central America again and again and” -- no.

But there’s this notion of, you know, we are different. We are the great -- I mean, sure, there are very great things about America, but that’s not what we did to other countries, not what we did to black people, not what we did to Native Americans, not what we did to working people in this country who suffered twelve-hour days until they organized and rebelled and rose up. No, we have to be honest with ourselves.

This is a very hard thing to do: be honest about ourselves. I mean, but, you know, you’re brought up and you say, “I pledge allegiance,” you know, etc., etc., “liberty and justice for all,” “God bless America.” Why us? Why does God blessing us? I mean, why is He singling us out for blessing? You know. Why not, “God bless everybody”? If indeed, you know -- but, you know, we’re brought up -- if we were brought up to understand our history, we would know, no, we’re like other nations, only more so, because we are bigger and have more guns and more bombs, and therefore are capable of more violence. We can do what other empires were not able to do to such an extent. You know, we are rich. Well, not all of us. Some of us are, you see? But, no, we have to be honest.

Don’t people join Alcoholics Anonymous so that they can stand up and be honest about themselves? Maybe we ought to have an organization called Imperialists Anonymous, you know, and have the leaders of the country get up there on national television and say, “Well, it’s time, you know -- time to tell the truth.” It would be -- I don’t expect it to happen, but it would be refreshing.

And then, if we knew this history, we would understand how often fear has been used as a way of getting people to act against their own interests to work up hysteria and to get people to do terrible things to other people, because they’ve been made afraid. Wasn’t it fear and hysteria that motivated lynch mobs in the South? Wasn’t there created fear of black people, hysteria about black people, that led white people to do some of the most atrocious things that have been done in our history? And isn’t it today -- isn’t it fear, fear of Muslims, not just terrorists, in general? Of course, fear of terrorists, especially fear of Muslims, you see? A very ugly kind of sentiment to inculcate on the American people, and creating a kind of hysteria, which then enables them to control the population and enable them to send us into war after war and to threaten, you know, still another war.

And if we knew some history, we would know about the hysteria that accompanied the Cold War, the hysteria about communism. It’s not that communism didn’t exist, just as terrorism does exist, yes. It’s not that communism -- communism existed, and there was a Soviet Union, and it was repressive to its own people, and it did control Eastern Europe, but there was an enormous exaggeration of the Soviet threat to the point where -- oh, it’s not just that they’re in Eastern Europe. It’s, they’re going to invade Western Europe.

By the way, no evidence of that. CIA analysts who were specialists in the Soviet Union in recent years came forth and said there was never any evidence that the Soviet Union were going to invade Western Europe. But against that, NATO was created. Against that, the United States built up an enormous nuclear arsenal.
The Soviets were always behind the United States. They built up the Soviets as a threat, but after all, who had the atom bomb first? And who had more atom bombs than anybody? And who was the only country that actually dropped atomic bombs on ordinary people in two cities in Japan? And so, we who use the atomic bomb, we who accumulate the atomic bomb, we create a hysteria about countries that are desperately trying to catch up. Of course, Iran will never catch up, and North Korea will never catch up. The Soviet Union tried to catch up. But in creating this monster threat, we took trillions of dollars of the wealth of this country and expended it on military budgets.

And the hysteria about communism reached the point where -- and I’m not just talking about school kids hiding under their desks, you know, because the Soviets were going to drop an atomic bomb. There was no evidence the Soviets were going to drop an atomic bomb. By the way, there is evidence that the joint chiefs of staff, the people high up in the American government, at various, various times proposed preventive war, dropping nuclear weapons on the Soviet Union. But we created a threat so ominous, so omnipresent, that kids were, yeah, hiding under their desks, and also so that anything that happened anywhere in the world that was not to the liking of the United States became part of the world communist threat.

And so, to deal with that, we could go into any country in Latin America that we wanted. And because it was a communist threat, we would send an army over to Vietnam, and several million people would die, because Vietnam became the symbol of the communist threat in the world. When you think about how absurd it was to worry that Vietnam, already divided into a communist north and anti-communist south, to worry that, oh, now half of this tiny country is going to become communist, and just to the north a billion people had turned to communism. And there’s something a little bizarre.

But, you know, bizarre thinking is possible when you create fear and hysteria. And we’re facing, of course, that situation today with this whole business of terrorism. And if you added up all the times in speeches of George Bush and his Cabinet and all the times they used the word “terrorism” and “terror,” it’s a mantra they have created to frighten the American people.

I think it’s wearing off. You know, when you -- I think there’s beginning to be some recognition, and that accounts for the fact that public opinion has turned against the war. People no longer believe that we’re fighting in Iraq in order to get rid of terrorism, you know, because the evidence has become so overwhelming that even the mainstream media has reported it -- you know, the National Intelligence Estimate. And this is the government’s own intelligence agencies saying that the war in Iraq has caused a growth of terrorist groups, has increased militancy and radicalism among Islamic groups in the Middle East.

But terrorism has supplanted communism as an attempt to get people to do things against their own interests, to do things that will send their own young people to war, to do things that will cause the depletion of the country’s wealth for the purposes of war and for the enrichment of the super-rich. It doesn’t take much thought about terrorism to realize that when somebody talks about a war on terrorism, they’re dealing with a contradiction in terms. How can you make war on terrorism, if war itself is terrorism? Because -- so you respond to terrorism with terrorism, and you multiply the terrorism in the world.

