Archive for the ‘White Supremacy’ Category

Merchants of Death: Exposing Corporate-financed Holocaust in Africa

December 10, 2008

Link

Advertisements

The white middle-class intelligentsia “discovers” imperialism

August 24, 2008

This is a reply to Paul Street on Dissident Voice.

“Our current corporate-totalitarian political order doesn’t “work” for any but the Few. It is a grave threat to human survival and peace, justice, and democracy at home and abroad.”

That’s false. Poor Americans are far richer than the world’s poor, a testament to the results of successful imperialism and the corporate-totalitarian political order. The Mob Underlings reap the benefits of Mob successes, however disproportionately in relation to the Mob Boss.

Whether it’s a “grave threat to human survival” is dependent upon the degree of success of the American-led multinational-corporate empire in perpetuating worldwide slavery. If it’s successful the world will become enslaved rather than killed – if things get out of control a worldwide or small-scale holocaust may occur.

As for “peace, justice, and democracy” – there have never been any of those things in the United States. The state was founded on a war to secure power for the domestic elite, it proceeded by capitalist logic, including the internal colonization of the genocided native population, perpetual war against both them and the imported Africans, repression of women, perpetual exploitation of non-Americans, and theft and exploitation of the domestic poor by the rich. “Peace”, “justice”, and “democracy” are words in a dictionary, as well as words that sometimes are reflected in other places or in small-scale incidents.

By “grave threat” you can only mean that it threatens a demographic previously unthreatened – privileged (middle-class) whites. When the Neocons and their neoliberal doctrine came to power middle class whites panicked – they were no longer safe and would have to join (in a far muted form of exploitation) the ranks of so many other victims of the American state. It’s only been with the rise of neoliberalism that the white bourgeois intelligentsia has “discovered the horrors of imperialism” – where were these horrors during the supposed “Golden Age of American Democracy” – the Bretton-Woods post-WWII period?

An alien, observing this, cannot be blamed for having little sympathy for the suddenly fearful bourgeois whites, who write treatises on the horrors of neoliberalism.

“Peace, justice, and democracy”? Those concepts cannot have true meaning until such time as the “good” people of the world operate by something other than selfishness, greed, and fear.

The mantra of the modern Western left is “neoliberalism is going too far” – summed up in Naomi Klein’s ideology. This left, which complains so much about the “narrow political spectrum in America” might want to explore the narrow ideological spectrum they themselves exist in.

The Imperial Left exists within an imperial society. For all their knowledge of imperialism, they don’t know themselves.

There is no left in America

July 26, 2008

The United States, like all other imperialist societies, is a criminal society. Virtually the entire population is criminal. Normality in such a society is criminal. “Normality” is acquiescence, complicity with that society. We don’t need to turn on the TV or visit the local corporate multinational headquarters to see criminals – just look in the mirror.

Hitler was sexy – the blood flowed in great quantity. But Hitler killed far less and enslaved a fraction of what America has managed. How many books are written about the German people and how few are written about the American people. Mirrors are never in fashion.

I am a criminal. That is to say, I happily accept the benefits of imperialism – benefits that lead me to gain in an hour what 2 billion workers in the world gain in a week. Benefits that lead me, a “poor” person in America, to comforts and a diet rich in protein while many starve and many more barely subsist on cheap carbohydrates.

I am a criminal precisely because I want a happy life and I’m not willing to give up that rich life so that others may live. So I eat my protein, I watch my movies, I am “frugal”, and I congratulate myself as do so many others on my “moral superiority” to the mob bosses of America, the capitalists. That’s little consolation to a typical global citizen whose son just died from war or starvation due to American domination and exploitation of his economy.

It’s this gazing at the elite, this comparison of the “moral American” to monsters like George Bush, that is the undoing of the left. The left simply will not come to grips with the fact that the United States is an imperial society, TOP TO BOTTOM.

The left pontificates on the “failure of the left in America”, thinking of every reason but the true one – there is no left in America. There’s no left because the “far left” is made up of people like me, who refuse to give up their imperial benefits and thus maintain complicity with the imperial regime. So we endlessly talk and talk and talk about what we’d like the world to be like while actually not wanting the world to be like that at all.

