Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun May 13, 2012 7:23 pm

"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon May 14, 2012 12:22 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue May 15, 2012 11:58 pm

to me, love and justice are the same. it would be impossible for me to separate one from the other. it is because i love and want to love stronger- without alienation, without competition, with the people-that i resist in the name of justice. love is radical in all senses. it’s not a piece of paper, it’s not a sweet story of romance, it’s not i love yous, it is acting in accordance to the most righteous, in accordance to the liberation of ourselves, community and life.

Posted on 05.10.12

http://intheprocessofbeing.wordpress.com/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu May 17, 2012 11:30 am

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Don ... _Fact.html

Don LaCoss

Anti-Anarchist Propaganda Reported as Historical Fact


An art historian announced recently that he had uncovered proof that anarchist artists had constructed secret psychological torture chambers in Barcelona for prisoners of war and political enemies during Spain's civil war.

According to him, a team of anarchists led by Alphonse Laurencic had designed a warren of jail cells that utilized advanced principles of color, abstraction, and perception developed by Bauhaus artists and the surrealists. These rooms were meant to mentally destabilize and emotionally grind down inmates who fought on the side of the clerico-fascists or who were the left-wing rivals of the CNT anarchist labor federation.

A major Spanish newspaper originally carried the story of this discovery; before long, it was trans-lated and reported in a variety of European dailies, and was featured in the U.S. during an evening news broadcast of National Public Radio.

It's odd that an academic footnote would garner so much international attention when there are one or two other issues on the world stage that might warrant a little more coverage. Doubly strange is the fact that the evidence used by the art historian in his research came from a notoriously unreliable source that would be immediately apparent to the majority of pressroom fact-checkers, yet still the story has been dutifully re-told by professional journalists without a trace of skepticism.

From what I have seen so far, the art historian's research relies solely upon the transcript of Laurencic's confession before a Francoist military court — to be more, accurate, the source is a pamphlet published in 1939 by the fascist Solidaridad Nacional press that draws from these trial records. Written by one R.L. Chácon, the pamphlet Porqué hice las `Chekas' de Barcelona (“chekas” being term for vigilante Stalinist political police units) is regarded by researchers today as an excellent example of the show trials that had been staged by the Franco regime after the Civil War.

Franco's political theater had been inspired by a similar tactic used a few years earlier by another murderous autocrat: Stalin had rigged similar kangaroo courts in 1936 and in 1938 as a means for purging real and imagined opponents among the old-school Bolshevik elite.

In the Soviet example, the accused were tortured until they “confessed” to espionage, sabotage, or to some other ridiculous crime against Stalin and the people of the U.S.S.R.; in Franco's Spain, captured anarchists, communists, and Republicans admitted before military tribunals that they had raped nuns, encouraged homo-sexuality, and published hardcore pornography — and, in the case of Alphonse Laurencic, psychological-ly tortured political prisoners with repeated screenings of Buñuel's Un Chien andalou — as part of a fictitious, sprawling, Judeo-Masonic conspiracy based in Moscow.

The repression in Spain after the Civil War was brutal. Heinrich Himmler once visited Franco and advised him to cut back on sheer number of firing-squad executions, which eventually topped 300,000 deaths; our comrade and friend Federico Arcos, himself a veteran of the Civil War and of later clan-destine struggles against Franco's police state, pointed out to me that Italy's Minister of External Affaire fondly recalls that between 200 and 250 people in Madrid alone were being executed every day starting in mid-July, 1939. Countless thou-sands of communist, anarchist, and social democrats were forced into slave labor gangs to construct memorials to fallen Francoist soldiers, and a half a million more were driven into exile. At a concentration camp built at a monastery near Burgos, a preeminent Spanish military psychiatrist and Catholic eugenicist forcefully interrogated captured International Brigades volunteers for a Gestapo-advised study on “the biopsyche of Marxist fanaticism” and found data to support his claim that those who struggled against fascism were “psychopaths,” “schizophrenics,” “mental retards,” and “social imbeciles.” In such a nightmarish context as this, bizarre atrocity propaganda about anarchist torturers' use of “degenerate art” is not at all surprising.

But what about the enthusiastic way in which this story has been so uncritically circulated by large corporate news organizations in 2003? Even given the fact that mass media organs have a long, inglorious history of pimping anti-anarchist and anti-surrealist slander, it's surprising how an unsubstantiated claim- of modern art torture centers allegedly built by libertarian socialists sixty-five years ago could push other reports out of the spotlight, such as, let's say, the torture of prisoners at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay.

Yet, a highly dubious piece of fascist propaganda about psychological torture that supposedly happened half a century ago has been given a place of prominence in many major news organizations.


— Februrary 2003, La Crosse, WI


Notes: From Fifth Estate #360, Spring 2003
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu May 17, 2012 3:24 pm

http://anarchistnews.org/content/thinki ... ganisation

Thinking About Anarchism and Organisation
2012-05-15

From Workers Solidarity #127 (Ireland)

An accusing finger is pointed at anarchists any time the word organisation is mentioned. Many people believe that anarchism is against organisation and just another word for chaos, but is it? The simple answer, of course, is no, but that does not explain the confusion surrounding the question, nor the accusations thrown at anarchists.

Organisation, for anarchists, is one of the most important questions to be settled. Firstly, anarchists recognise that only through organisation can the bosses’ system be smashed. For example, the fact that during the Miners Strike in Britain, massive and co-ordinated police mobilisation was used to break the picketing and isolate the miners makes this point evident. The employers have at their disposal an efficient state apparatus, which will move to crush any opposition to it.
[see: definition of state]

Only by being as organised and strong can workers hope to overthrow the employers and their class. Workers, as anarchists se it, must organise in the one place where capitalism is powerless without them, that is their place of work. By organising together in all industries, workers would have the collective strength to create a revolutionary movement to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism.