And, of course, the terrorism that governments are capable of by going to war is on a far, far greater scale than the terrorism of al-Qaeda or this group or that group or another group. Governments are terrorists on an enormously large scale. The United States has been engaging in terrorism against Afghanistan, against Iraq, and now they’re threatening to extend their terrorism to other places in the Middle East.

And some history of the use of fear and hysteria and some history of the Cold War and of the anti-communist hysteria would be very useful in alerting people to what we are going through today. I mean, with Iran, for instance, it’s shameful, and the media have played such a part in this, of the Iran nuclear weapon. They want a nuclear weapon. They don’t say they have a nuclear weapon. They want a nuclear weapon. So do I. Yeah, it’s easy to want a nuclear weapon. And small countries that face enormous military powers and who cannot possibly match the military power of these enormous countries, they are following what was the strategy of the United States: the United States said, “We must have a deterrent.” How many times have you heard, when you ask, “Why do we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?” “We must have a deterrent.” Well, they want a deterrent: one nuclear weapon. You know.

Not that situation with Iraq. I mean, you know, Condoleezza Rice: “a mushroom cloud.” We were the only ones who created mushroom clouds, over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iraq was in no position to create a mushroom cloud. All the experts on the Middle East and atomic weapons said, you know, Iraq was five-ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon, but we were creating, you know, hysteria about nuclear weapons.

Now we’re doing the same thing with Iran. And the International Atomic Energy group of the UN flatly contradicts a congressional report which talks about the danger of Iran’s nuclear weapons, and the international group, which has conducted many, many inspections in Iran, says, well, you know, you need to -- and they give the American people a kind of half-education. That is, they say, they use the phrase, “They’re enriching uranium.” Well, that scares me. You know, they’re enriching uranium. I don’t really know what it means, you see, but it’s scary. And then you read the report of the International Atomic Energy group, and you see, well, yes, they are. They’ve enriched uranium to the point of 3.5%. In order to have one nuclear weapon, they have to enrich it to 90%. They’re very, very far from even developing one nuclear weapon, but the phrase “enriched uranium” is, you know, repeated again and again, you know.

And so, yes, we need some historical understanding, yeah, just remembering back to Iraq, just remembering back to the hysteria around Vietnam. My god, a communist might take over South Vietnam! And then what? Just a short hop to San Francisco. No, some of you may remember that when Reagan was supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, he was saying, “You know, you see where Nicaragua is? It wouldn’t take much for them to get to Texas.” I wondered about that, you see? And then I wondered, why would the Nicaraguans want to get to Texas? And this is no slur on Texas, but -- and once they got to Texas, what would they do? Take a United Airlines flight to Washington. What would they -- but really, it’s very important to know some of that history to see how hysteria absolutely cripples consciousness about what is going on.

I would suggest something else. I’m getting worried about how much time I have taken. Well, actually, I’m not getting worried about how much time I’ve taken. I don’t care. I’m looking at my watch to pretend that I care. And since I don’t know when I started, I can’t figure out how long I’ve been talking.

But at some point the war in Iraq will come to an end. At some point, the United States will do in Iraq what it did in Vietnam, after saying, “We will never leave. We will never leave. We will win. We will stay the course. We will not cut and run.” At some point, the United States is going to have to cut and run from Iraq, you see. And they’re going to do it because the sentiment is going to grow and grow and grow in this country and because more and more GIs are going to come back from Iraq and say, “We’re not going back again,” and because they’re going to have more and more trouble supplying the armed forces in Iraq, and because the parents of young people are going to say more and more, “We are not going to allow our young people to go to war for Bechtel, you know, and Halliburton. We’re not going to do that.” So at some point, yes, at some point we are going to do what they say we mustn’t do: cut and run.

We don’t have to cut and run. Cut and walk. Cut and swim. Cut, but get out, as fast as you can, because we’re not doing any good there. We’re not helping the situation. We’re not bringing peace. We’re not bringing a democracy. We’re not bringing stability. We’re bringing violence and chaos. We’re provoking all of that, and people are dying every day. When a Democratic leader says, “Well, I think we ought to withdraw by May 14th, 2000-and-whatever.” You know, yeah, every day from now until then more people will die, and more people will lose arms or legs or become blinded. And so, that is intolerable. And so, we have to do everything we can.
And in the case of Vietnam, at a certain point the government realized it could not carry on the war. The GIs were coming back from Vietnam and turning against the war. They couldn’t bring people to join the ROTC. Too many people were running to Canada. Too many people were not signing up for the draft. Finally, it had to do away with the draft. They were losing the support of the population. They were losing support of the military. And at a certain point, no.

And something like that is going to happen. And the sooner we help it happen, of course, the better. The more we go into the high schools -- you know, there’s a very practical thing, very practical thing that everybody can do, and that is, go to their local high schools and make sure that all the parents and all the kids in high schools understand that they don’t have to give their information to the military recruiters, you see, as, you know. And more and more have teams of people who will counter the propaganda of the military recruiters.
You know, they are having trouble. They’re getting desperate about recruiting for the military, going to all sorts of lengths and, or course, they’re concentrating -- they send their military recruiters into the poorest schools, because they know that the working class kids are the most vulnerable, the most needy, the ones who, you know -- they need an education, they need a skill, and so. And so, they’re trying to prey on the working class. Eugene Debs said -- if you don’t mind my quoting Eugene Debs -- but Eugene Debs said in a speech during World War I, which landed him in jail, “The master class has always started the wars. The working class has always fought the wars.” And, of course, that has been true all the way. So we will at some point get out of Iraq.