As Henry Louis-Gates said, (paraphrased) – “I’m not giving up MY money”.

Losing the Race

June 18, 2008

Link

Immigration: The Battle for Manassas

June 12, 2008

Link

Issues of Western Imperialism

June 11, 2008

This is a reply to Lloyd Rowsey and Kevan Giffen, from here.

“Although the left was not even radical in the 1990’s, it was grasping at the same straws as it had been hoping would “ignite” the masses at least since Watergate. This hope, combined with a not-totally unjustified fear that real radicalism — a la Malcolm X and the Black Panthers — would subject them to the same treatment (as well as set back if not end their imagined progress with middle Americans), largely explains their contribution to the nihilistic nineties.”

You’re getting self-righteous, Lloyd. I’m addressing your use of “not-totally unjustified”. You are supporting the notion of race revenge. It seems extremely unlikely that this is a misreading, but if it is go ahead and explain the meaning of your words.

“Not that I have any problem with violent resistance to capitalism… Morality is relative in my book… I just felt like calling you out on that…”

Whatever. Capitalists will recognize the structural decay and become more repressive, and there will be a moment(s) of great tension and great violence. This is a matter of self-defense as the State terrorizes innocents in the name of maintaining the status quo or in their terminology, “stopping terrorists”. Successful self-defense against the State is in fact, revolutionary, as the Black Panthers understood. Shifts away from capitalism always include corporeal deaths, as Venezuela and Bolivia are only the latest examples of. And despite the celebratory attitude of the left, those are fairly minor shifts away from capitalism, still fundamentally supporting the global capitalist system. A major shift would be far more violent. Another transition to examine is the one from communism to capitalism that the Soviet Union underwent in the ’90s.

You should worry less about the possibly upcoming short-lived “violent resistance to capitalism” and worry more about the second-by-second perpetual violence OF capitalism.

“Native American tribes were not perfectly peaceful, they got into conflicts just like any other civilization. This is because humanity thrives on conflict and struggle as do all living things, without it we would stagnate. Look at how many technological advancements came from WWII…”

You mean like nuclear weapons, “advances” in biology that can lead to a holocaust of man-made plagues, greater industrialization that has increased the rate of global warming, or various handheld or home-based devices that have desocialized and atomized whole societies? Please, tell me all about these “technological advancements from WWII”.

Humanity doesn’t thrive on conflict, but conflict is a necessary part of life in a world of varied desires and limited resources. That doesn’t mean that conflict should be glorified or put on a pedestal, as your corrupt “heroes”, including Mr. Nietzsche, too often do.

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” – Friedrich Nietzsche 😉

The words of every sado-masochist, spoken with more articulation. Reality is far different, as pretty much anyone can tell you, including disabled victims of the wars you glorify as “tremendous examples of the conflict that we thrive on”.

How about you ask Iraqis about Nietzsche’s phrase, and get back to me on the answer. Or are you going to use the handmaiden of the masochist with the phrase “survival of the fittest”?

What’s the matter, scared to ask Iraqis that question? Oh, but you’re surely not worried, right, because “what does not kill you only makes you stronger” and if that doesn’t work, it’s “survival of the fittest”.

Nietzsche and Darwin – they justify pain, violence, and death at every turn. It’s no wonder they are two of the major heroes of Western Imperialism. Where would the 20th century have been without such luminaries?

Alicia Keys Hits a Not So Strange Note

April 23, 2008

Link

American History, Black History, and the "Right to Bear Arms"

April 23, 2008

Link

The Torture Agenda

April 22, 2008

Link

Part 5 of The Global Movement for Justice and the end of Oppression

April 8, 2008

In Reply to Max Shields:

“I think we’re fine tuning our differences but we have some general agreements.”

Our biggest disagreement seems to be that you believe groups like the KKK derive from fear and hate and I believe them to be derived from desire for material gain, with the fear and hate relating to and serving that goal.

Before I get into direct replies, I want to talk a bit about fear.

The people who are most afraid are those who are attacking other people. American soldiers in Iraq for example are terrified (which they attempt to hide under macho bluster). Fear is never understood for what it is because everyone looks at fear from the standpoint of the victim. The interesting truth of the matter is that perpetrators are far more afraid than victims. Here’s an example:

An Iraqi family is sitting at home having a meal. The next minute their home is bombed and destroyed, and they are all dead. No fear (beyond what is caused by the occupation and any specific issues they have) except sheer terror at the last moment.