Secondly, however, there is the question of what type of organisation anarchist workers should build to overthrow the employers. Two types of organisation are possible. The first type is the one that we are all used to, the capitalist mode of organisation, is a top-down structure, where most of the members (say 95%) have little or no say in the decision making process and simply obey what the other 5% decide. Though this 5% are often elected, as with the Dail, they are completely unaccountable and simply represent their own interests, which in the case of the Dail is that of business.

The second type of organisation possible is that which anarchists say is indispensable to a workers organisation if it is to build socialism. This organisation is based from the bottom-up that is with the rank and file involved in all decisions taken by the organisation. Such an organisation excludes any leadership emerging that would make the decisions for the membership. When decisions are made, accountable delegates are appointed by the rank and file to implement these decisions. Thus, in practice, the organisation remains under the control of the membership and not under the control of any leadership.

Some socialists organise on the principle that the working-class need a leadership, which will be the party of these socialists, without which, they believe, anything of worth can be achieved. For them, the party is the brains, the vanguard of the class. Inside the party, the “best” members form the Central Committee and the “best” of this becomes the leader or leadership. The whole process leads to a strict hierarchy in which orders come from the top and democracy is pushed into the background. Anarchists maintain that this sort of organisation will lead workers nowhere except to more tyranny and exploitation as in China and the former Soviet Union.

Anarchists reject the capitalist mode of organisation, which all other left-wing organisations use on the basis that the means you use to achieve socialism dictate the end-result you get. Therefore, a hierarchical organisation will result in a hierarchical and totalitarian state and not a non-hierarchical socialist society. The claim is often made against anarchists that non-hierarchical organisation is inefficient and doesn’t work. More often that not, though, this allegation is made because these people regard their leadership as all-important. They pay lip service to Marx’s statement that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class themselves.

Anarchists are not opposed to organisation, but they do reject outright the principle by which most organisations operate. Participation by the mass of people in the decision making process is something that is absent now but that forms the very basis of socialism. Therefore, to achieve socialism, it only makes sense that we organise in a manner that guarantees mass participation and democracy.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat May 19, 2012 10:58 pm

Image

Throughout the Americas resistance to slavery and the plantation system took the form of runaway slave communities called maroons, quilombos or mocambos.The most famous runaway slave community of the Americas was Quilombo dos Palmares, a series of Brazilian mocambos founded in the end of the 16th century which survived up until 1694 before being crushed by Portuguese, Indian and white forces. Palmares was formed when a small group of slaves escaped from their home plantation after a rebellion. They violently turned on their masters before taking to the forrests with supplies and all of their worldly possessions. They ventured over the harsh terrain and settled in a valley that came to be the quilombo at Palmares. What began as a small fugitive camp quickly grew in size and complexity. Estimates place the population of Palmares in the 1690’s at around 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. The autonomous region successfully defended the territory while simultaneously performing raids on nearby plantations, freeing slaves, destroying crops and stealing supplies. When the territory was finally captured 200 Palmarista soldiers committed suicide rather than return to bondage. In an effort to demoralize and intimidate Africans, the Palmarista general Zambi was decapitated in a public execution and his head put on display. But instead, quilombos continued to exist in Brazil and lore of Zambi spread, as more fugitive slaves formed settlements in Brazil.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun May 20, 2012 1:20 pm

http://www.commonstruggle.org/node/2526

Queer Is Many Things

Submitted by Abbey Volcano on Thu, 07/08/2010

Queer is many things. It’s a critique of identity– critiquing/questioning the boxes and categories we are given to cage ourselves with. Example, we can be gay, straight, or bi. These are the choices we have. But they don’t describe reality and they do more to contain us than to liberate us. (Although, I have to note that people do find empowerment and community within these identities and I don’t mean to downplay that.) It’s a critique of the construction of sexuality– formed by the ideas we have to conceive of it. If who you fuck is what you are (i.e., “gay”) — then that’s a sexual identity. Or we can do sexuality differently– it’s not who we are but what we do– our acts.

I may engage in homosexual acts, but what does it mean to say “I am gay”? And how does that identity restrain me? (Also, many argue that asserting an identity like “gay” or “bi” actually uphold the binary of “hetero/homo” and, as with all binaries, one will be privileged over the other. Therefore it can be argued–and I agree with this–that upholding a gay identity can actually work against liberation by reinforcing heternormativity and asserting, rather than destabilizing, the hetero-homo binary.) If you’re interested in that, read Jagose’s Queer Theory: An Introduction (I love this book but it’s dense and heavily theoretical and some people hate theory). Also, the notion of the “homosexual” was actually invented in the mid 1800s. Gay people didn’t exist before that. I’m not saying women didn’t fuck women and dudes didn’t fuck dudes, but they were engaging in *acts* and didn’t label themselves something because of it– they didn’t *identify* by what they did erotically.

Queer builds off of feminism and poststructuralism. Instead of only focusing on gender-specific sexualities (who you fuck) it focuses on all non-normative sexualities, some that don’t depend on the gender of the person you’re fucking (i.e., non-monogamy, bdsm, sex work, etc.).

Queer means “strange”. And when we queer sexuality, we critique the boxes that are formed around our understanding of sexuality, we critique the permanence (if you’re gay, you’ll always and constantly desire gay love b/c that’s *who you are* not what you do) of sexual identities. Queer is more fluid– sometimes you may desire this and sometimes you may desire that—it makes more sense to label your desires rather than who you are because of them. What you do is easily changed but who you are is always a crisis– that’s just too much pressure.