But I want to suggest one thing: we have to think beyond Iraq and even beyond Iran. We don’t want to have to struggle against this war and then against that war and then against the next war. We don’t want to have an endless succession of antiwar movements. It gets tiring. And we need to think and talk and educate about the abolition of war itself, you see.

I was talking to my barber the other day, because we always discuss world politics. And he’s totally politically unpredictable, as most barbers are, you see. He said, “Howard,” he said, “you know, you and I disagree on many things, but on one thing we agree: war solves nothing.” And I thought, “Yeah.” It’s not hard for people to grasp that.

And there again, history is useful. We’ve had a history of war after war after war after war. What have they solved? What have they done? Even World War II, the “good war,” the war in which I volunteered, the war in which I dropped bombs, the war after which, you know, I received a letter from General Marshall, general of generals, a letter addressed personally to me, and to 16 million others, in which he said, “We’ve won the war. It will be a new world.” Well, of course, it wasn’t a new world. It hasn’t been a new world. War after war after war.

There are certain -- I came out of that war, the war in which I had volunteered, the war in which I was an enthusiastic bombardier, I came out of that war with certain ideas, which just developed gradually at the end of the war, ideas about war. One, that war corrupts everybody who engages in it. War poisons everybody who engages in it. You start off as the good guys, as we did in World War II. They’re the bad guys. They’re the fascists. What could be worse? So, they’re the bad guys, we’re the good guys. And as the war goes on, the good guys begin behaving like the bad guys. You can trace this back to the Peloponnesian War. You can trace it back to the good guy, the Athenians, and the bad guys, the Spartans. And after a while, the Athenians become ruthless and cruel, like the Spartans.

And we did that in World War II. We, after Hitler committed his atrocities, we committed our atrocities. You know, our killing of 600,000 civilians in Japan, our killing of probably an equal number of civilians in Germany. These, they weren’t Hitler, they weren’t Tojo. They weren’t -- no, they were just ordinary people, like we are ordinary people living in a country that is a marauding country, and they were living in countries that were marauding countries, and they were caught up in whatever it was and afraid to speak up. And I don’t know, I came to the conclusion, yes, war poisons everybody.

And war -- this is an important thing to keep in mind -- that when you go to war against a tyrant -- and this was one of the claims: “Oh, we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein,” which was, of course, nonsense. They didn’t -- did our government care that Saddam Hussein tyrannized his own people? We helped him tyrannize his people. We helped him gas the Kurds. We helped him accumulate weapons of mass destruction, really.
And the people you kill in a war are the victims of the tyrant. The people we killed in Germany were the victims of Hitler. The people we killed in Japan were the victims of the Japan Imperial Army, you know. And the people who die in wars are more and more and more people who are not in the military. You may know this about the different ratio of civilian-to-military deaths in war, how in World War I, ten military dead for one civilian dead; in World War II, it was 50-50, half military, half civilian; in Vietnam, it was 70% civilian and 30% military; and in the wars since then, it’s 80% and 85% civilian.

I became friends a few years ago with an Italian war surgeon named Gino Strada. He spent ten years, fifteen years doing surgery on war victims all over the world. And he wrote a book about it, Green Parrots: Diary of a War Surgeon. He said in all the patients that he operated on in Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere, 85% of them were civilians, one-third of them, children. If you understand, and if people understand, and if you spread the word of this understanding, that whatever is told to you about war and how we must go to war, and whatever the threat is or whatever the goal is -- a democracy or liberty -- it will always be a war against children. They’re the ones who will die in large numbers.

So, war -- well, Einstein said this after World War I. He said, “War cannot be humanized. It can only be abolished.” War has to be abolished, you know. And it’s -- I know it’s a long shot. I understand that, but you have to -- when something’s a long shot, but it has to be done, you have to start doing it. Just as the ending of slavery in this country in the 1830s was a really long shot, but people stuck at it, and it took 30 years, but slavery was done away with. And we can see this again and again. So, we have a job to do. We have lots of things to do.

One of the things we can learn from history is that history is not only a history of things inflicted on us by the powers that be. History is also a history of resistance. It’s a history of people who endure tyranny for decades, but who ultimately rise up and overthrow the dictator. We’ve seen this in country after country, surprise after surprise. Rulers who seem to have total control, they suddenly wake up one day, and there are a million people in the streets, and they pack up and leave. This has happened in the Philippines, in Yemen, all over, in Nepal. Million people in the streets, and then the ruler has to get out of the way. So, this is what we’re aiming for in this country.

Everything we do is important. Every little thing we do, every picket line we walk on, every letter we write, every act of civil disobedience we engage in, any recruiter that we talk to, any parent that we talk to, any GI that we talk to, any young person that we talk to, anything we do in class, outside of class, everything we do in the direction of a different world is important, even though at the moment they seem futile, because that’s how change comes about. Change comes about when millions of people do little things, which at certain points in history come together, and then something good and something important happens.

Thank you.'