On the other side of the equation, amid blaring sounds of Guns ‘N Roses and thoughts of the warm arms of a girlfriend left behind, an ignorant low-educated kid pushes a button, drops a bomb, and misses his target. But despite the ignorance, this kid knows the devastation he is taking part in and the anger that is creating.

Who is more afraid? Well for one thing – the person who is still alive. But another – perpetrators are always more afraid because they are the one committing the crime, and they are the one who take on the moral burden of such. To commit a crime and know that you or your loved ones may pay for that crime years, decades, or even centuries later – that’s pure dread. That’s fear. That’s living in terror.

Post traumatic stress disorder has fear as it’s main component.

Take a close look at the Neoconservatives. The primary element of their composition is fear. They are deeply afraid of the end of the West, the end of capitalism, the end of white rule. They aren’t just afraid of the loss of rulership and the profit that entails – they are afraid of retribution. Their fear is far deeper and more motivating for them than it is for any of their victims.

The KKK works on the same principles. They want to exploit and profit from blacks, so they attack blacks, so they fear and hate blacks. Just as for the American soldier and the Neoconservative, fear does not create their attack, it’s the logical consequence of it.

The school bully who steals lunch money doesn’t do so out of fear – he does so out of desire for profit. But *then* he fears retribution after committing the crime, and if the crime is ongoing the fear is ongoing, and grows, and grows, and grows.

“You’ll have to share your sources on the KKK. Obviously it has served various purposes, but I’m not sure how it provides support for an economics. The core mentality behind KKK is fear, propagation of myths, and self-organization. I don’t see the ruling power elite having a hand in it. But I’m open to new information.”

You’re not sure how it supports an economic program? How about this:

Capitalism requires not only workers, but compliant workers. Capitalists seek to create and maintain divisions within the workforce so as to allow them easy control. So, for example, several layers of management are set up and pitted against one another – the lower layer coveting the job of the higher – the higher having to keep the lower “in his place” to prevent his own job loss. This layering is done right on through to the workers. There are often distinctions between work-classes that appear minor from the outside but are critical for worker relations. Janitors are often on the low end of the totem pole.

So for the KKK to keep blacks “in their place”, which is to say for black workers to be below white workers, is not so much to perpetuate racism but to perpetuate capitalism. To set up a capitalist work-layer based on race institutionalizes racism and gives capitalists a major lever of power, since white workers can then be pitted against black workers – the blacks covet the extra income of white workers and white workers want to protect their (relatively) privileged status.

Take a look at the recent events in Jena, LA, which were imitated around the country, where white students (assumedly) hung nooses from a tree (deemed a “white tree”) after black students stood under it. What’s the point of a “white tree” in the first place? It’s to mark off territory – territory the white students like. For the black students to not stand under the tree shows their deference to white power, and for them to stand under it is in defiance of white power. So white power thus threatened, it retaliates in the form of nooses. Power is about theft and subjugation. Theft and subjugation (by any means) is another phrase for war. The KKK is not a hate group – it’s a war group. It’s part of the ongoing war against blacks to maintain them as an internal colony. It’s about maintaining power and profit.

One of the problems people have when they think of war is that they think of killing. But really, the Bush Administration would have been just as happy if no Iraqis (except Saddam) had been killed. War isn’t about killing – it’s about power (theft and subjugation). Killing is just a means to that end. The KKK isn’t about hanging blacks from trees, it isn’t about fear, and it isn’t about hate – it’s about maintaining and extending power, profit, and privilege for the ruling class and maintaining relatively privileged status for non-ruling whites. The KKK fears and hates blacks as a reaction to what their own capitalist project is doing to them.

Take a look at the similarity between what war is (theft and subjugation by any means up to and including killing) and what capitalism is (theft and subjugation by any means up to and including wage slavery). Capitalism is the economic version of perpetual war. That’s what “competition” means – perpetual war with certain restraints (usually killing is frowned upon).