Queer critiques the idea of “normal”. If we label something normal (or an act/way of being “normative”) what is happening is that we are setting a status-quo, calling it “normal” and by way of this we are creating an “ab-normal” and if anyone happens to fall into the “ab-normal” category (which we have invented) then they are going to get shit on. It works very similar to the ways most privileges work. Normal, sexually, would be heterosexual couples that have monogamous permanent relationships and don’t have kinky sex and don’t sell or buy eroticism. Abnormal is everything else. So queer aims to smash the idea and the very desire for there to be a “normal”. We don’t need status-quos and normative expectations– they cage us, whether we fit into their boxes or not.

Also, what queer does with sexuality, it can do with other things. We can queer many things. What that means is finding the boxes and cages of something and getting rid of them. For instance, with politics, as you are aware, people often think they have the Correct Line or are constantly searching for it. They want one political ideology to find it with, too. In reality, we can pull from all sorts of different theories and use them when they’re useful– the world is complex and it requires a complex understanding. The nitty gritty is not something we always have to clean up– in that mess is where we can find some understanding.

Anyway, I think a lot of this may seem pretty abstract, but in real life queer organizing is important b/c people are killed, caged and tortured by the state and by each other because they don’t fit into the boxes we’re given, for instance transgender and genderqueer folks don’t even have simple social viability within the way sexuality and gender has been constructed– hell, they don’t even exist– we erase them, make them strange. Of course, if we didn’t have the boxes we do around sexual identity, then this would not be the case. Queer organizing aims to dismantle the ways we conceive of and reproduce sexual identity and gender and all that jazz.

WE WANT A QUEERER FUTURE AND WE WILL MAKE ONE!


Queers Without Borders
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun May 20, 2012 9:13 pm

http://firesneverextinguished.blogspot. ... e-and.html

SATURDAY, MAY 2, 2009

Blood on the Line: Resistance, Empire and Repression at the Border

By Phoenix Insurgent

The border fence is a result of three factors, inextricably intertwined: the expansion of capitalism, global war for empire and the desire of common people to organize their own lives free of the first two.

In 1854, the ratification of the Gadsden Purchase settled a border dispute stemming from the American invasion of Mexico seven years earlier (the “Halls of Montezuma” reference in the Marines battle hymn pays tribute to the occupation of Mexico City). With the war over, Southern capitalists and slavocrats turned their greedy eyes west, hoping to expand their trade and the slave system. Mountainous northern Arizona was deemed too difficult for a railway, and so the US purchased from Mexico the region that now encompasses southern Arizona. Thus the border moved, splitting both Mexican cities like Nogales and native peoples' traditional lands.

During this time, the border remained open and people moved relatively freely back and forth. A surveying team in the region left stone piles every couple miles as they traveled, delineating on the land a line on a map generally deemed meaningless by the region's inhabitants, who were keen on constructing their own lives free from such interference. In fact, the first physical barrier wasn't built between the two countries until 1918, when US war hysteria led to the Battle of Ambos Nogales.

Paranoid about a German-backed invasion from Mexico, the US deployed forces to Nogales. When a man crossing the border refused inspection by US troops, it quickly degenerated into open warfare, with American soldiers exchanging fire with Mexican troops and ordinary Mexicans fed up with the degrading treatment routinely meted out by US border guards. The resulting bloodshed left three US soldiers dead and hundreds dead and wounded on the Mexican side, including the mayor of Nogales. As a result, the US built the first chain link fence dividing the two countries.

Since then, as Capital and the State expanded their domination of the region, that fence has grown, even though our resistance to it has continued. While American Capital has become increasingly free to travel to Mexico, sucking the wealth into American banks, people have fought for their right to cross the border on their own terms, free from regulation. Tribes divided by the border have struggled to maintain their historical right to cross and migrant workers have voyaged back and forth in search of work and visiting family.

And, of course, millions of white Americans have crossed for vacations and to set up second homes, something that is largely unremarked by mainstream American society. Indeed hundreds of thousands of Americans live in Mexico, many of whom never register with Mexican immigration agencies. In the US, the freedom of white people specifically and American citizens in general – and the rich of all nations -- to travel to Mexico is considered a birthright, the spoils of war. Meanwhile, the legitimate desire of other people to do the same is criminalized and regulated.

Nevertheless, the right of all humans to travel wherever they wish, whenever they want is elementary to being a free person. As an obvious impediment to that, it is therefore our position that not only should the border fence be stopped and dismantled, but that free movement of all people should be encouraged. All people now held for “immigration” violations should be immediately freed and those already deported should be allowed free travel back if they so desire. All facilities for immigrant detention should be closed and leveled without delay.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun May 20, 2012 9:47 pm

A Francoist psychiatrist, Antonio Vallejo-Nájera, carried out so-called "experiments" on prisoners in the Francoist concentration camps in order to "establish the bio-psych roots of Marxism". He said that it was necessary to remove the children of the Republican women from their mothers. Thousands of children were taken from their mothers and handed over to Francoist families (in 1943 12,043). Many of their mothers were executed after that. "For mothers who had a baby with them—and there were many—the first sign that they were to be executed was when their infant was snatched from them. Everyone knew what this meant. A mother whose little one was taken had only a few hours left to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Spain)



See also:

Morality and biology in the Spanish Civil War: Psychiatrists, revolution and women prisoners in Málaga

http://libcom.org/library/morality-biol ... ers-malaga
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon May 21, 2012 9:09 am