I watched this on Democracy Now! a few nights ago and loved it. Once I found the transcript, I felt the need to share. Enjoy.

Seymour Hersh on Iraq

2006-11-25T19:42:00.000-05:00

This is almost a month old, but worthy of reading.

“The bad news,” investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told a Montreal audience
last Wednesday, “is that there are 816 days left in the reign of King George II
of America.” The good news? “When we wake up tomorrow morning, there will be one
less day.” Hersh, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and regular contributor to
The New Yorker magazine, has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. government for
nearly 40 years. Since his 1969 exposé of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, which
is widely believed to have helped turn American public opinion against the
Vietnam War, he has broken news about the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia,
covert C.I.A. attempts to overthrow Chilean president Salvador Allende, and,
more recently, the first details about American soldiers abusing prisoners at
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. During his hour-and-a-half lecture – part of the
launch of an interdisciplinary media and communications studies program called
Media@McGill – Hersh described video footage depicting U.S. atrocities in Iraq,
which he had viewed, but not yet published a story about. He described one video
in which American soldiers massacre a group of people playing soccer. “Three
U.S. armed vehicles, eight soldiers in each, are driving through a village,
passing candy out to kids,” he began. “Suddenly the first vehicle explodes, and
there are soldiers screaming. Sixteen soldiers come out of the other vehicles,
and they do what they’re told to do, which is look for running people.” “Never
mind that the bomb was detonated by remote control,” Hersh continued. “[The
soldiers] open up fire; [the] cameras show it was a soccer game.” “About ten
minutes later, [the soldiers] begin dragging bodies together, and they drop
weapons there. It was reported as 20 or 30 insurgents killed that day,” he said.
If Americans knew the full extent of U.S. criminal conduct, they would receive
returning Iraqi veterans as they did Vietnam veterans, Hersh said.
“In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame
and humiliation,” he said. “It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there
has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been
in Iraq.” Hersh came out hard against President Bush for his involvement in the
Middle East. “In Washington, you can’t expect any rationality. I don’t know if
he’s in Iraq because God told him to, because his father didn’t do it, or
because it’s the next step in his 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program,” he
said. Hersh hinted that the responsibility for the invasion of Iraq lies with
eight or nine members of the administration who have a “neo-conservative agenda”
and dictate the U.S.’s post-September 11 foreign policy. “You have a collapsed
Congress, you have a collapsed press. The military is going to do what the
President wants,” Hersh said. “How fragile is democracy in America, if a
president can come in with an agenda controlled by a few cultists?” Throughout
his talk Hersh remained pessimistic, predicting that the U.S. will initiate an
attack against Iran, and that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate further.
“There’s no reason to see a change in policy about Iraq. [Bush] thinks that, in
twenty years, he’s going to be recognized for the leader he was – the analogy he
uses is Churchill,” Hersh said. “If you read the public statements of the
leadership, they’re so confident and so calm…. It’s pretty scary.”
-CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION

White's Only Scholarship?

2006-11-24T20:38:00.000-05:00

It may be racist or a tool of inequality, but in lieu of my family's economic/financial standpoint, I, as a white, lower-middle class male, need all the help I can get to get into college. So while I will surely get bombarded with people telling me that this is racist, I'm tempted to say "I don't care," and just pray for something like this to come to Indiana University.

It's not that I'm supporting racism, I'm just supporting ways for less-priveleged students to get into college, black, white or whatever.

Kramer Goes At It

2006-11-22T12:23:00.000-05:00

So I'm sure for those of us that live within five feet of a television know about Michael Richards' (Seinfield's "Kramer") bout at the Laugh Factory. Yeah, it was racist and a little out of hand but for those of us with a sense of humor, I found it funny.

People are completely right when they say that his statements were taboo and probably not the wisest thing to say (his career is destroyed, really) but still, laugh a little bit. You have black comedians mocking the white race all the time. I'm not saying any form of racism is right, and anything that's ton out of true hatefulness should be punished, but still, laugh a little bit.

Try and enjoy it. It's a swan song.

On War.

2006-11-20T10:55:00.000-05:00

Ask yourself:
Do you support the war on Iraq?

Was she a terrorist?
Did she have to die so you could be free?
What's the difference between war and genocide?
Is this nessacary?
Ask yourself:
Do you still support the war on Iraq?

Military Commissions Act: The Road to Fascism

2006-11-05T00:49:00.000-05:00

I realize it's kind of late to be addressing the issue of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, but I think the surreal realities of it are sinking in. It's overbearing and authoritarian qualities are really coming to the front for me and I felt the need to write something in regards to it.

Keith Olbermann's excellent rant on the signing of the Act was a beacon to me. I had known that the act was bad news, but he really put it out there and got me off of my procrastination stand to write about it. So really, let me first start out my soapbox speech by saying that this act (for those who don't know or have the audacity to think that this is a logical defense of terrorism) basically gives the President, in all his intelligence (little joke there) to strip away our right of habeas corpus. Not since the Civil War (and following reconstruction years) has this principle right been suspended. It may not sound like much, but this little bit of freedom gives us the right to know what our charges are along with other ways to help oneself out of unlawful imprisonment.

So, one might say that really, all they must do is avoid breaking the law and they shouldn't have to worry about this. You would be right if that was the case. But it's not.