Capitalists don’t want corpses – they want slaves. The only value of a corpse to a capitalist is that it makes it easier to turn humans who are still alive into slaves. That’s what Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other sites are all about – showing anyone who would oppose the American Empire what can and will happen to them. The message is – be a slave or be tortured. The choice is up to you.

“I’m not sure how substantial the power of the KKK is these days. So, I’m not sure they are central to what we both agree on: American colonialization policies and practices in and outside the borders of the US. For instance, Northern US cities have been colonized and yet the presence of a KKK is nil.”

The KKK began in 1866, shortly after the end of chattel slavery. The end of chattel slavery was a threat to whites of all classes, and the KKK was a response to that threat. The KKK stepped in to ensure that blacks would continue to be terrorized and controlled. Jim Crow laws and massive discrimination completed the task.

Nowadays everything is so messed up (from the ruling class’s perspective) that noone in power cares anymore. I guess that’s potentially good news for blacks and other oppressed peoples, but it’s bad news for the human species. What I mean is that white colonial rule is dying. It’s easy to see this in a way – if white rule was healthy they would take care of the environment – if white rule was healthy they wouldn’t jeopardize that rule with the perpetual possibility of nuclear annihilation. Rulers never want the end of the world unless they see their own rule crumbling.

But if they see their own rule crumbling, then watch out. Think of a shrew backed into a corner, but instead of little teeth the shrew has massive armies and nuclear weapons at his disposal. The outcome is sure to be extremely unpleasant. The outcome is found in the hearts and souls of the Neoconservatives and their elite Liberal allies.

“This colonialization is irrational. From the beginning of time, wealth is created in settlements which became cities. Colonizing cities does not make good economic sense. On a local level it does, however. Not all cities are equal and many are finding ways to turn this around and free themselves…but that’s for another time/place.”

It makes extremely good economic sense. It’s utterly rational from the standpoint of a small elite maintaining it’s power, wealth, and privilege. It’s bad from everyone else’s perspective of course. But since the elite control the means of propaganda and most others are just scrabbling along trying to not die or suffer from day to day, they in many cases either can’t know or at least can’t act upon their knowledge.

The point of colonization is the same as the point of slavery – the perpetuation of weakness in the exploited group (a form of genocide). Here’s a rough breakdown of what the ruling class wants:

Obedience to their will. Only in rare cases is disobedience acceptable.

Many, many, variations in the exploited classes. Many layers of managers, many layers of workers, fine distinctions. Separate latinos into certain job classes, blacks into others, whites into others.

Create a buffer class – the “middle class”. Give them substantial privileges. Make them the caretakers (doctors, lawyers, etc.) of the exploited classes so that they can “be on their side”.

Create an educational system whose main method of passage is money. Ensure through job requirements that all good paying jobs require passage through the state educational system which required substantial money to get through in the first place.

The more exploited the class, the more dangerous they are. Don’t worry about the middle class – they will never revolt. Make sure the heavily exploited classes are impoverished and thus have neither the time, nor the strength, nor the hope, in order to revolt. Wage controls ensure that the heavily exploited classes need to work long hours just to get by, and the already controlled classes (middle classes) can have their vacations and short work weeks.

All of this is based on divide and conquer, colonization, maximizing profit for the elites, maintaining control, and all of it comes back to capitalism. Different flavors of capitalism (Neofeudal, Keynesian, Neoliberal) don’t differ all that much – they mostly differ in terms of how they treat the middle class. The middle class will sure tell you how different they are!

“So, why would a city, whose economy has been depleted, be colonized? Who does it serve? From what I can see it primarily serves land owners and speculators.”

You’re talking about physical colonization. That’s not what colonization is. Black colonization is well described in the phrase “escaping the ghetto”. The ghetto is not a place so much as a conflux of social, political, and economic conditions. Colonization may or may not have a physical component.

“American colonialization is a direct descendent of the European system. American expansionism and the use of slaves and the slaughter of the indigenous peoples on this land was an extension of the European imperial empire. As the American Empire took center stage, Europe’s imperialism receded; the birth was accomplished and has gone on full force for over a hundred years.”

