Wednesday, December 9, 2015

The Liberal Democrat Presidential Candidate Quiz: #FeelTheBern Edition | Mickey Z.

Photo: Gage Skidmore. (CC BY-SA 3.0)Photo: Gage Skidmore. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Mickey Z. -- World News Trust

Dec. 9, 2015

Greetings Presidential Elections Fans:

Below are brief excerpts from seven different speeches by seven different candidates over the past 25 or 30 years. All seven candidates were deemed “liberal” or “progressive” by the corporate media and the malleable voting public. 

Without using a search engine, can any of you dedicated lefty types identify the candidates or even tell these speeches apart? Could one of these snippets actually be the words of your latest savior, Bernie Sanders?

Okay, Sandernistas, here we go! 

1. “All of us know what those challenges are today -- a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.”

2. “Dr. King understood this, many years ago when he said the war in Vietnam was destroying the people of two nations. We don’t have enough money to build bridges in this country, yet we blow them up in Iraq. We don’t have money to build schools in this country, but we have seen schools and hospitals and other institutions destroyed in Iraq. We cannot take care of matters here at home, and yet we have leaders who want to go all around the world and tell people what to do. Let’s come back home. Let’s take care of things here. Let’s have a country that we can be proud of, with housing for all and jobs for all and education for all and healthcare for all. That’s the kind of America that people will love; the kind of America that will be an example to people all over the world as a country that you believe in, a country that you want to see succeed. Are we ready to take the path towards that kind of an America?”

3. “What's the fundamental challenge of our day? It is to end economic violence. Most poor people are not lazy. They're not black. They're not brown. They're mostly white, and female and young. Most poor people are not on welfare. I know they work. I'm a witness. They catch the early bus. They work every day. They raise other people's children. They work every day. They clean the streets. They work every day. They change the beds you slept in in these hotels last night and can't get a union contract. They work every day. They work in hospitals. I know they do. They wipe the bodies of those who are sick with fever and pain. They empty their bedpans. They clean out their commode. No job is beneath them, and yet when they get sick, they cannot lie in the bed they made up every day. America, that is not right. We are a better nation than that. We are a better nation than that.”

4. “Today, we stand here and say loudly and clearly that; ‘Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, their Super-PACs and their lobbyists.’ Brothers and sisters: Now is not the time for thinking small. Now is not the time for the same old – same old establishment politics and stale inside-the-beltway ideas. Now is the time for millions of working families to come together, to revitalize American democracy, to end the collapse of the American middle class and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security and joy -- and that once again makes the United States the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environmental sanity and for a world of peace.

5. “Our democratic system has been the object of a hostile takeover, engineered by a confederacy of corruption, careerism, and campaign consulting. And money has been the lubricant greasing the deal.”

6. “Don’t tell us unemployment is not a problem, when we see that African American unemployment is now above 10 percent -- double the rate for whites. It is unacceptable in the wealthiest nation on earth that we tolerate vast and growing pockets of poverty -- from the hills of Appalachia to the streets of Philadelphia. Making life better for the working poor is part of my vision for a stronger America. We can do better… and we will. Don’t tell us crumbling and overcrowded schools and underpaid teachers are the best we can do. We have the means to give all our children a first-rate education. We can do better… and we will. Don’t tell us we have to accept racial profiling, hate crimes, or the assault by right wing judges on our precious civil rights progress. We can do better and we will.”

7. “For millions and millions of Americans, the dream with which I grew up has been shattered. The ideal that if you work hard and play by the rules you'll be rewarded, you'll do a little better next year than you did last year, your kids will do better than you. But that idea has been devastated for millions of Americans. How did this happen? I would argue it happened for two reasons. No. 1: We lost our economic leadership. Other nations began to do some things better than we do, and their economies started growing faster and faster as ours slowed down. No. 2, and this is why I'm running for President: We elected people to high office who had the wrong response to the problem. And that's what this election is all about. Three or four big, simple ideas, even though the problems are complex.”

So, dear “comrades,” who said what? More importantly, did any of these seven supposed subversives mean a single word of it? Most importantly: Where has all this willful denial gotten us, except a few decades closer to utter collapse?

As you begin to regret not-studying for this quiz, I’ll leave you with a single sentence from a genuine radical, the venerable Lucy Parsons: “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”

Mickey Z. is the author of 13 books, most recently Occupy these Photos: NYC Activism Through a Radical Lens. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, you can “like” his Facebook page here and follow his blog here. Anyone wishing to support his activist efforts can do so by making a donation here.
Creative Commons License
 
"The Liberal Democrat Presidential Candidate Quiz: #FeelTheBern Edition" by Mickey Z. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://worldnewstrust.com/the-liberal-democrat-presidential-candidate-quiz-feelthebern-edition-mickey-z.
  • Created
    Wednesday, 09 December 2015
  • Last modified
    Wednesday, 09 December 2015

Advertisement

Subscribe





Mickey Z. -- World News Trust

Dec. 9, 2015

Greetings Presidential Elections Fans:

Below are brief excerpts from seven different speeches by seven different candidates over the past 25 or 30 years. All seven candidates were deemed “liberal” or “progressive” by the corporate media and the malleable voting public. 