The Military Commissions Act gives the President the right to deign anyone an "unlawful military combatant." An animal rights activist who could only face misdemeanors charges for an act of militant free speech could instead face torture in outsourcing prison camps or accusations of terrorism, if Mr. Bush thinks that this person is an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Who defines "Unlawful enemy combatant?" Wikipedia says that an "unlawful enemy combatant is:

"The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a term used to label certain persons considered outside of the protection of the Geneva Conventions; those to whom are granted such protections they refer to as lawful combatants. The Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term and gave the President broad discretion in how a person is designated as an unlawful enemy combatant. An unlawful combatant is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have."

Being the extremely vague definition that it is, it would seem that everyone should fear this. The worst part of this is that it's at the President's discretion! As if the human being was capable of making those kinds of rational decisions in the first place, we must also consider what human being we are referring to. If this act were to ever lessen it's fascist tendencies more, then that would only be by having it at a civilian workers' council discretion, not the President. To give someone like the President that kind of power, on top of what he already has, only adds to the definition of oppressive regimes that we wanted to escape for the founding of this country.

In Olbermann's attack of the act, he asked why the American people hadn't done anything (in so many words). Aside from absolutely none to lax news coverage, the American people weren't aware of this act in any way. What should scare the American people about this is the possibility that Bush and his buddies could sign away your rights in the middle of the night and you wouldn't even know. Moreso, that is.

Olbermann's point was correct. The American people should have done something about this. In other nations, especially those that fought a long, militaristic battle for their freedom recently, an attempt like this would not bring about petitions and lobbyists on the side of the people, but instead warrant an immediate uprising and removal of the ruling party. However, as Americans, laziness persists. The idea of a revolution holds to much heavy labour and dedication; dedication that the American people, generally can't afford to give. Or maybe it isn't that, but its the brainwashing fears of terrorism. It seems some of us would sign away any one of their rights if they knew it could help prevent terrorism.

What prevents terrorism more? He who seeks to eliminate ones freedom in the name of security is the true terrorist. No one else.

What Size Would You Like Your Government?

2006-10-27T18:55:00.000-04:00

Conservatives hate big government.

I've been fed that since the moment my political awareness came to be. Growing up in a red state, with a red family and a red town, I always had the idea that Conservatives like small government and Liberals want big government. After awhile though, I had trouble with that theory.

Being young, my questions were quite straight forward. If conservatives want a small government, do they think it should be able to control womens' bodies? If conservatives want a government that doesn't interfere, do they think it has the power to tell you who you can or can't marry? If conservatives want a government that leaves the economy alone, do they think it should give corporate handouts? If conservatives want a government that stays out of people's lives, do they think it should be able to spy and listen to all of our calls? In truth, conservatives want a large government, one that can push it's religious, imperical, capitalist and racist views on anyone.

I just wish that people would understand that this is not what they want or need.

Manifesto Of The Revolutionary Left

2006-10-19T20:59:00.000-04:00

The following is a manifesto of beliefs and tactics for the Revolution of the working people. It's only goal is to seek to free the proletariat from the chains of capitalism and oppression. The Revolutionary Left stands for the rights of all people. It stands for feminism, internationalism, socialism, and the advancement of humanity in freedom and thought. It stands for the abolishment of religious governments and instead works for a separation, so that humanity can be free to worship without the interference of state religion. Standing for the abolishment of capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and borders, the Revolutionary Left seeks equality, freedom, and socialism.

Part One

The State of the International

The United States of America does not make up one twentieth of this entire planet. In terms of size, one of it's detached states remains almost the same size as the forty-eight others that make up this land mass. However, in the category of power, influence and dominance, it's metaphysical size is larger than that of Russia, China, Australia and all of South America combined. It's influence is felt in every nation, in every Congress, in every Parliament, in every palace, and on every TV set. It's foreign relations are the make or break keys to almost any situation.

America, as a political power, stands with other nations in an unspoken coalition. These nations have dropped out over time, due to political, social, religious, economic, or moral differences. Great Britain and Israel still remain America's strongest allies, despite controversial movements the behemoth has made in lieu of world affairs. It's acts and decisions have reverberated throughout the entire world. When America began to wage it's "War on Terror" against the starving nations of the Middle East and against the Islamic citizens of the world, Spain, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, France, and Russia suffered terrorism related attacks on their people and their sense of security. The nations slacking view on torture and upholding decade old world laws regarding warfare have caused anti-American sentiments to rise in the world. Burning of the American flag, a free speech practice condemned in the nation itself, has become a popular protest action world round.

The backlash of American occupations in the Middle East hasn't been the only guise under which insurgencies may occur. Alignment with Israel in foreign dealings with Arab nations has helped to rally Islamic support against the United States. In most cases, any nation spied doing trade, arms dealing, or economic work with Israel is seen as a traitor to the Arab people. While this sometimes myopic world view can be detrimental to a peace plan, the Zionist regime and occupational movement in Israel is a known and recognized threat to the Revolutionary Leftist movement. Palestinian and Lebanese peasants' working rights, along with basic human rights, are regularly trampled by the Israeli power. Outcries against the authority have been met with equally loud cries about the Holocaust. While Germany and Palestine sit over 3,000 kilometers apart from each others, the actions of one nation are still echoed against the other.