[Ronald Reagan]

Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands. That no-concessions policy remains in force, despite the wildly speculative and false stories about arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we

[Killer Mike]

The ballot or the bullet, some freedom or some bullshit
Will we ever do it big, or keep just settling for little shit
We brag on having bread, but none of us are bakers
We all talk having greens, but none of us own acres
If none of us on acres, and none of us grow wheat
Then who will feed our people when our people need to eat
So it seems our people starve from lack of understanding
Cos all we seem to give them is some balling and some dancing
And some talking about our car and imaginary mansions
We should be indited for bullshit we inciting
Hand the children death and pretend that its exciting
We are advertisements for agony and pain
We exploit the youth, we tell them to join a gang
We tell them dope stories, introduce them to the game
Just like Oliver North introduced us to cocaine
In the 80s when the bricks came on military planes

[Ronald Reagan]

A few months ago I told the american people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not

[Killer Mike]

The end of the Reagan Era, I'm like number twelver
Old enough to understand the shit'll change forever
They declared the war on drugs like a war on terror
But it really did was let the police terrorize whoever
But mostly black boys, but they would call us "niggers"
And lay us on our belly, while they fingers on they triggers
They boots was on our head, they dogs was on our crotches
And they would beat us up if we had diamonds on our watches
And they would take our drugs and money, as they pick our pockets
I guess that that's the privilege of policing for some profit
But thanks to Reaganomics, prisons turned to profits
Cos free labor is the cornerstone of US economics
Cos slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison
You think I am bullshitting, then read the 13th Amendment
Involuntary servitude and slavery it prohibits
That's why they giving drug offenders time in double digits
Ronald Reagan was an actor, not at all a factor
Just an employee of the country's real masters
Just like the Bushes, Clinton and Obama
Just another talking head telling lies on teleprompters
If you don't believe the theory, then argue with this logic
Why did Reagan and Obama both go after Qaddafi
We invaded sovereign soil, going after oil
Taking countries is a hobby paid for by the oil lobby
Same as in Iraq, and Afghanistan
And Ahmadinejad say they coming for Iran
They only love the rich, and how they loathe the poor
If I say any more they might be at my door
Who the fuck is that staring in my window
Doing that surveillance on Mister Michael Render
I'm dropping off the grid before they pump the lead
I leave you with four words: I'm glad Reagan dead
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon May 21, 2012 12:43 pm

http://binashah.blogspot.com.au/2012/05 ... l?spref=fb

Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Dictator and The Zionist - The Trouble with Sacha Baron Cohen

Image


This morning, Sacha Baron Cohen is on my mind. Not a pleasant image to have to confront, but he's been all over the place with the press for his new movie, The Dictator, which premiered in London earlier this week. He plays a composite character based on Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi - but I also see a lot of Iran's Ahmedinijad in there. I don't even really know what the plot of the movie is, but SBC's movies have never really been big on plot.

I read this blog on CNN by Dean Obeidallah which calls out Cohen on the racism he displays in "browning up" to play an Arab man. Obeidallah's argument is that Arabs and Indians themselves should be in movies that make fun of them. Fair enough. He doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, to address all the stereotypes of Arabs that come out to play in the movie, but that's because he hadn't seen the movie when he wrote the piece. I wonder if he will.

What bothers me is that nobody's addressing something more complex and, in my mind, more dangerous. So I'm going to attempt to do it. I know what I'm going to say is controversial, but I believe in speaking my mind when I see something that bothers me.

You see, SBC is a Zionist, a very publicly declared one. Which is not a problem for me personally, really. He's got the right to hold his political views even if they are very bigoted ones that have been the root of most of the strife in the Middle East since 1948. But he's got a very deliberate agenda which he expresses not-so-subtly in all his movies, and it's not being said by commentators because of the fear that they will be called anti-Semitic.

Zionism is the belief in a Jewish nation, and the accompanying fierce loyalty to that nation, no matter what it does in the name of protecting itself and perpetuating its survival. It's Zionism, not Judaism, that has seen the worst atrocities committed against the people of Palestine. Now, SBC doesn't go around spouting things about the greatness of Israel in his movies. But if you look carefully, each one of his productions - from Ali G to Borat to Bruno to now, The Dictator, advances a certain element of Zionist propaganda against Muslims. Which is that Muslims are laughable, unintelligent, idiotic people with no intellect at best, and terrorists at worst. And Cohen uses buffoonery to do this.

How? By taking the stereotypes, derived both from Orientalism and from anti-Islamic Zionism, and playing them out to such ridiculous extremes, that his audiences laugh. And in laughing, they feel entertained. And in being entertained, they swallow the stereotypes and the racism whole, without pausing to critically analyze what they've been presented with. You could call this SBC's particular genius. Yes, it's pretty clever. But it's also dangerous.

With Ali G, Cohen presented a fairly innocuous character: a rudeboy of uncertain ethnicity* (but everyone assumed he was Asian, or at least an Asian persona taken on by a white man for even more irony and laughs) who was stupid, racist, anti-Semitic, and sexist. A genius comedic character who made people laugh and believe that Asians, especially Muslim ones, of a certain age, class, and educational level, are all like this.

With Borat, I almost don't have to say anything. We all know the buffoon he played who was from Kazakhstan who went to the United States and displayed all sorts of inappropriate behavior. He spouted off truisms about life in Kazakhstan, which included some pretty nasty jibes at village life - "My sister is best prostitute in village" - implying that again, Kazakhs - who happen to be Muslim - are backwards, idiotic yokels who engage in incest and bestiality. Of course it's ridiculous, you say, we know it's not true. Yes, but when you pick a country that most people know virtually nothing about and you assign values and mores to it, you know that because of the vacuum of knowledge, people will subconsciously adopt those values, or at least associate them with the country in the absence of better knowledge. Again, very, very clever.