Yep – but I hope people understand that it’s not based on racism. The American Empire will die soon, and I fear that people will then celebrate an “end to imperialism”, since they think that only white people are colonists. Meanwhile, whoever then emerges as a global power will meet zero resistance as they go about their own imperial project, and only many years later will people wake up and say “Oh, oh, I never knew!”

Greed and lust for power are universal human conditions (just as are fairness and egalitarian principles), but they can be minimized in effect through social, cultural, and economic policies. What we need is not so much an end to imperialism as an end to the structures that ensure imperialism – capitalism. We need to understand capitalism and break it down – end class divisions – end a heavily privatized world – end hierarchies unless they are mutually supported. This can be done – and with the right local movements linked together in a global justice movement it will be done.

“Brian said: “Racism has nothing to do with a lack of empathy and everything to do with greed, profit, and power. It’s not an ideology – it’s a tool.”

“I didn’t say racism was a lack of empathy. There is a central, system economically based (I think we agree) which is bolstered by racism. The psychology around group think/dynamics that creates the KKK or lynching of Germans pre-WWI, or Hitler’s cadre that had emerged out of WWI, are NOT the racist system, but they are a PRODUCT of it.”

We agree on that, but we don’t agree on what creates the KKK. It’s not true that groupthink created or maintained the KKK. That’s like saying that groupthink created a corporation. Shared interests create corporations, and shared interests created the KKK. The shared interest that involves the maintenance of white and elite white privilege, profit, and power by means of keeping blacks in a perpetual state of terror.

Lets see if you agree on what I think our arguments are: your argument is that racism is emotional and irrational and mine is that racism is logical and rational. Your argument is that hatred is the cause of racism, and that racism just happens to then serve rational interests (amazingly!). My argument is that greed (rational greed from the standpoint of individualism) is the cause of theft and subjugation, racism furthers the ends of theft and subjugation, and all emotions involved (fear, hatred, and otherwise) are either reactions to this rational project or complementary to it. Is that a fair assessment of our differences?

“I’m saying that the lack of empathy for Iraqi children and the death and mutilation caused by US invasion and occupation is a direct result/product of the economic system that fosters racism. In in its full bloom it is the demonization of the other.”

Right – but I disagree insofar as the other can be pretty much anything. If there were no browns the other could be blue. If there were no blacks the other could be pink polka dot. The other is whatever happens to be most convenient to put on the assembly line of profitability. Whites kill whites for profit, blacks kill blacks for profit, the color money-green is the only true form of racism in the world. When blacks are weak and exploitable they are the other. When Jews are weak and exploitable they are the other. When whites are weak and exploitable they are the other and are then called by a different name (such as workers vs. managers).

Can you ever imagine a white capitalist thinking “Wow, I have this great opportunity for profit but the person I would be exploiting is white! Oh well, I guess I’ll have to move on to the next opportunity.”

That will be the day! Corporations *maximize profits*. The only logical outcome of this is that the victims of corporations are whoever most efficiently feeds that profit maximization.

“Ideology – “isms” tend to be belief systems acted on; a prism by which one sees the world, worldview. That said I’m fine with calling it a tool.”

I don’t think when Americans call Iraqis “hajjis” only when they are killing them can it be said that there is an ideological basis for the killing. Ideology can’t be turned on and off based on a military project. If, however, calling them “hajjis” is a tool to further their killing, torturing, and terrorizing efficiency, then it can and certainly is turned on or off depending on whether the Americans are killing, torturing, and terrorizing them or not at any given time.

“One clarfication of that clarification at the end of the post: I’m not saying that people of color who have been discriminated based on color have not been racially targeted. What I am saying is that racism is not unique to some ethnic or racial group. Slavery created a particular legacy; but it is not the only legacy associated with racism.”

Capitalists of any race will exploit whatever humans of whatever race they can get their hands on. Groups like the KKK make sure that certain races are easier for capitalists to grasp than others – it’s like someone on a life raft pushing a shipmate into an ocean with a shark in it. The shark consumes what’s closest to it first and the white guy on the life raft gets to drink his tea and enjoy his big screen TV. But then the shark gets hungry again, and who’s left to eat now?

Either we kill the shark, or we all die.

White Lies – A "Top Ten" List

March 24, 2008

Link

Who Sounded the Black Ideological Retreat?