Without using a search engine, can any of you dedicated lefty types identify the candidates or even tell these speeches apart? Could one of these snippets actually be the words of your latest savior, Bernie Sanders?

Okay, Sandernistas, here we go! 

1. “All of us know what those challenges are today -- a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.”

2. “Dr. King understood this, many years ago when he said the war in Vietnam was destroying the people of two nations. We don’t have enough money to build bridges in this country, yet we blow them up in Iraq. We don’t have money to build schools in this country, but we have seen schools and hospitals and other institutions destroyed in Iraq. We cannot take care of matters here at home, and yet we have leaders who want to go all around the world and tell people what to do. Let’s come back home. Let’s take care of things here. Let’s have a country that we can be proud of, with housing for all and jobs for all and education for all and healthcare for all. That’s the kind of America that people will love; the kind of America that will be an example to people all over the world as a country that you believe in, a country that you want to see succeed. Are we ready to take the path towards that kind of an America?”

3. “What's the fundamental challenge of our day? It is to end economic violence. Most poor people are not lazy. They're not black. They're not brown. They're mostly white, and female and young. Most poor people are not on welfare. I know they work. I'm a witness. They catch the early bus. They work every day. They raise other people's children. They work every day. They clean the streets. They work every day. They change the beds you slept in in these hotels last night and can't get a union contract. They work every day. They work in hospitals. I know they do. They wipe the bodies of those who are sick with fever and pain. They empty their bedpans. They clean out their commode. No job is beneath them, and yet when they get sick, they cannot lie in the bed they made up every day. America, that is not right. We are a better nation than that. We are a better nation than that.”

4. “Today, we stand here and say loudly and clearly that; ‘Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, their Super-PACs and their lobbyists.’ Brothers and sisters: Now is not the time for thinking small. Now is not the time for the same old – same old establishment politics and stale inside-the-beltway ideas. Now is the time for millions of working families to come together, to revitalize American democracy, to end the collapse of the American middle class and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security and joy -- and that once again makes the United States the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environmental sanity and for a world of peace.

5. “Our democratic system has been the object of a hostile takeover, engineered by a confederacy of corruption, careerism, and campaign consulting. And money has been the lubricant greasing the deal.”

6. “Don’t tell us unemployment is not a problem, when we see that African American unemployment is now above 10 percent -- double the rate for whites. It is unacceptable in the wealthiest nation on earth that we tolerate vast and growing pockets of poverty -- from the hills of Appalachia to the streets of Philadelphia. Making life better for the working poor is part of my vision for a stronger America. We can do better… and we will. Don’t tell us crumbling and overcrowded schools and underpaid teachers are the best we can do. We have the means to give all our children a first-rate education. We can do better… and we will. Don’t tell us we have to accept racial profiling, hate crimes, or the assault by right wing judges on our precious civil rights progress. We can do better and we will.”

7. “For millions and millions of Americans, the dream with which I grew up has been shattered. The ideal that if you work hard and play by the rules you'll be rewarded, you'll do a little better next year than you did last year, your kids will do better than you. But that idea has been devastated for millions of Americans. How did this happen? I would argue it happened for two reasons. No. 1: We lost our economic leadership. Other nations began to do some things better than we do, and their economies started growing faster and faster as ours slowed down. No. 2, and this is why I'm running for President: We elected people to high office who had the wrong response to the problem. And that's what this election is all about. Three or four big, simple ideas, even though the problems are complex.”

So, dear “comrades,” who said what? More importantly, did any of these seven supposed subversives mean a single word of it? Most importantly: Where has all this willful denial gotten us, except a few decades closer to utter collapse?

As you begin to regret not-studying for this quiz, I’ll leave you with a single sentence from a genuine radical, the venerable Lucy Parsons: “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”

Mickey Z. is the author of 13 books, most recently Occupy these Photos: NYC Activism Through a Radical Lens. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, you can “like” his Facebook page here and follow his blog here. Anyone wishing to support his activist efforts can do so by making a donation here.
Creative Commons License
"The Liberal Democrat Presidential Candidate Quiz: #FeelTheBern Edition" by Mickey Z. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://worldnewstrust.com/the-liberal-democrat-presidential-candidate-quiz-feelthebern-edition-mickey-z.
  • Created
    Wednesday, 09 December 2015
  • Last modified
    Wednesday, 09 December 2015


Subscribe

A DICTATORSHIP THAT LOSES ELECTIONS? María Páez Victor

More
1 of 28

A DICTATORSHIP THAT LOOSES ELECTIONS?

A DICTATORSHIP THAT LOSES ELECTIONS?
 María Páez Victor
 Correo Canadiense, Toronto
7 December 2015

It is my hope that the international right-wing and its minions in the Venezuelan opposition will have the honesty of admitting that the government of Venezuela is not a dictatorship but a democracy, because the opposition has just won an ample majority in the National Assembly. But I think I will be left with that wish not granted because their favourite weapon is to lie to the media. For example, Hillary Clinton unashamedly announced that President Maduro was planning to commit fraud, thus she showed her profound ignorance of the Venezuelan electoral process; a process that her fellow party member, former president of the USA, Jimmy Carter has deemed the best in the world.
I am proud of the election authorities of the Armed Forces loyal to the Constitution and of my Venezuelan people who voted in peace and order.
However, it was not a contest between the government and the opposition: it was a contest between Venezuela and the government of the USA which planned the economic war, advised the opposition and gave $18 million dollars to NGOs that carried out the destabilizing activities that the CIA cannot do openly. If in anything the Venezuelan government failed it was in failing to reign in those NGOs that bought and intimidated people with their propaganda and dollars.