In Bruno, the story of a gay Austrian fashionista, there's no overt racism against Arabs or Muslims for a while. But then Cohen pulls the stunt of interviewing a Palestinian man who he claims is a dangerous Muslim terrorist. The man, in real life, is a Palestinian Christian who has nothing to do with terrorism. Cohen made him sign a release form before appearing in the movie, and didn't tell him that he was going to brand him as a terrorist. On screen, this is a big joke, but in real-life Palestine, this can result in your death at the hands of Israeli security forces.

Most people think of Sacha Baron Cohen as a comedic genius, as I said before, as a trickster, someone who stands conventions on their heads to get laughs. I see him as someone else: a very intelligent man with a political stance and a stage on which to make that stance known. That he's being subversively funny about it and using comedy rather than straight political discourse to do so is a sign of his brilliance, but also of his duplicity. He is advancing the worst of Zionist propaganda against Muslims with his movies, and the worst part is, you're paying $15 each time to see him do it.

*I've had several people tell me Ali G was a parody of whites who want to be gangsta, Jamaican, or black. This wasn't revealed until later in the series, though - and to be honest, when I saw him, the first thing that popped into my mind was that he was a parody of an Asian. Perhaps it was the name "Ali" (which was later revealed to be short for Alistair), a Muslim name that is very common amongst British Pakistanis, not so common amongst Afro-Carribbeans. Anyway, even if it was a white wannabe, critics rounded on him for making it "safe" to laugh at that culture from an imagined politically correct stance because it was buffoonery. I stick to my original claim that he was lampooning Asians (in addition to blacks, a more definite identity that I think evolved and became clearer as the series went on), and that his Zionist, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab stance has become more bold over time and become more and more overt in his films. And one thing people don't know is that when he talks in the supposed language of each character, he's actually making in-jokes in Hebrew. You might also want to note that in the UK, anything non-white is often referred to as "black"; it was the done thing to consider yourself "black" before the separate "Asian" label became more in vogue in the 80s and 90s.


** Since I wrote this post a couple of days ago, people have challenged my claim that SBC is a Zionist. Before I posted this, I did my research and found many references to SBC"s membership in ZIonist youth groups such as Habonim Dror (an acting group with a moderate political stance, but a Zionist group all the same) and Machon L’Madrichei Chutz La’Aretz, a Zionist youth leadership group with the goal of bringing youngsters to Israel and educating them in the tenets of Zionism to then go back to their own countries and spread those tenets. There's no evidence to prove that he's since given up those views since then.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon May 21, 2012 2:50 pm

Patrice Lumumba | July 22, 1960

Question
: "Some of your political opponents accuse you of being a Communist. Could you reply to that?"

Answer: "This is a propagandist trick aimed at me. I am not a Communist. The colonialists have campaigned against me throughout the country because I am a revolutionary and demand the abolition of the colonial regime, which ignored our human dignity. They look upon me as a Communist because I refused to be bribed by the imperialists."

(From an interview to a France-Soir correspondent on July 22, 1960)
Image
Patrice Lumumba, a Congolese revolutionary leader in the newly independent Congo,
expressed his belief that his people deserved true freedom from exploitation,
in order that that they could, for once, reap the fruits of their own soil.
He believed in a free Africa. He was assassinated for his views.


We are neither Communists, Catholics nor socialists. We are African nationalists. We reserve the right to choose our friends in accordance with the principle of positive neutrality.

Patrice Lumumba
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon May 21, 2012 3:51 pm

http://anti-imperialism.com/2012/05/21/ ... n-amerika/

White Supremacy: Exploring the Contours of Race and Power in Amerika
This entry was posted on May 21, 2012

Image

It is widely believed that white supremacy is a racist ideology- of hatred promoted by marginal extremist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Nations. Often overlooked and neglected in this view are the structural inequalities that ensure the continued supremacy of whites over non-whites in all facets of social life. Also conveniently disregarded are the more subtle, yet frequent and numerous, manifestations of white supremacy that are woven into the fabric of Amerikan culture. In this sense, white supremacy is just as much of a social reality as it is an ideology. Indeed the two often go hand in hand, although this isn’t always the case. There are many white people who hold supreme positions in the social hierarchy, over and above the masses of non- white people, without consciously adhering to any white supremacist ideology. This essay will explore the complex reality of white supremacy in Amerika, examining its existence in the social structure, analyzing its cultural expressions, considering some of its ideological forms, and finally investigating its causes.

There can be little doubt that while supremacy is built into the very social structure of Amerika when one considers the fact that the politico-economic structure of the U.S. was designed by white people to serve the interests of white people. For example, the Constitutional Congress that created the Amerikan government consisted of 55 members and all of them were white, while 15 of them were African slave owners (Beard, pp.74-151). There were absolutely zero Blacks, Latinos or Native Americans involved in forming the government of the U.S. To this day only one non-white has ever attained the presidency of the U.S. government, while Blacks make up only 7% of the U.S. Congress, with Latinos making up only 4% (Henschen and Sidlow, p. 110). Although subordinate races have now been assimilated into Amerikan society, the social structure still functions in such a way that maintains the supremacy of whites, excepting certain token reforms such as Affirmative Action. A simple look at the empirical data confirms this