March 20, 2008

Link

The $200 Billion Bail-out for Predator Banks and Spitzer Charges are Intimately Linked

March 16, 2008

Link

Empire, Class Warfare, Triumphalism, and Dehumanization in the Gaming Industry

March 16, 2008

79% of mainstream PC games feature killing. The reason for this is to condition players (largely youth) to view obstacles as things to be eliminated. The concept of negotiation in a computer game is seen by players as ridiculous – the majority have never played a obstacle-oriented game with anything but killing whatever opposes the protagonist (controlled by the player). The typical gamer’s idea of what is done in a video game other than killing is building up a base before killing or building an empire before killing (and taking over the world). War is the overwhelming motif used time and again in video games.

There is a massive difference between the mainstream games market and it’s 79% killing rate and the amateur games market and it’s 49% killing rate. Consider that the primary source of inspiration for the design of amateur games IS the mainstream games market.

Mainstream games developers have given a few reasons over the years for why they make so many games about killing:

— It’s exciting for the player. Therefore the player enjoys it, therefore the player buys our game, therefore the game makes money, therefore publishers continue to fund our games, therefore we continue to work in the industry.

— It’s simple to develop.

— Game developers themselves are young, immature, and male, and therefore they themselves enjoy killing in games and hence develop those games.

All of these reasons are problematic. Ratings on Newgrounds show that players enjoy games that don’t include killing just as they do ones that do.

When immature young male writers write stories they don’t feature killings by the protagonist 79% of the time, or anything close to that.

It may be “simple to develop”, but that’s only because the industry has a long history of developing games that include killing, to such an extent that the development of the industry itself is dominated by that. Hence the prevalence of “physics engines”, which are often used to track bullet trajectories and the flying apart of objects following violence.

The one reason heard least often but which is the most interesting is that developers make so many games which feature killing because publishers want it that way. Money talks and the money is saying “Make us games that feature killing”. This begs the question of why.

The publishers of video games are overwhelmingly from modern industrial Western countries. Japan and the US dominate the industry, with the UK and other European and Western-friendly Asian countries trailing behind. This Western bloc as a semi-unified force has been an Empire since the end of WWII.

The US requires propaganda to turn children into killers to be fed into the war machine. No other country has this requirement to any similar degree. This fact has startling repercussions on the industry. Japanese publishers are far less favorable toward killing in games. Whole genres have been created by the Japanese, such as dating sims and pet management (breeding and raising creatures). American publishers tend to favor “shooting shit and blowing stuff up”.

Other aspects between allied Western powers however converge. Triumphalism, Supremacy, and Dehumanization are traits that all imperial states need to instill in their populace. A popular genre in Japan as well as the US is the role-playing game, where players lead a group which cleanses (exterminates) the world of monsters while completing a world-saving quest. Over the span of this game the players become more and more powerful, gaining supremacy over the world and ultimately standing triumphant. At the end of the game, truly nothing and no one can stand in their way (and barely anything remains to even try).

“Saving the world” is used time and time again as the justification for absolute atrocities. Every obstacle in the way of “saving the world” is deemed a monster which not only can be slaughtered without thought but should be slaughtered, nay, must be slaughtered, or the world will not truly be saved. Game developers must be proud – not even the Nazis were this ruthless.

As the player progresses through the game, he becomes stronger and stronger, and this kind of hedonistic “progress” is similar to the “rise” of a drug dealer who devastates whole communities as he enriches himself. Except even a drug dealer usually avoids killing.

Is it really any wonder that humans who have spent in many cases years playing these kinds of games can go to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever the Empire wants to strike next, call the people there “monsters” which is equivalent to “hajji”, and exterminate them? These people truly are victims of their upbringing. I’m not so much surprised that American forces commit so many atrocities as that they sometimes don’t.

The game publishers are part of the capitalist class, the ruling class, the elite, that benefit from war as well as economic and military domination. Hence US publishers finance games which feature killing, and US, Japanese, and other friendly publishers finance games which feature domination, extermination, dehumanization, triumphalism, and supremacy. All of this is done to control and dominate the target group, the first victims – their own people. The buyers that they claim to “serve”. Poison is always this chef’s special of the day.