It has to be faced: the economic war triumphed. When Nixon decided to overthrow Allende he gave an order to make the economy of Chile “scream:” And so it was then and now in Venezuela. Taking advantage of the low oil prices they promoted massive hoarding and smuggling and soaring prices, without caring for the suffering of the people. The opposition only wants to perpetuate its privileges. It is not a coincidence that the three most notorious opposition leaders (Capriles, López and Machado) come from the most ultra-wealthy families of the country.

But Chavismo is not dead, not by far. It is the most known and coherent political force in many decades. It has changed the political culture of the country. The opposition has no plan for the country further than “to get rid of the Chavistas” and it is formed by disparaging personalities and parties that openly antagonize each other.

Now that they will have governmental responsibilities they will face this dilemma: if, as if by magic, the lack of goods and high prices disappear, it will be clear evidence that they themselves were the agents of the economic war, and thus they will help restore the popularity of President Maduro. But if they do not manage this economic turnaround , they will have gone back on their electoral promises, and the people will pay them back at the next election.

And there the Chavistas will be, with the people, prepared for victory.

Inbox
x
Trash
x





Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Donald Trump: Not a Hitler, but a Ford by Muhsin Y.





Muhsin Yorulmaz






Donald Trump: Not a Hitler, but a Ford
by Muhsin Y.
Recently, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has been making a stir in the mainstream media with his "outrageous" comments. Many of these remind the historically informed read of Nazi policy: After all, one need merely replace the word "Jew" with the word "Muslim" to cause polite US company to reject out of hand the idea of barring the minority in question from going through US immigration, or having to wear special identification badges within the US.
But at present, Trump lacks many important tools that were at the disposal of Adolf Hitler, his apparent hero (and indeed he is reported by his ex-wife to have kept a copy of "My New Order" by Hitler by the bed). Hitler had an extensive network of organised militants ready to specifically attack the organs of Weimar democracy. Hitler had his own openly fascist party. The Republican Party, for all its reactionary qualities, is still within the realm of bourgeois democracy, and US bourgeois law and order is still stable enough to have no need for an open fascist group to maintain the economic order.
Indeed, we can say that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are still two sides of the same coin. They cooperate in one government (unlike in many other bourgeois democracies where one will witness a party (or coalition) in government and an opposition), they tend to agree on foreign policy, and they largely agree on domestic economic policy.
Although anything is possible, I predict that Donald Trump is not going to be elected president of the United States in 2016. But he still represents a real danger: Donald Trump is laying the groundwork for a future fascist movement in the United States.
The Republican Party may at any time split (already there is the "Tea Party" faction within it), or the Republican and Democratic parties, serving different sections of bourgeois interest, may come to an impasse at some point in the future.
Fascism is always a tool that is useful for capitalism and imperialism, and in the current climate, a fascist leadership in the US would indeed resemble Donald Trump: Using Muslims (and/or other hated minorities) as the existential threat to "the nation", this leadership would be run by corporate interests and mobilise militants (today's white supremacist and xenophobic "gun nuts") to shore up its rule through actions which might "embarrass" the legal state forces at first. It would, like the Nazis in Germany, promise to return "the nation" to its former greatness.
"Make America great again."

What's interesting is that there was another US capitalist whose widely promoted ideas are associated with the emergence of US fascism, or if not a full fascist order, certainly the glimmer or threat of fascist elements being permitted to operate. I am speaking of course of Henry Ford.
Henry Ford's anti-Jewish ideas made him very popular with the Ku Klux Klan, and his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, painted the Ku Klux Klan sympathetically. Henry Ford's own qualms with them seem to have been their methods, not wanting to be required to wear a mask, as he put it (if we assume that this was not merely stated for reasons of wanting to keep his hands, personally, clean). From the Ku Klux Klan's side, they stated in 1923 that they would be sympathetic to Ford running for president.

Ford's presidency was not to be. But things turned out quite differently for the Ku Klux Klan's German equivalent, the Freikorps. The Freikorps were paramilitary groups who, after WWI, were the fighting force of reaction used to destroy socialist and progressive forces in Germany, just as the Ku Klux Klan attacked the CPUSA, before Khruschevite revisionism rendered them a non-threat. The Freikorps got their "Ford" in Hitler, and the rest, as they say, is history. And Hitler indeed wanted to be their "Ford": His most famous work, Mein Kampf, was inspired by Ford's work, "the International Jew". Ford recognised some of himself in Hitler, and backed him (against their shared enemies, socialism and "the Jews").
The peoples of the US were saved from the open fascist nightmare suffered by Germany because, after the victory of WWII, the "New Deal" allowed for sharing of super-profits generated by the US's expanded imperialist domination. This, in turn, prevented the need for a full and immediate confrontation between bourgeoisie and proletariat in the US, as much of the proletariat was bought out by a labour aristocracy. Finally, again, we must state that the Khrushchevite revisionists dismantled the once militant CPUSA, leaving the US left demoralised, divided, and disorganised for decades to come.