World wide, this state of matters repeats itself. In the growing leftist movement of South America, leaders face fears of U.S. retaliation because they have nationalized their oil industry, their health care, or their education, an idea that is threatening to conservative business interest. Rebellion against U.S. trade rules carries heavy consequences. Slander of the American or Israeli regimes can bring about the charge of terrorism or anti-Americanism. Criticizing this world power and it's European/Israeli allies can lead to the worst situations, from economic sanctions to possible invasions in the name of "liberation."

Inside however, the American people are sessile to their space by the tentacles of corporate and government power. Common action against the government has been replaced with reform and seasonal voting. The once popular forum like governments of the past have been replaced with the bi-partisanship of a two-party system. These two parties, while standoffishly different are inherently the same.

The Republican Party is a right wing group aimed at "traditional values." Hiding under the veil of a religion gone awry, this conservative party uses corporate connections to slash workers' rights and benefits, in the name of economic protection, while furthering the rich in their stage of tax exemption. They cease to abolish the rights of all non-straight, non-Christians, and women, ceaselessly calling for more biblical based laws to protect the common family. While ignoring the Bible's views on immigration, prisons and the poor, the Republicans continue to espouse hatred and intolerance.

On the moderate left side of the spectrum, the Democratic Party rests. A former leftist policy, it's shameful leaders have moved to the center to pick up votes, the dirty money of Washington. Looked at as the vehicle for the working class, the Democratic Party stands hypocritically, fumbling rich and powerful candidates who swing to the right on immigration, women's rights and other subjects all in an effort to swing a candidacy, instead of educating the masses. This disgrace to the left seeks only to further their slightly nicer version of capitalism.

Tossing away all third parties, these two giants battle it out in the corporate news, each acting as if their opinions differed from the others. In the end, only the proletariat stand to lose from their two party dictatorship.

The practice of reform through a seasonal ballot has become one of the only accepted change-ways in America, giving birth a lazy class of people. While a mass percentage do not vote out of lack of caring, another large percentage simply votes for the candidates in their adopted party. This idea is foolish and an example of how the bi-partisanship is tearing true reform asunder. A truely democratic nation, when facing fear of a fascist dictatorship or at the least, a dangerous administration, must not wait for reform and vote, but remove those in power by force.

Because of this, the people of the world must become their own political party. Better yet, they must raise themselves above that quota and become a sheer force for change, a deity in their own right. By doing so, their direct action can bring about immediate change of the way things work, as well as bringing the people to power and setting up a true government of the people. Those who truely dedicate themselves to this idea and are willing to give up selfishness and individualism for the good of the proletariat must step forward and form vanguards, to further the workers' struggle. However, the Western nations are well experienced in starting revolutions, but not for the right people.

This practice is being force fed world wound. More and more countries are being militantly turned over to a more American termed republic. Democratic nations of the past have lost their stronghold and new trade minded countries have only taken on the next to last stepping stone to becoming nothing but large monopolies. This practice can only be reversed by the direct action and retaliation of the common people. It is the sole responsibility of mankind to better its' living conditions.

On violence as a means to power.

2006-10-04T19:06:00.000-04:00

In my adopted hometown, there were anti-choice protestors outside our county courthouse, protesting against women's rights of course. The more I thought about it, I began analyzing the types of protesting. Some anti-choice people are more prone to go out and actually adopt unwanted children instead of just bitching (a practice I have more respect for than the usual sexists). Others, the hypocrites, will drive car bombs into abortion clinics, killing doctors, pregnant women, and their fetuses, all in the name of stopping abortion. I don't make sense of it, but I'm not trying to.

What I'm more looking at, is the lack of those on the left and those in the labour unions to use violence as a means of change. While an anti-violent stance is considered the basis of educational programs in modern day America, look at our military and the relentless wars it wages on other nations, sometimes for no reason at all. Is violence really that looked down upon? Yes and no.

Violence, throughout it's historical and permanent existence, has managed to bring to power almost everyone. The Bolsheviki, the Iranian Revolution, Chavez's presidency, the Cuban Revolution were all won through violence. This isn't senseless violence and the pillage of women and children, but rather the removal of the fascists who's positions of power hold that majoriy back. When one aristocratic regime holds back the people of the nation from getting bread and peace, civil war must be fought to fix this problem.

It can be as simple as taking over a palace or as grand as rallying the workers into a large guerilla unit, capable of forcing down the oppressors. However, what we must look at now, is America and it's type of situation and point in history.

The American people are generally peaceful, not by morals, but by laziness. The politicians above us have made us weak by limiting our power to reform and voting during the seasons. Corporate tentacles, with their hydra like abilities, have managed to make many of us fat and unhealthy, addicted to their constant stream of slaughtered animal and nicotine hits. Those of us that are willing to fight are fought and piled on with laws and restrictions, making the possibilities of a strike so limited and hard to pull of that a police state is almost in place.

On May 1 of 2006, the immigrants, legal and "illegal" of America, came together to demand workers' rights. While their turnout was impressive, inspiring and wonderful to see, it could have turned out much better. With the allying of the American proletariat to that of the South American proletariat, an international rebellion horn could have been sounded on that day, sending the common man to the streets in unison, gun, knife, brick, stick, hammer, or whatever in hand, ready to fight the fascists. Again though, we see the American public subdued by an unwillingness to be aggressive in change.