Pure Pwnage is a landmark game-parody series which covers a few of these issues, especially triumphalism and supremacy. It’s very light-hearted and fails to draw connections between gaming and the larger world, except in terms of culture.

Alcoholism and Racism – a study in contrasts

March 9, 2008

America is a racist society and likes itself as such. By contrasting racism with alcoholism (which America does not like) it becomes easy to see this.

For alcoholism the elite (those with positive access to state-supported power) set up Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and facilities, where alcoholics go and receive support and treatment. The idea here is to combat and perhaps eventually to eliminate alcoholism.

In contrast, when anyone stands up and announces he is a racist (see examples such as Michael Richards, Don Imus, Mel Gibson) he is vilified, given attention, and shunned. This is virtually the opposite treatment shown to alcoholics.

According to the American elite, the crime that Richards, Imus, and Gibson committed is not racism, because if that was their crime they would be encouraged to go to Racists Anonymous meetings for support. Their crime is a *display* of racism. That is to say, their crime is to show the world the racist that they are.

If we shunned alcoholics, what they would do is to be alcoholics in private and try to hide their alcoholism in public. Since we shun racists, this is exactly the way they usually behave, and when they don’t they are publically abused.

Except to the industry that produces alcohol and minor related industries, alcoholism is harmful. An alcoholic has reduced, sometimes severely reduced, productivity. He becomes more dangerous. Alcoholism has a negative impact on the economy and therefore the elite does not like alcoholism, despite it’s weakening of the individual.

Racism, however, is a completely different story. While racism hurts the economy as a whole greatly, it helps the economy with respect to the elite, as any slaveowner in the old south could tell you. Racism allows the elite to divide and conquer the working class, as they play one side against another and keep them from unifying to increase their wealth.

The elite don’t have anything in particular that they like about racism, so if some other methodology to divide and conquer or otherwise control the working class arose, in theory racism could be done away with.

But for now, the elite will not show compassion for racists, they will not establish Racists Anonymous meetings, and they will not treat racism as they do alcoholism. Because that could actually end racism, and they can’t have that.

American Blackout

March 8, 2008

Link

Black Prison Gulag and the Police State

March 6, 2008

Link

"Overcoming Zionism" by Kovel – 2/16/08 in Berkeley, CA

March 4, 2008

Link

Racism and Politics in America

January 29, 2008

Link

Recession and the modern American economic system

January 25, 2008

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

How the service economy fuels white supremacy

January 24, 2008

White people (by and large) like being served by other white people, especially when that service requires frequent communication or other intimacy. White people have the money, and therefore are the ones being served. Therefore white servants are “better” than blacks or latinos or otherwise. Therefore whites get the jobs, therefore minorities are unemployed, therefore white supremacy is served.

New Voter ID law could affect thousands of poor voters

January 14, 2008

Link

Tourism

January 7, 2008

It’s just another poor country starved by Washington and Wall Street
Go there and bless them with Imperial dollars
Buy their quaint local goods and place them as trophies on your mantle
Pity their street children as they scramble

Welcome to another neocolony, it’s just like all the others
Tourist cities built up for the local elite to gorge themselves
The rest starve and are allowed to compete “freely” with American subsidized goods
Do your liberal duty and bless them with your white face

Say hello to the American military base if you ever get off the beaten path
Which you won’t, you’re very well behaved
Your behavior rewards you with whatever the Empire can spare
They even wash the blood off the money for you

And then you gasp, you shake your fist, at Neocon excess
How could they? Your brain cell quivers in outrage
How could the Neocons abuse Americans? We’re supposed to be protected
The more they abuse us, the happier we are that they abuse them
Get them out of our hair, send them to Iraq or Iran
Bask in the warm glow of murdering with impunity

Buy their quaint local goods and place them as trophies on your mantle

Why the White Elite likes Obama and Oprah

December 31, 2007

From http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14612

“I argue that the white-pleasing “Obama effect” builds on and expands its mass-cultural kissing cousin the “Oprah effect” in deepening the illusion of racism’s disappearance by elevating the public profile of selected bourgeois blacks who make sure not to spark white anxieties with honest discussion of the continuing powerful role of white supremacy in American life.”

The Coup’s Dig It

December 26, 2007

Link

Wow – this might be The Coup’s best.