But if we are Marxists, and we believe in history, we know that capitalism creates its own contradictions, and cannot be reformed. In the march towards the end of capitalism, these contradictions may sharpen again, as they did in Germany, when the German imperialists lost their iron grip on power as rival imperialist forces outmaneuvered them. Like Henry Ford, Donald Trump is a capitalist with his fangs fully bared, readying himself and his class for full confrontation and the abandonment of all pretense of democratic rights in the name of "national" (actually bourgeois) interest.
The problem, therefore, is not Donald Trump. He may suffer a heart attack and die tomorrow, but he is a reflection of the material conditions of today, and perhaps the material conditions of tomorrow. The right-wing violence we see today may indeed grow, and it will have political and economic defenders if the material conditions demand it.

The left in the US would do well to respond by preparing accordingly.

Miracles Do Happen: Venezuela Relabeled a Democracy in Wake of Opposition Win By Z.C. Dutka ,

FROM VENEZUELA ANALYSIS
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11757

Last night, as the results of the December 6th elections were announced, spontaneous parties broke out in the urban centers of Venezuela. Fireworks were launched, horns were honked to no end. Just hours before, the same people were howling via social media to the world about the totalitarian dictatorship imposed by Nicolas Maduro.

And a curious dictator he is, to be sure. One that accepts a stunning electoral defeat with the words, “Our victory is peace, our victory is sovereignty […] today, democracy and the constitution have triumphed.”

In the past few weeks, opposition supporters threatened to take to the streets as international media poised itself to cry foul in the instance of a government win.

On the ground in Venezuela the 2014 violent guarimba protests, during which 43 people were killed and barricades guarded by armed protestors brought entire cities to a standstill, were at the front of people’s minds.

But as dawn broke on December 7th, all talk of fraud was forgotten. Once the desired results were announced, the media dropped the charges against Venezuelan democracy in unison.

And the miracles didn’t stop there. Venezuelan bonds rallied sharply this morning on the stock market, with yields for those due next year dropping from 46 per cent to 35.72. Residents of central areas of Caracas reported an influx of food on the shelves, and to top it all, the exchange rate for the dollar as calculated by the tracking website DolarToday dropped from 920 to 906.

Now with a confirmed 99 seats in the 167 person National Assembly, the opposition holds a simple majority while the ruling party PSUV won 46 seats. In the next few hours, as the 22 remaining seats are determined, the opposition will likely see itself with a three fifths majority and the powers to expel ministers and the vice-president.

In his acceptance speech last night, president Maduro said that rather than an opposition win, yesterday’s results marked “the victory of the counter revolution…the state of need created by the politics of savage capitalism”

With more sincerity than ever before he acknowledged that times are incredibly hard for working class Venezuelans, whose salaries are often devalued by the end of the month by inflation, and allowed that a 42 per cent Chavista vote was still a lot considering the circumstances.

Venezuela’s foreign income has been halved by the oil glut, while a combination of unstable economic policies and sabotage from the private sector has debilitated the national currency and caused the scarcity of many basic consumer products.

Still, while badmouthing the government has become something of a national hobby, virtually no one has anything good to say about the current array of opposition leaders.

Indeed, a July poll by the private pollster Hinterlaces found that 52 per cent of Venezuelans believe the opposition has “no plan for the nation,” while 67 percent agreed they "the opposition has votes because of the discontent in the country but does not have popular backing.”

Yesterday’s ballots show just how strong the discontent had become.

Of the 99+ opposition deputies who will join the National Assembly on January 5th, not one signed the statutory agreement drawn up in October by the country’s electoral authority CNE saying they would respect they election results.

In April 2013, they refused to accept Maduro’s victory over presidential candidate Henrique Capriles despite the fact that 17 audits had been conducted by the CNE and upheld by international observers and organizations such as UNASUR (Union of South American Nations).

At the time, Capriles urged his supporters to take to the streets and insist their votes be counted, leading to riots that left nine dead, most of whom were Chavistas celebrating their victory.

Yesterday evening a mob of protestors cornered a CNE official outside the electoral headquarters in Caracas, chanting “The vote is ours!” before turning on Chavista passerby.
 
Venezuela's largest business conglomerate Fedecamaras, who admitted to playing a role in the 2002 coup d'etat against Hugo Chavez, already revealed that they would petition the new National Assembly to eliminate price regulations and conduct a revision of the Workers’ Law developed under Chavez.

But as the results were released and tension melted into either heartache or euphoria, all talk of electoral fraud was pointedly discarded.

Meanwhile, in a nondescript living room somewhere in the United States, Hillary Clinton raised a glass to the “oppressed” people of Venezuela, who last night “began the process of taking back democracy.”

She neglected to say for who.
Creative Commons license icon This work is licensed under a Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Creative Commons license

Monday, December 7, 2015

$15 Whenever (SOAPBOX PODCAST 12/6/2015)

Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox
December 6, 2015


GUEST: SARAH MORKEN
TOPIC: STRUGGLE FOR $15 NOW, TACOMA 


This week, Cindy chats with Tacoma WA activist
Sarah Morken
about the struggle, obstacles from the "left", victories, and
defeats of the $15 Now Tacoma campaign.