In a utopian scenario, one can see the United State aristocracy slashing workers' rights like usual, only to be met with the proletariat in the streets, demanding change. No petitions, no week long protests. No bitching Congress. Just a simple demand of change. While the chances of this change being met are slim, an option B stands up in the foglight. Sudden and random outburts from the men and women of middle and lower America. Nation wide strikes. Corporate headquarters being burned. Gunfights with the authorities, that have some of their own, fleeing to join their working comrades in battle. With change still nowhere in site, the revolutionaries storm Congress, dissolving it and sitting in on their own decisions.

Will it ever go like this? If I have it my way, in my lifetime, people will start to change their ways of viewing things. Why not? "The proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains." -Karl Marx

The Venezuelan-Iranian Alliance

2006-09-16T19:23:00.000-04:00

What do you get when you cross a religious state with one of the best modern socialist beacon nations in the world? Confusion. Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has publically declared that he has a full fledged alliance with Iran in the event of an American strike. "Iran is under threat; there are plans to invade Iran. Hopefully it won't happen, but we are with you," Chavez told Ahmadinejad.

Being the Venezuela supporter that I am, the grouping with Iran made me curious. Being a Muslim state, I am against Iran, just like I am a Jewish (Israel) or Catholic (Vatican) state. However, their self-determination and will to build their own nuclear weapons is inspiring. The idea of nukes isn't very comforting but when put in comparison to the billions spent of weapons in our nation, I can't help but see why others would arm themselves. When the schoolyard bully gets a slingshot, everyone else starts looking for some rocks. However, my support for Iran is still on the line. Future actions will have to be the true decider.

That being said, I still stand in solidarity with Chavez and his decision. While Venezuela and Iran might not be able to withstand a US attack, hopefully, other countries will wake up and take the reigns, and if not them, then maybe the people of the world will act without government for once. Maybe.

Hypocrisy!

2006-08-22T20:22:00.000-04:00

I find it humorous to hear right-wing Zionists give near fellatio to Israel and how they've overcome what horrible things Hitler did while saying how much we need to kill all Muslim fundamentalists in the same breath. Hypocritical, no?

Bush confident about First Amendment burning

2006-08-18T17:54:00.000-04:00

"Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live," George Bush was quoted at Camp David, in regards to his privacy violation law being shot down by a Detroit judge. Anna Digs Taylor saw through the law and condemned it as unconstitutional (based on the 1st and 4th Amendments as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978). The Bush Admin have filed an appeal and the case is pending.

Why is it that the government feels they have the audacity to tap our phones and read our emails (under the clause of "terrorism prevention") yet, when you have cases like this (despite the fact that it's in the UK) people are arrested and criminalized. Why can't I tap my President's phone under the warrant of "dictatorship prevention?" I'm sure they have secrets that we, as common people shouldn't know ("For the people, by the people.") however, I'm sure I have secrets that the government shouldn't know.

We should stop condemning so called "state dictatorship" when we are turning into one.

F for Fear?

2006-08-13T22:05:00.000-04:00

I'm expecting to catch flack for my view in this post, but I can understand why. It's a touchy subject and people don't like to hear something like it. Also, my view is not that popular.

The supposed terror attempts on the planes in the UK, in my opinion, was faked. I admit that something must have happened but I believe the majority of it was blown out to keep the fear alive. President Bush said the act could have caused "death on a massive scale." Of course 44,000 dead Iraqi's isn't death on a massive scale. If those 44,000 were Americans, however, it would be genocide and any brown skinned, Middle Eastern civilian would have to fear the wrath of Fuhrer America.

The headline of this CNN article even reads "Bush: Never think danger of terror gone." It just seems like it could be finished with some comment on how, because of this, we should further surrender our rights in the name of security.

Linking the "terror plot" to probably unrelated world events, Bush said, "The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women and children. They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. These killers need to know that America, Great Britain and our allies are determined to defend ourselves and advance the cause of liberty. With patience, courage and untiring resolve, we will defend our freedom, and we will win the war on terror." I have a few problems with that statement:

How many civilian centers have American and Israel taken out? Just because they are American doesn't make their lives more valuable. Nationalism at work, I guess?
Israel has countlessly used Palestinian as sheilds by making them open the door and enter rooms in suspected "terrorists'" houses. Hiding behind civilians?
America is determined to advance the cause of right wing, similar-business-interest, capitalist-esque liberty.

Under a regime like ours, it's easy for people to surrender their rights for the feeling of security from terrorism.

Minimum Wage and Estate Tax

2006-08-07T23:21:00.000-04:00

Our two party system is at it again. Proving the "Two parties, one platform" theory, the Republicans set up a bill that would thankfully raise minimum wage, but also cut the estate tax. Now of course the working/middle class American is asking what's wrong with cutting taxes. Maybe nothing to you, but the estate tax is only a tax that hits the wealthiest of America. In the words of the government: "In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans."

So what's the problem with taxing them? There's this fear in the halls of the bourgeoiousie that if this and other taxes increase: they might have to live on the same class level as the rest of the Americans. God forbid. Poverty just isn't for them. It shouldn't be though. Their parents worked other people hard for that money, so their kids should have every right to hoard it all, sans the rest of the country.

Oh yes, the rest of the country. The same country that guarantees them freedom. Who dies for your freedom? It isn't the son of the congressman that declare the wars. It isn't the children of the generals who send them in. No, it's the people that labour for your wealth. That is who dies for your freedom to be a wealthy pig.

My point: if you want to live in America and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else, you have to give something back to the collective. If you don't want to do that, then don't expect any legal help when the proles raid your manor and take your land. And your head.

A Solution to the Abortion Issue!

2006-08-05T01:47:00.000-04:00

I think I may have finally came up with a concrete plan to solve the abortion crisis. To note as we begin, I am pro-choice. I support a woman's right to control her body. However, in the recent times, I have debated with many peers over abortion, most of whom were against the "murder" of an unborn fetus.

My solution is simple. It satisfies both parties involved; the pro-life people are given a free end to abortion, the pro choice people get to see sweet revenge on the anti-choice people.

At first, my views on the subject were that abortion should always remain legal and pro-life people would always have the option to not get an abortion if they became pregnant. Seemed logical, but apparently, the pro-life table wanted to decided for all of us. I reviewed the options, what each party stood for and now I present my solution...

The Solution to Abortion in America -

All abortions are made illegal immediately.
The names of all Anti-Abortion activist and/or anyone in the nation who opposes abortion and is strictly pro-life is added to a list of "contacts."
Any woman seeking an abortion is forced to deliver the child, no matter how it was conceived.
When said child is born, the first person on the anti-abortion "contacts" list is contacted and given the child to be taken care of economically/socially/physically. The person(s) will act as adoptive parents. Any refusal to take the child in will be considered child neglect and result in arrest and trial. The child will be given to the next person on the list if arrest is made.

The great thing about this solution is that it is fool proof to anti-choice rhetoric. Here's some common excuses that might arrive from a pro-lifer who's to tied up to take a child (but not to busy to protest abortion):

"I can't take care of the child financially." - While this is a critical issue, we must note that pro-life activists have ignored the financial crises of many women who are seeking abortions; therefore, financial problems should be viewed as only small inconveniences to an anti-abortion person.
"I don't want kids." - Again, many women have used the same excuse to get an abortion when they become pregnant. However, anti-abortion groups say that the person should have thought of their actions before doing so (all women must think of their actions before being raped). So, by forcing this person to not only have the kid, but to medically carry it for 9 months, it would seem that pro-lifers would do anything to have a human life pull through.
"They should consider an adoption." - They did and you are the adopters . Congratulations, it's a boy.
"I am not (emotionally/physically/mentally) capable of taking care of a child." - Women who are becoming pregnant at the age of 12 might try the same excuse, but pro-life groups still would like to see that baby born, so I have granted their wishes, and now it's theirs.
"I couldn't take care of a handicapped child." - Neither could the mother, but that didn't stop you from demanding a birth.

This plan should make both sides happy. All anti-abortion people I know talk of the value of life, so I'm sure they would be thrilled to take a new child into their home, no matter the inconvenience it may cause.

Socialist Actions' Racism

2006-08-03T19:08:00.000-04:00

I am a Marxist. In recent days/weeks, I've been overviewing my beliefs and realized that I do support anarchism, but I would consider myself Marxist (due to petty ideological differences). This being so, I have tried hard to read and learn as much as I can about the principles, the working, and the Revolution. Most things that I have come across have fit my perceptions (the dictatorship of the proletariat still makes me iffy) however, when I ran across Socialist Actions' (Youth Socialist Action as well) website, I found myself critical of their racial policies.

Of course, a site called Youth Socialist Action immediately drew me in. After all, I am a.) a youth and b.) a socialist. I had been told it was credible and a good site for education, so I hit it up. I scanned the first few articles I could find and found them very informative and well written. However, when I reached one titled "When America Goes Socialist," I was bothered by what I read. The first few paragraphs were well thought out and agreeable, however when it came to their views on racism and racial workings after the Revolution, I was in a disagreement with them.

"In the immediate aftermath of the conquest of power, while the material basis for racism will have been smashed, and while we can safely assume that the heroic role played in the revolution by Afro-Americans and other third world peoples will have deeply shaken the racist ideas of many whites, some backward attitudes will persist for a brief time. During this period, we can expect forthright, decisive action by the revolutionary government to prevent the manifestation of race prejudice in any overt act of discrimination, as well as to rapidly remove existing inequalities in education, employment, housing and medical care. Many of the revolutionary leaders in the new government will be third world people. This will also be the time when Blacks, Chicanos, and other minorities will be able to decide whether they want to partition the socialist republic into separate states or join with whites in a singe, multinational revolutionary state. Whatever the decision each group makes, bonds of solidarity will displace mutual antagonisms as all sections advance toward communism and new generations are born into rationally and democratically planned economy of abundance." - YSA

What if myself and the other white Revolutionaries want a seperate state? That would be racist I assume, and I agree; it would be. This would mean though, that creating a seperate Black/Chicano state could be considered racism. Isn't a state that is run by and for one race a racist state? Remember the Arayan Nation? Nazi Germany? Whites are not the only group capable of that (just the most likely).

As a socialist and a human being, I support internationalism, not seperatism.

Get Well Soon, Fidelito!

2006-08-03T18:51:00.000-04:00

Everyone surely knows about Fidel handing the reigns to Raul while he undergoes treatment for internal bleeding. Thought I had high hopes for Raul's noted Marxist tendencies, I still hope for Fidel's recovery.

Defend the Revolution! Save the Workers' State!