Aside from the political structure, virtually every social indicator unequivocally confirms that whites are levels above non-whites in the most essential domains of social life.1 The supremacy of whites on the economic terrain is indisputable and highly instructive. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, for example, in 2005 the median family income for whites was $62,300, compared to just $36,075, $38,558 and $37,387 for Blacks, Natives and Latinos respectively (U.S. Census Bureau [USCBJ. 2009. p. 38). The CQ Researcher reported that in 2002 the median weekly income for white workers was $624, while Black workers earned $498 and Latinos a mere $423 (CQ Researcher [CQR], 2003, p. 601). In 2005, the poverty rate for white families was only 6.3%, while a staggering 23.4% of Black families, 21.1% of Native homes, and 21.4% of Latino households lived below the poverty line (LTSCB. pp. 38-39). And finally, the real unemployment rate for whites was 9.5%, compared to 37% of Blacks and 31% of Latinos (USCB, 374). All of these statistics illustrate the fact that whites in Amerika collectively enjoy economic privileges over and above their Black, Native and Latino counterparts.

There are also glaring discrepancies in the domains of education and healthcare. In 2005 86.1% of whites graduated high school, compared to 80.7% of Blacks and only 59.3% of Latinos. In the realm of higher education 28.4% of whites had college degrees, compared to just 18.5% of Blacks and 12.4% of Latinos (USCB. 145). A good general measure of a people’s quality of healthcare is found in the infant mortality rate. In 2004, the infant mortality rate for whites was 5.7 per 100,000, compared to 13.8 for Blacks (ibid., p. 81). Equally revealing is the fact that in 2005 only 14% of whites were without health insurance, while 20% of Blacks and a whopping 32% of Latinos were uninsured (ibid., p. 107). Although numbers can’t convey the human dimensions of emotion and suffering involved in these differences, they do make clear the objective disparities that exist between whites and non-whites in these crucial realms of social life. These disparities indicate that white supremacy is not merely a matter of personal prejudice, but rather a social reality rooted in the basic structure of Amerikan society.

White supremacy is not only built into the social structure of Amerika, it is also deeply embedded in Amerikan culture. Many day-to-day instances of white supremacy are so commonplace they go practically unnoticed by most people. These are virtually impossible to quantify since they only play out on a subjective level, although many of them do have very tangible consequences. In his 2006 book Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster, author Michael Eric Dyson points out that “although one may not have racial intent, one’s actions may nonetheless have racial consequence” (p. 20). Using Hurricane Katrina as an example, he shows how government negligence, although not the result of “active malice,” was ultimately caused by a “passive indifference” to the plight of poor Blacks in New Orleans. In other words, the Bush administration’s response, or lack thereof, to Hurricane Katrina was probably not motivated by a desire to see impoverished Blacks destroyed, but it didn’t really care enough to save them from ruin either. No matter the case, poor Blacks ended up suffering more than whites. Indeed, as Dyson goes on to explain, “active malice and passive indifference are but flip sides of the same racial coin… if one conceives of racism as a cell phone, then active malice is the ring tone at its highest volume, while passive indifference is the ring tone on vibrate. In either case, whether loudly or silently, the consequence is the same: a call is transmitted, a racial meaning is communicated.” (Dyson, pp. 20-21) Today most expressions of white supremacy take this form of passive indifference, allowing many whites to sit back in relative comfort and privilege while non-whites suffer the effects of while supremacy.

There are also many examples of white supremacy taking the form of active malice. I personally have witnessed countless incidents of white supremacy where friends of mine were directly victimized. For example, I remember one day in the spring of 2007 when my two brothers and I were hanging out at Westlake Mall in downtown Seattle. We were posted up in front of the mall talking with two Black friends. Out of nowhere two white bicycle cops pulled up alongside us and stepped into the middle of our little cipher. Completely ignoring me and my brothers, the police surrounded our two Black friends and started interrogating them about why they were loitering. After a minute the cops started searching them, indicating they were looking for drugs or weapons. Obviously my brothers and I were loitering too but the police didn’t seem to care at all. One of my brothers actually had a bunch of ecstasy pills on him that he was selling, but since he didn’t fit the criminal profile, he wasn’t searched. It was clear the cops were engaged in active malice against Blacks. Ironically, one of our Mends had just bought a pill from my brother and was arrested for possession when the police searched him. My brother just sat there and watched with a whole pocket full of pills. While our friend was the victim of white supremacy, my brother actually benefited from it. This is called while privilege and it is so deeply entrenched in our culture even white criminals benefit from it.

As was pointed out earlier, one need not adhere to white supremacist ideology to benefit from its effects. It has been empirically demonstrated that whites collectively enjoy a relative privilege over and above non-whites in the most important areas of social life- in the political structure, the economic structure, the educational structure, and even in the healthcare system. This is true whether or not individual whites are racist. The social reality of white supremacy is a fact beyond dispute, albeit still disputed. The ideology of white supremacy seeks to rationalize this social arrangement by attributing to white people an inherent superiority that makes their supremacy seem natural. Whereas most whites seek to ignore or deny their privilege, the white supremacist ideologue takes pride in it and seeks to justify, protect and expand it.