CONNECT WITH SARAH AND HER COMRADES
ON 

Sunday, December 6, 2015

Beat Writer Pedophiles and the White Male Leftists Who Love Them | Mickey Z.


Rattling liberals is something I excel at without even trying, particularly when it comes to electoral politics. Lately, however, I’ve discovered a few other ways that I get under the skin of your average white, left-leaning male (middle-aged, even easier). For example, all I have to do is suggest they show some radical solidarity -- and some humanity -- by giving up two of their favorite pastimes: 
  1. jerking off to pornography, the filmed rape and battery of females
  2. paying to rape prostituted females
Oh, how the male tears will flow… 

Another way to guarantee an apoplectic, mansplainy fit: point out how many of their heroes were rapists and/or rape apologists, misogynists, pedophiles, and/or pedo-apologists. Tell a man of the Left about the predatory proclivities of his beloved male role models, then stand back to watch the phallocentric fireworks.

“Throw in some gross act”
 
Let’s commence this sordid sojourn by re-considering someone who -- I now admit with intense humiliation -- I once championed, Charles Bukowski. His work was awash in misogyny and racism but it was with a short story entitled “The Fiend” that Buk sunk to an unforgivable level and bared the depths of his degeneracy. Here he is discussing “The Fiend” (and related issues) with High Times in 1982:

High Times: Do you consider yourself an erotic writer?

Bukowski: “Erotic! I write about everything. The reason sex got into so much of my stories is because when I quit with the Post Office, at the age of 50, I had to make money. What I really wanted to do was write about something that interested me. But there were all those pornographic magazines on Melrose Avenue, and they had read my stuff in the Free Press, and started asking me to send them something. So what I would do was write a good story, and then in the middle I had to throw in some gross act of sex. And so I would write a story, and at a certain point I would say, ‘Well, it's time to throw some sex into it.’ And I would throw some sex in it and kept writing the story. It was okay, I would mail the story and immediately get a $300 check.”

High Times: But do you see your stories as erotic? Do you think people get excited when they read them?

Bukowski: “I don't know. Some people have written me and told me that some of my stories have aroused them. Especially ‘The Fiend.’ Now, why the story of a man raping a little girl arouses people I don't know. Perhaps a lot of men want to do it and it is only the law and the fear that prevents them from doing it. Perhaps the fact that I described her clothing, slowly, what happened, has excited somebody. But I didn't get a hard-on while I was writing it.”

I’ll give you a moment to scrub yourself in a scalding hot shower before we continue. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

“Stop making those hysterical noises”
 
Bukowski’s fellow poet -- in fact, the Beat Generation poet himself, Allen Ginsberg -- was eventually more forthcoming about what did and didn’t make him hard. But, at first, the liberal hero hid his desires behind bogus platitudes, e.g. “I became a member of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love [sic] Association) ... as a matter of civil liberties. In the early 1980s, the FBI had conducted a campaign of entrapment and ‘dirty tricks’ against NAMBLA members just as they had against black and anti-war leaders in previous decades.”

If we are to take the widely revered wordsmith at face value, he saw the "rights" of men to abuse, assault, and rape children as being on par with those of activists risking arrest (or worse) to struggle against militarism and white supremacy.

In case you're naive enough (or twisted enough) to believe this "free speech" bullshit, please consider something else Ginsberg said, this time during a 1997 interview with The Harvard Gay & Lesbian Review: “Everybody likes little kids. … Naked kids have been a staple of delight for centuries, for both parents and onlookers. So to label pedophilia as criminal is ridiculous.”

Then we have Deliberate Prose: Selected Essays 1952-1995, a book in which his publisher (HarperCollins) claims Ginsberg "gave voice to the moral conscience of the nation." A book in which the poet's "moral conscience" led him to announce: “Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they’ll get used to our lovemaking in two days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical noises that make everything sexy sound like rape.”

I'll give you a few minutes to unclench your fists and/or vomit before we revisit Ginsberg's proud standing as a member of NAMBLA. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

"Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witch hunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance," he stated, before betraying his actual predatory motivations: "I'm a member of NAMBLA because I love boys too -- everybody does, who has a little humanity."

Clarity: That's not humanity, it's pedophilia

Conversely, this related excerpt from Andrea Dworkin's memoir, Heartbreak, is humanity:
On the day of the bar mitzvah newspapers reported in huge headlines that the Supreme Court had ruled child pornography illegal. I was thrilled. I knew that Allen would not be. I did think he was a civil libertarian. But in fact, he was a pedophile. He did not belong to the North American ManBoy Love Association out of some mad, abstract conviction that its voice had to be heard. He meant it. I take this from what Allen said directly to me, not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage boys. I did everything I could to avoid Allen and to avoid conflict. This was my godson’s day. He did not need a political struggle to the death breaking out all over. Ginsberg would not leave me alone. He followed me everywhere I went from the lobby of the hotel through the whole reception, then during the dinner. He photographed me constantly with a vicious little camera he wore around his neck. He sat next to me and wanted to know details of sexual abuse I had suffered. A lovely woman, not knowing that his interest was entirely pornographic, told a terrible story of being molested by a neighbor. He ignored her. She had thought, “This is Allen Ginsberg, the great beat poet and a prince of empathy.” Wrong. Ginsberg told me that he had never met an intelligent person who had the ideas I did. I told him he didn’t get around enough. He pointed to the friends of my godson and said they were old enough to fuck. They were 12 and 13. He said that all sex was good, including forced sex. I am good at getting rid of men, strictly in the above-board sense. I couldn’t get rid of Allen. Finally I had had it. Referring back to the Supreme Court’s decision banning child pornography he said, “The right wants to put me in jail.” I said, “Yes, they’re very sentimental; I’d kill you.” The next day he’d point at me in crowded rooms and screech, “She wants to put me in jail.” I’d say, “No, Allen, you still don’t get it. The right wants to put you in jail. I want you dead.” He told everyone his fucked-up version of the story (“You want to put me in jail”) for years. When he died he stopped.