Historically white supremacist ideology has taken on two main forms. The first is in the form of Christianity, from its very inception, Amerika has always been a devoutly religious country, although today there is a noticeable trend towards secularism in urban cities and industrial areas. In his 2006 book American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century, author Kevin Phillips notes that Amerika is one of the most religious nations in the world, ranking alongside Israel, India and Iran (pp. 100-101). According to recent polls, 98% of Amerikans believe in the Christian God and 55% believe that the Bible is literally true, both percentages being much higher than in any other industrialized nation (ibid, p.98). What makes Israel and the U.$. unique in all of this, according to Phillips, is that each holds a widespread conviction that they share a sort of “covenant” with God and have a special relationship with Him as His “chosen people.” In the case of the U.$., this ”covenant” pledged that the settlers would strictly adhere to “God’s Word” with a heavy emphasis on Old Testament scripture, in exchange for God’s paternal protection in the hostile “wilderness” of Amerika (ibid, pp. 125-131). This notion that Amerikans have a covenant with God led to the imperial doctrine of “manifest destiny,” which asserted that it was God’s will for the white man to conquer and dominate all of North Amerika. Obviously African slaves and Native Americans were not part of this covenant. In fact they were among the very threats that the settlers were expecting God to protect them from. Most settlers viewed Africans and Indians as heathens, which allowed them to justify their subjugation and exploitation of the “heathens” on religious grounds.

This form of white supremacist ideology finds its ultimate expression in the modern-day doctrine of the Christian Identity movement. This doctrine “holds that white people are the genuine descendants of the Biblical Hebrews… Jews and Blacks are the devil’s spawn” (CQR, 2009, p. 433). Although this teaching is rejected by mainstream Christians, many settlers believed that Africans were the cursed descendants of Noah’s son Abraham, and that slavery was in fact God’s punishment being inflicted on the wicked African heathens. Either way, Christianity was used to justify white supremacy, African slavery and indigenous genocide.

The second main form of white supremacy cloaks itself in secular language and masquerades as science. It is well known that Europeans have frequently devised bogus scientific constructs to justify their colonial conquests of non-European peoples. Scholar Samir Amin observed that genetics has been used to claim “that biological traits, sometimes called ‘racial’ characteristics, are the source of cultural diversity and create hierarchy within diversity” (Amin. 1989. p. 97). Now largely discredited in Europe, these pseudo-scientific theories took on a new impetus in Amerika with the 1994 publication of Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s controversial book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. Drawing on a long tradition of imperial discourse, the authors argued that all races arc genetically predisposed to a general level of cognitive ability or IQ. Whites are shown to possess a much higher IQ than Blacks, Natives and Latinos, which accounts for their supremacy in social life (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994, pp. 319-339). The authors claim that the reason non whites tend to be the most impoverished, the most dependent on welfare, the most susceptible to crime and the most unemployed is because they have relatively low IQ levels. According to this logic, non-whites are not the victims of white supremacy; they are simply condemned by nature to occupy the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy. The authors intended their book to be an argument against Affirmative Action. This type of self-serving logic is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize white supremacy and scale back some of the token reforms that non-whites won during the Civil Rights struggle.

There is a trend of thought amongst some of those who have been most victimized by white supremacy to attribute it to some malicious evil inherent to white people. This view is somewhat understandable to anyone who is familiar with the historical record of colonialism, the Atlantic slave trade or modern imperialism, but it falls short of supplying us with a materialist understanding of history and at times borders on the absurd. The most extreme expression of this type of thinking is found in the religious doctrine of the Nation of Islam (N.O.I ), which has had a considerable influence on Blacks in Amerika.

According to the N.O.I., white people have attained supremacy of the world through deceit, murder, slavery, rape, plunder, and all sorts of barbarity—which is true enough. But the N.O.I. claims that whites are wicked and immoral by nature. Elijah Muhammed, founder of the N.O.I., taught that about sixty-six hundred years ago, the earth was a paradise inhabited by a highly advanced Black civilization. As the story goes, these Blacks were the original humans and they were righteous practitioners of Islam. Greed, murder, rape and evil were unknown to them. But along came a rogue scientist named Yacub who became discontent and embittered towards God. Out of spite he decided to unleash havoc upon the earth, ‘through genetic engineering he created a race of genetically recessive white “devils” that would destroy the Black man’s civilization and rule the world for six thousand years. The whites used trickery and deceit to set the Blacks against each other and eventually conquered the planet through murder, pillage and savagery (Malcolm X, 1965, pp. 173-183). From a historical standpoint this is obviously a religious myth, no different from the Christian Identity narrative. However it does have a certain emotional appeal to many who have suffered the vicious effects of white supremacy.

To avoid falling into these metaphysical traps which inevitably lead to simplistic reductions that depict whites as inherently evil, it is necessary to place our analysis of while supremacy in the historical context of European capitalist development. In his groundbreaking 1989 study Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, author J. Sakai offers a historical materialist interpretation of Amerika that provides us with a solid theoretical framework for understanding white supremacy. He suggests that “the key to understanding Amerika is to see that it was a chain of European settler colonies that expanded into a settler empire” (Sakai, 1989, p. 5). Adding the concept of settler colonialism into our analysis allows as to see that capitalism was the driving force behind European immigration to North America, the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the African slave trade. It will be shown on the basis of Sakai’s analysis that Europeans aren’t wicked by nature, but rather they were compelled to expand to every corner of the world, conquering non-Europeans in the process, by the very logic of the capitalist system: accumulation.

As the capitalist order was consolidated upon the ruins of feudal Europe, vicious class struggles were unleashed all across England. Millions of peasants were driven off their lands into the urban towns where they became wage laborers (i.e. proletarians). Living conditions were unimaginably miserable so that ”participating in the settler invasion of North Amerika was a relatively easy way out of the desperate class struggle in England for those seeking a privileged life” (Sakai, p. 5). What compelled people to leave their homelands and travel across the Atlantic was “the chance to share in conquering Indian land” (ibid. p. 5). Thus it was the material conditions of capitalist development in England, combined with a desire for land, that drove so many Europeans to settle in colonial Amerika.