“Sorta like a dirty old man”
 
Here’s how another Beat Writer/pedophile’s Wikipedia entry begins:

William Seward Burroughs II (also known by his pen name William Lee; February 5, 1914 – August 2, 1997) was an American novelist, short story writer, essayist, painter, and spoken word performer. A primary figure of the Beat Generation and a major postmodernist author, he is considered to be "one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century."

Curiously, they left out a very important word: pedophile. Perhaps some enterprising soul out there will add something like this excerpt (from a 1955 letter written by Burroughs in Tangiers and addressed to Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac) to his Burroughs’ page:

“The Italian school is just opposite, and I stand for hours watching the boys with my 8-power field glasses. Curious feeling of projecting myself, like I was standing over there with the boys, invisible earthbound ghost, torn with disembodied lust. They wear shorts, and I can see the goose pimples on their legs in the chill of the morning, count the hairs. Did I ever tell you about the time Marv and I paid two Arab kids 60 cents to watch them screw each other—we demanded semen too, no half-assed screwing. So I asked Marv: ‘Do you think they will do it?’ and he says: ‘I think so. They are hungry.’ They did it. Made me feel sorta like a dirty old man…”

Sorta? 

Contrary to the protestations of swooning men on the Left, none of the above is edgy and underground. It's not "trenchant" or "innovative." It's criminal, predatory, and pathological. To discuss Burroughs as a "culturally influential" icon and canonize his work without mentioning his sexual assaults on children (and his open celebration of such heinous crimes) is to support and sustain the rampant, ever increasing pedophile culture.

I could go on but in case some of you might wonder why this matters so deeply, please allow me to clarify: Every time we remain silent in the face of patriarchy, rape culture, white supremacy, and male pattern violence, we are supporting all of that… and much more. Our silence and inaction keep this system strong by rendering it virtually invisible.

We talk and talk and talk about the horrific state of human culture, then talk some more about what needs to be changed. We go ‘round and ‘round in ever-tightening circles. But when will we dig deeper -- as deep as we can possibly go -- to begin comprehending the many ways hierarchical power manifests and the many ways we each choose to ignore and/or support it.

Name the problem, comrades, name the fuckin’ problem… even if that means we must begin by taking a long, hard look in the mirror.

Mickey Z. is the author of 13 books, most recently Occupy these Photos: NYC Activism Through a Radical Lens. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, you can “like” his Facebook page here and follow his blog here. Anyone wishing to support his activist efforts can do so by making a donation here.
Creative Commons License
"Beat Writer Pedophiles and the White Male Leftists Who Love Them" by Mickey Z. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://worldnewstrust.com/beat-writer-pedophiles-and-the-white-male-leftists-who-love-them-mickey-z.
  • Created
    Saturday, 05 December 2015
  • Last modified
    Saturday, 05 December 2015

Advertisement

Subscribe

 

 

Friday, December 4, 2015

Best Dick Contest from Anthony Freda (CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENT)

CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENT:

$500 AWARD FOR BEST ANTI-CHENEY SCULPTURE 

Your tax dollars were spent on a monument to a monster.

Use your talent to create a work that is an antidote to the sycophantic propaganda piece now residing in the Capital.

A distinguished panel of artist jurors will choose the winning entry.

Entries must be three dimensional portraits of the former vice president in a medium of your choice.

Your artwork should capture the true nature and legacy of this great American Hero.

The winning sculpture will be presented in an unauthorized ceremony on The Capital steps in Washington D.C.



Deadline : January 15th, 2016
Winner to be announced February 1, 2016.

Send photos of entries to:

BUSTED by Anthony Freda

 A bust of Dick Cheney now resides in the Capitol Visitor Center’s Emancipation Hall. 

The sculpture will join the busts of over 40 other vice presidents both in and outside the U.S. Senate chamber.The 43rd president and 46th vice president took the occasion of the unveiling to heap praise upon Mr. Cheney.

This is a message I sent to the artist who sculpted the portrait:

"When you agree to glorify a war criminal such as Dick Cheney, you are no longer an artist, you become a tool of the state. It is a shame to let your considerable talents be exploited and used as propaganda. 

The man whose lies and crimes resulted in the death of thousands of American kids, the rise of ISIS and a Middle East in flames should not be honored."

His true legacy is one of death, chaos, and failure."

Anthony Freda

Maybe more of us can send a message to the artist, along with conceptions of Cheney memorials that truly capture the soul of this great American hero.




Peace
Anthony Freda
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

The Comeback Kid by Cindy Sheehan

Comeback Kid
Cindy Sheehan




I recently received an email from an octogenarian correspondent who told me that he had been speaking with another octogenarian (age was his emphasis) and they had agreed that (and here’s where I come in) it was time for me to “make a comeback.”

I obviously cannot write about every email that pops in one of my inboxes, but with all the destruction being wrought by the Empire lately and with all the pre-POTUS election hype, I thought this one was interesting.

First of all, my immediate response was: “A: how can I make a ‘comeback’ when I have never gone anywhere? And; B: suggestions? Plans? Resources?” Nope, I was just supposed to somehow magically appear back on the TV set doing something to try and end the wars…again.

I recognized from the very beginning of the electoral resurgence of the Democrats (in an understandable, but reactionary response to the stain of Bush/Cheney) that not only would the wars not end, but the expansion of Empire and violence would continue with very little outcry from the anti-Bush reactionaries. This was back in 2007, and I have not been proven wrong in any way.

I inaugurated the podcast Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox a few weeks before Obama started his first term as the Face of Empire and a major theme over these past seven years is the hypocrisy of Empire and the complicity of Democrats in oppression and war. Again, with my principled and articulate guests, the Soapbox has been an oasis of truth and radicalism in the desert of partisan hackery that has allowed the stain of the Obama regime to essentially get away with mass murder.






2009 in Martha's Vineyard


In the summer of 2009, I traveled with a handful of others concerned about drone warfare, spying, war, torture, etc "Under New Management" to Martha’s Vineyard where the Obama’s were taking their extravagant first vacation as First Family™. Many activities were organized and opportunities for press interviews, but there was little attention paid to this righteous action in the first year of the Reign of Obama. Since then, I have organized two antiwar camps in Washington, DC; a cross-country bike ride for peace (Tour de Peace); two political campaigns, and I have published five books. “Comeback?” From where? Corporate media obscurity, for sure, but it’s not for lack of trying.


Now, while people are waving the colonial French Flag and obsessing over doomed political campaigns (the 1% choose US presidents, not your 100 millionth of a vote), the dire reality is that it seems the global 1% and its lackeys are edging the world backwards into  World War (Fill in the Blank).

Yes, I look at the “socialist” candidate (Democrat) who is making all kinds of “pie-crust promises” (easily made, easily broken) of wonderful social programs with whipped cream and a cherry on top, but he is also in favor of drone-bombing and imperial wars.

I am open for suggestions for organizing an end to World War Forever, but I believe the only way the Empire and its many wars, occupations, bombings, and other crimes will end is when the people awaken and rise up against political partisanship and dive all in for peace with justice and recognize that while one person is suffering under the hobnailed boot-heel of the US war machine, we who live here are not safe.

Nor should we be.



What Can Pearl Harbor Teach Us About 9/11 and Other 'Surprises?' | Mickey Z.








  '

Photo credit: Mickey Z.Photo credit: Mickey Z.

Mickey Z. -- World News Trust

In my 2004 book, Seven Deadly Spins, the first propaganda “spin” I decoded was “The Sleeping Giant.”

It's an excuse we all learn in childhood: "He started it" or "She hit me first." From this rudimentary alibi grows the myth of the "sleeping giant." By portraying oneself as the innocent target of an unprovoked sneak attack, all bases are covered. Translation: Once rudely awakened, don’t blame the sleeping giant if he responds a tad overzealously towards all those sneaky enemies (e.g. Native Americans, communists, Muslims).

We are fast approaching the 74th anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 -- the mother of all “sleeping giant” spins. The day after the attack, the sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt addressed Congress. The United States was “at peace” with Japan, he stated, yet had been “suddenly and deliberately attacked.”

However, as historian Thomas A. Bailey wrote: “Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor… He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient’s own good.”

The diplomatic record reveals some of what Dr. Roosevelt neglected to include in that now-mythical “Date of Infamy” speech:
  • Dec. 14, 1940: Joseph Grew, U.S. Ambassador to Japan, sends a letter to FDR, announcing that, “It seems to me increasingly clear that we are bound to have a showdown (with Japan) some day."
  • Dec. 30, 1940: Pearl Harbor is considered so likely a target of Japanese attack that Rear Admiral Claude C. Bloch, commander of the Fourteenth Naval District, authors a memorandum entitled, “Situation Concerning the Security of the Fleet and the Present Ability of the Local Defense Forces to Meet Surprise Attacks."
  • Jan. 27, 1941: Grew (in Tokyo) sends a dispatch to the State Department: “My Peruvian Colleague told a member of my staff that the Japanese military forces planned, in the event of trouble with the United States, to attempt a surprise mass attack on Pearl Harbor using all of their military facilities."
  • Feb. 5, 1941: Bloch’s Dec. 30, 1940, memorandum leads to much discussion and eventually a letter from Rear Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner to Secretary of War Henry Stimson in which Turner warns, “The security of the U.S. Pacific Fleet while in Pearl Harbor, and of the Pearl Harbor Naval Base itself, has been under renewed study by the Navy Department and forces afloat for the past several weeks ... If war eventuates with Japan, it is believed easily possible that hostilities would be initiated by a surprise attack upon the Fleet or the Naval Base at Pearl Harbor ... In my opinion, the inherent possibilities of a major disaster to the fleet or naval base warrant taking every step, as rapidly as can be done, that will increase the joint readiness of the Army and Navy to withstand a raid of the character mentioned above."
  • Feb. 18, 1941: Commander in Chief, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel says, “I feel that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is a possibility."
  • Nov. 25, 1941: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson writes in his diary that, “The President ... brought up entirely the relations with the Japanese. He brought up the event that we’re likely to be attacked [as soon as] next Monday for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning."
  • Nov. 27, 1941: U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issues a memorandum cautioning that “Japanese future action unpredictable but hostile action possible at any moment. If hostilities cannot ... be avoided, the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt action."
  • Nov 29, 1941: Secretary of State Cordell Hull, responding to a speech by Japanese General Hideki Tojo one week before the attack, phones FDR at Warm Springs, GA to warn of “the imminent danger of a Japanese attack,” and urge him to return to Washington sooner than planned.
Obviously, this was a not exactly a surprise attack but why would Japan attack Pearl Harbor? The brutal combination of capitalism and white supremacy, perhaps?

The events of Dec. 7, 1941, were roughly two decades in the making. In 1922, the United States and Britain imposed upon Japan an agreement that the Japanese navy would not be allowed more than 60 percent of the capital ship tonnage of the other two powers. That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Japanese immigrants ineligible for American citizenship, and one year later the Supreme Court upheld a California and Washington ruling denying Japanese the right to own property. The year 1924 saw the passage of the Exclusion Act -- which virtually banned all Asian immigration. (Sound familiar?)

On the economic front, when Japan textiles began out-producing Lancashire mills, the British Empire (including India, Australia, Burma, etc.) raised the tariff on Japanese exports by 25 percent. Within a few years, the Dutch followed suit in Indonesia and the West Indies, with the United States (in Cuba and the Philippines) not far behind. Such moves, combined with Japan’s expanding colonial designs, brought the United States. and Japan ever closer to conflict.

When France fell to Germany in 1940, the Japanese moved quickly to take military control of French colonies in Indochina (the primary U.S. source for tin and rubber). On July 21, 1941, Japan signed a preliminary agreement with the Nazi-sympathizing Vichy government leading to Japanese occupation of airfields and naval bases in Indochina. 

Almost immediately, the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands instituted a total embargo on oil and scrap metal to Japan -- tantamount to a declaration of war. This was followed soon after by the United States and UK freezing all Japanese assets in their respective countries.
Radhabinod Pal, one of the judges in the post-war Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, later argued that the United States had clearly provoked the war with Japan, calling the embargoes a “clear and potent threat to Japan’s very existence.”

Since the attack wasn’t a total surprise, you may be wondering how the Americans still managed to get caught with their pants down on Dec. 7, 1941. Again, I urge you to not underestimate the collective power of capitalism, white supremacy, and arrogance.

Racists within the U.S. military and government never imagined that Japan could orchestrate such a successful offensive. Few Westerners took the Japanese seriously, with journalists regularly referring to them as “apes in khaki” during the early months of their conquest of Southeast Asia.

“Many Americans, including Roosevelt, dismissed the Japanese as combat pilots because they were all presumed to be ‘near-sighted’,” historian Kenneth C. Davis writes. “There was also a sense that any attack on Pearl Harbor would be easily repulsed.”

Which brings us neatly to a more recent case of the sleeping giant: 9/11. Putting aside theories about remote-controlled planes or devices planted in the WTC, it’s easy to imagine both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had more than an inkling that Osama and Co. were plotting something big. Why not? As in the decades leading up to Pearl Harbor, the United States was again acting as “a clear and potent threat” to many peoples’ existence.

It’s equally as palatable to assume that either party would gladly exploit any attack on the homeland for their benefit and that of their corporate benefactors.

In addition, and here’s where the Dec. 7 angle really comes into play, what reasonably objective observer would be shocked to learn that both U.S. regimes never believed a group of cave-dwelling nomads could pull off anything approaching the success of 9/11?

One more parallel to ponder: Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, with the image of a uniquely treacherous enemy spread throughout America, U.S. Admiral William Halsey (soon to become commander of the South Pacific Force) vowed that by the end of the war, “Japanese would be spoken only in hell.” His favorite slogan “Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs” echoed the sentiments of Admiral William D. Leahy, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who wrote that “in fighting with Japanese savages, all previously accepted rules of warfare must be abandoned.”

Change the word “Japanese” to “Muslim” and well, you know the rest…

When attempting to discern the truth about the events surrounding 9/11, in this history-challenged society, it never hurts to examine what’s come before.

Mickey Z. is the author of 13 books, most recently Occupy these Photos: NYC Activism Through a Radical Lens. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, you can “like” his Facebook page here and follow his blog here. Anyone wishing to support his activist efforts can do so by making a donation here.

Creative Commons License
"What Can Pearl Harbor Teach Us About 9/11 and Other 'Surprises?'" by Mickey Z. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://worldnewstrust.com/what-can-pearl-harbor-teach-us-about-9-11-and-other-surprises.
  • Created
    Tuesday, 01 December 2015
  • Last modified
    Tuesday, 01 December 2015

Advertisement

Subscribe

POPULAR POSTS