The problem was that North Amerika was already inhabited by some 300 indigenous nations, encompassing over 10 million people (Sakai, p. 7). As the European influx continued and accelerated, it became necessary for the settlers to expand further westward, deeper into Indian territory. This brought the Natives and the settlers increasingly into conflict. Naturally the Indians were not eager to give up more of their lands, so the settlers simply “killed off millions of Native Americans to get the land and profits they wanted” (ibid, p. 7). Between 1600 and 1900 the Indian population was reduced from 10 million to approximately 250,000 (ibid. p. 7). Sakai observes that “the point is that genocide was not an accident, not an excess, not the unintended side-effect of virile European growth. Genocide was the necessary- and deliberate act of the capitalists and their settler shock-troops. The ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Indian Problem…’” (ibid. p.7). Whites didn’t kill the Natives simply because they were racist and hated them, but rather, they killed them for their land plain and simple, using racism to justify their conquests. Once all the land was taken, the genocide stopped—or at least became less explicit.

Another problem the settlers confronted was that there was a major labor shortage in the colonies. Since the majority of settlers owned their own farmlands, there were very few, if any, wage laborers. At the time of the War of Independence, 15% of the population were temporary workers who would soon move on to become small capitalist farmers, while only 5% were laborers (Sakai, p. 10). To solve this problem the settlers simply imported millions of African slaves to do all the necessary work of building up the colonies. There were white indentured servants too, but they were generally freed after four years of service and then moved on to become small farmers or small capitalists of some sort (ibid, p. 11). Not all whites owned slaves, but all benefited from slavery in some way. For example, slavery allowed white laborers to earn wages at least double those of their European counterparts—sometimes even earning up to six rimes more (ibid. p. 11). Sakai points out that what’s important isn’t “…the individual ownership of slaves, but rather the fact that world capitalism in general and Euro-Amerikan capitalism in specific had forged a slave-based economy in which all settlers gained and took part” (ibid. p. 8 ). All of these factors go to show that the material basis of Amerika, from the beginning, was the oppression and exploitation of non-whites. Genocide and slavery are the twin pillars that hold Amerika up.

Throughout Amerikan history, whites have always had power over and above Natives, Blacks and Latinos. There is literally no point in history where this hasn’t been true. White supremacy is, and always has been, a basic reality of Amerikan life. The ideology of white supremacy, and racism more generally, is merely a cultural expression of this reality. As Noam Chomsky remarked, “If you’re sitting with your boot on somebody’s neck, you’re going to hate them, because that’s the only way you can justify what you’re doing, so subjugation automatically yields racism” (Chomsky, 2004, p. 567). In this sense, it is not so much racist thinking that is the problem, but rather the material conditions which give rise to such thoughts. Eradicating white supremacy is not simply a matter of reeducating prejudiced whites to appreciate cultural diversity, but involves a much more concrete and systematic social approach. What is essential is that the relationship of power between whites and non-whites be changed. Justice dictates that white Amerikans right the wrongs of their ancestors since they all benefit, directly and indirectly, from the crimes of Amerika’s past. Reparations should be paid in the form of land and capital to all descendants of African slaves in Amerika as well as all Native American nations. The Amerikan territory stolen from Mexico in the nineteenth century should likewise be returned to Mexico with full compensation. These are concrete steps that Amerika can take to desettlerize and give up the luxuries of white supremacy.

-Prince Kapone

Bibliography

Amin, S. (1989). Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Beard. C. (2004). An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

New York: Dover Publications.

Chomsky, N. (2004). Language and Politics. Oakland: AK Press.

Dyson, M.E. (2006). Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster. New York: Basic Civitas Books.

Greenblatt. A. (2003, July 11). Race In Amcrica. CQ Researcher, 13, 595-619.

Henschen, B. and Sidlow, E. (2010). GOVT. Boston: Wadsworth.

Herrnstein, R.J. and Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: The Free Press.

Katel P. (2009, May 8 ). Hate Groups. CQ Researcher, 13, 423-444.

Phillips, K. (2006). American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil,

and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. New York: Viking.

Sakai, J. (1989). Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat. Chicago: Morning Star Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). Statistical Abstract of the United States (127th ed.). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

X, Malcolm. (1992). The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine Books.


Endnotes

1. This doesn’t exactly hold for Asian Amerikans. This seems to be due to the fact that Asians have migrated to Amerika voluntarily, many bringing a high degree of education and even wealth from their homelands. Blacks were brought to Amerika involuntarily and have remained trapped ever since. Natives are de facto colonial subjects. And half of the continental U.S. formerly belonged to Mexico so many latinos are akin to colonial laborers.

2. These numbers, along with the poverty rate statistics, were calculated on the basis of data contained the U.S. Census Bureau. These figures were arrived at by taking the total number of impoverished or unemployed members of a particular racial group and dividing it by the total population of that race instead of the total U.S. population a slick White supremacist trick used to obscure the actual disparities.

3. Historical materialism refers to the analytical methodology employed by Karl Marx to study the history of human societies. From this perspective, all political, cultural, and ideological developments are seen as expressions of the economic mode of production and the relations of production in a particular society.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon May 21, 2012 4:42 pm

Image
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Tue May 22, 2012 1:50 pm

http://boingboing.net/2012/05/22/pastor ... fence.html

Pastor proposes 100 mile fence to house homosexuals

By Mark Frauenfelder at 9:03 am Tuesday, May 22



"I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. Build a great, big, large fence -- 50 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there, drop some food down. Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. And you know what, in a few years, they'll die out." -- Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in North Carolina.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests