http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/01/20/response-to-iceman/

At Free Media Productions, Iceman makes a few controversial points about American racialists. Here is my response:

1.) Jews did play a major role in the demise of American racialism.

2.) Negroes and American Indians were not assimilated into American culture at the time when they were extended citizenship.

3.) The idea that America is a “nation of immigrants” wasn’t popularized until the 1950s. The phrase “nation of immigrants” comes from an essay penned by JFK for the ADL.

4.) Anglo-Americans are indigenous to North America. They were the original settlers.

5.) America was a “white man’s country” until the mid-twentieth century.

6.) Chinese immigration was banned several times in the 1880s.

7.) Japanese immigration was restricted by the Gentleman’s Agreement between TR and Japan.

8.) Korean, Vietmanese, and Cambodian immigration was banned under the Asian Exclusion Act.

9.) “Free blacks” were legally considered “persons” not “citizens” under the Constitution until the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Dred Scott decision excluded negroes from citizenship on the basis of their race.

10.) Non-European Caucasians were denied American citizenship on the basis of “whiteness.” See the racial prerequisite cases.

11.) Imperialism did play a major role in the demise of segregation. No argument there.

12.) Jews played an instrumental role in the reconceptualization of America as a universal, cosmopolitan nation. See the New York Intellectuals.

Here is the original artcle (note that Metal Gear and Iceman are the same person)
First off, I will thank Prozium for responding to my comments, even if there are ideological differences. More discussion between different blogs is a good thing.

I’ll note that most of what he wrote didn’t actually go against what I wrote. I acknowledged that a relatively timid and mild racialism existed in America. And I claim that the rise of cultural imperialism and globalism destroyed it, which he didn’t entirely dispute, except he disputed the extent non-whites were assimilated. Prozium claims that Indians and Blacks were not assimilated, but they were speaking the same language, fighting in the same military (even if it was segregated), and in the case of Blacks, worshiping the same Protestant religion. They were listening to the same music, even if at segregated shows. Indeed assimilation of culture lead to making racialism inconvenient in America. When you are battling a bunch of Indians who are charging you with tomahawks and stones, it is easier to enact mildly racialist legislation in defense then when you are calmly walking down the sidewalk with one and having a friendly conversation while sipping on a drink from an international corporation like Coke. The mild racialism that existed in America was only a matter of convenience and blew away just like the wind when capitalist interests changed. That is how I view American history.

As for “non-Europeans” being non-whites, I have already acknowledged that in the case of Asian Indians, they were declared non-whites who were Caucasoid.  The Supreme Court noted that they were Caucasoid but still voted against declaring them as Whites.  On the other hand, Jews, and not even Ashkenazi Jews but Sephardic Jews such as Benajamin Judah, were even assigned leadership roles in the Confederacy. While there was no Arabian Benjamin Judah, individual states frequently decided to consider Arabs white under Jim Crow Laws. This all reinforces my thesis : the racialism in America was mild and blew away just like the wind once the times changed. It wasn’t hardcore racialism; it was casual racialism.

As for America being a “white’s man country,” it is more accurate to say that the American regime that won the war against Frenchman, Spaniards, and Indians was lead by white Anglo-Saxons. But Indians still existed, and they still had their own history, and they still resided on the continent, they just weren’t as successful in building an empire as whites were and therefore later became swallowed into the Government that was initially in favor of whites.  To quote Ian Jobling, “Indeed, white people created the whole moral system that condemns them.”  The obsession with being bigger, more inclusive, more open and larger is the epitome of capitalism, and that ambitious capitalism is responsible for the lack of firm ethnic rooting within modern America.

Daniel Pipes, the Zionist and imperialist apologist political commentator infamous for his diatribes on the Middle-East and Islam, recently authored an editorial regarding his concern over the growing alliance between Islam and the revolutionary left.

Pipes is correct in his assessment that Marxists share a common enemy in imperialism and Zionism. And while his agenda throughout the piece is undeniably to taint the Left in general and is plagued with out of context quotations and falsehoods, nonetheless it underscores the very important fact of development.

The development of a “Green-Red” alliance is natural when one considers the transition of antagonisms in the imperialist world. No longer does the imperialist bourgeoisie have to rely on exploiting the internal proletariat to drive production and profit, it can do that with the full support of the bourgeois state in a multitude of nations. The growth of imperialism, as a natural tendency of capitalism, has produced a new global antagonism that pits the imperialist countries against the oppressed countries for whom it exploits.

Revolutionary forces in several oppressed countries are waging wars of resistance and national liberation against the imperialists. This is the spark that will set in motion the inevitable weakening of global capitalism. Revolutionary Islam finds itself in the heart of this struggle as it too seeks to weaken the global power of private capital and bourgeois imperialist states.

Islam has fallen under the radar of the imperialists for its ability to organize vast cadres capable of implementing physical and material destruction to imperialist forces and imperialist means of productions. Islamic resistance to the capitalist bourgeois hordes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine are a serious matter for imperialist plunderers. That organized resistance has come under the banner of Islam, and not revolutionary Marxism, doesn’t imply that Marxists ought not to extend critical support to the struggle.

Whatever weakens global capitalism is incontrovertibly good. Forcing the imperialist parasites out of the oppressed world will set the stage for a global crisis in capitalism – destabilizing capital’s ability for massive transfers of wealth from the Third world back to its home country. Forced under such conditions, capital will continue its struggle to accumulate wealth amongst the national proletariat in the current imperialist world, ultimately changing the economic, political and social direction of a reemerging first-world proletariat.

So while important distinctions exist between Islam and Marxism-Leninism, the practical outcomes of such a relationship – manifesting themselves in the weakening and physical destruction of global capitalism – are objectively more important. Ultra-left dogmatists, whose line is inconsistent with a Marxist-Leninist materialist analysis, continue to espouse discontent with any alliance between Islam and Communism. But such dogmatico-revisionism is typically relegated to the First world chauvinists, people who deceive themselves into believing their own liberal metaphysics.

The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has undergone a series of reorganization efforts in the last few weeks as it prepares for the drafting and adoption of a new constitution. Today, the newly formed Central Committee Secretariat discussed another reorganization effort to consolidate decision making functions in a new, five member Headquarters (HQ) Committee. The proposed Chairman of the HQ Committee would be sitting Chairman of the UCPN (M) and Prime Minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachand.”

“The headquarters can take immediate major decisions on four major agendas- the government, the parliament, the street and the army whenever necessary,” said a party source. “At times, it might be difficult to bring together 15 secretariat members, so the party leadership discussed having a HQ committee to discuss major agendas.”

As the UCPN (M) looks towards the future it will have a number of pressing issues it will have to address in order to put the country on the path towards socialism. Perhaps the most critical issue is addressing the growing factionalism amidst leading cadres in the Party.

While outright factionalism has not yet emerged, history has shown numerous lessons in the importance of consolidating political unity in order to combat the effects of factionalism. Factionalism, even when developed from legitimate political opposition, inevitably leads to open conflict and the weakening of the workers’ vanguard at large.

The Maoists in Nepal already face the problems associated with coalition government – an obstacle enabling counter-revolutionary forces a say in the direction of country. A split Party will only strengthen opposition towards the path of socialism.

The second major task will be the formation of a new constitution, for which the Maoists will (and indeed need to) take an active role in formulating the legality of socialist construction. The development of a constitution reflecting the interests of the Nepalese workers will be an important part in the development of legal, social, political and economic institutions as the Maoists move forward.

Thirdly, the economic and infrastructural development of Nepal, both in its urban and rural settings, will require fundamental Maoist participation. The path towards socialism inevitably depends on a cohesive strategy for bringing forth a powerful proletariat capable of serving as a strengthened base of power for the Maoists, in connection with their already strong rural base. The current political situation in Nepal will likely include counter-revolutionary and bourgeois political parties in the process of economic development. Under this consideration Nepal will likely be forced to introduce a “New Economic Policy” plan, or “market socialism” to bring its level of production up to par and on the path of socialist construction.

Fourthly, the integration of the People’s Army into Nepal’s standing state army is of critical importance for the survival and implementation of socialist policy. The integration process should proceed under Maoist led supervision. It will enable the UCPN (M) to secure its position in power without the threat of a reactionary military force capable of carrying out the wishes of the national bourgeoisie or imperialist neo-colonialist powers.

Finally, the Maoists must consolidate their forces in order to make the needed adjustments to alleviate the hardships of the masses in Nepal. This must be undertaken with a strictly socialist nature, in accordance with the development of socialism and political, economic and social infrastructure. If the Maoists miss out on this opportunity, and the bourgeois coalition parties are able to co-opt this effort, the unreliable peasantry and rural population may switch allegiances. Maoists consolidation of the efforts to alleviate the stress facing the population will be critical for their pursuit of socialism and maintenance of power.

From Northstar Compass, Dec. 2008 Issue:

“The U.S. Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) are planned operations to convey to the general public information and indicators to foreign audiences in order to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organization, groups and individuals. PSYOPS are a very vital part of the broad range of U.S. diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities.”

The USA Pentagon does not just utilize psyops during wartime, they also use them against friendly nations during peace time to “inform and influence”, as well as to lower “adversary morale” and “create evidence” and dissatisfaction within the ranks.

US imperialism uses three categories of psyops:

(1) Strategic psyops – which include the international information activities conducted by US government agencies, such as UISAID, National Endowment for Democracy, the US State Department, CIA and others, to influence foreign attitudes, perceptions and behavior favorable to the goals and objectives of the US in time of peace and conflicts.

(2) Operational psyops – which are military operations conducted even during peacetime to promote an effective military campaign and strategy.

(3) Tactical psyops – that support tactical military missions against opposing forces.

The role of US Embassies in foreign countries is exemplified just by this one example how U.S. Ambassador Brownfield acted in Venezuela by setting up and generously funding the many “American Corners”. These CORNERS are partnerships set up without the country’s official approval where US propaganda is spread in these locations through internet, free books, magazines and documentary films and DVDs produced by the CIA. These “Corners” are used as if they are the “initiatives of the local population” and the US FBI-CIA guides their activities.

These “corner” are closely monitored by US Embassy secret services and names and contacts are established and money keeps flowing all the time.

These corners are now operating in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, , Romania, former Yugoslavia and other countries in Africa and South America.

If the government of these countries complains then the whole Pentagon, CIA, FBI and US Embassies go into overdrive to attack these countries that there is no freedom of expression, no democracy, that these are peoples organizations, that the US government has nothing to do with these developments, etc. etc.

The Free Media Productions News Column on Newsvine was recently ranked as number 77 for the week of 1/11 – 1/17. Last week saw a flood of activity around many of the FMP News articles syndicated on our newsvine page.

Some statistics from the FMP Newsvine Column for the week of Jan. 11 through Jan. 17:

• 23 articles published
• 5 were voted as popular contributions
• 11 more people subscribed to the Free Media Productions Column
• Received 73 votes (total)
• Received 106 comments

Jan. 19 – The three day conference of the Beirut International Forum for Resistance, Anti-Imperialism, People’s Solidarity and Alternative, organized by Hezbollah’s Center for Consultative Studies and Documentation, demonstrated the growing alliance between various parties, organizations and groups dedicated to resisting American imperialism and Zionist aggression.

The conference included representatives and organizations from countries all over the world. The trend towards a growing coalition and alliance amongst Islam, nationalists and Marxists has the ruling elites particularly nervous about their future.

While Marxism and Islam seem almost diametrically opposed, the two camps have grown closer in their hostility towards imperialism and Zionism. A new form of popular front is emerging, distinct from its predecessors. Whereas in the past Marxism-Leninism sought to unite with social democrats and other petty-bourgeois ideologies to combat the menace of fascism; many Marxist-Leninists contend that revolutionary scientific socialism has a partner in the struggle against imperialism in Islamic resistance movements.

The proclaimed objectives is to weaken American imperialism across the globe in general, and Zionist-imperialism in the Middle East in particular. Opponents to the growing ties between Islam and Marxism are guilty of dogmatic revisionism hostile towards any cooperation between Marxism and organized religion.

But such critics, while claiming to uphold a materialist analysis, fail to take into consideration the need for a global popular front capable of adequately opposing imperialism and Zionism, which is already greatly weakened.

Any movement or force that seeks to weaken the yolk of imperialism and global capitalism deserves the critical support of genuine Marxist-Leninists. That does not constitute an abandonment of the principles and theory of revolutionary scientific socialism. Rather, it is the natural conclusion deriving from a materialist understanding of the global situation as it exists today.

Jan. 19 – On this day millions of Americans are celebrating the memory and achievements of Martin Luther King, Jr. However, the man’s legacy and achievements are marred by his agency to act on behalf of bourgeois interests – and not those of the oppressed African-American workers he claimed to stand up for.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was largely successful during the tumultuous struggle to end the explicit oppression of African-Americans because he was an acceptable icon and figure that the bourgeoisie had little to contend with. His ideas for peaceful transition and passive resistance relaxed fears of the ruling elites that armed, revolutionary struggle for national liberation would ensue. His anti-communist rhetoric was another fixture that made him an amicable figure for the White bourgeoisie.

MLK’s idealism puts him in the category of other emerging movements sympathetic to the ideals of bourgeois liberalism. The expression of bourgeois liberalism against more reactionary elements of the ruling classes was a natural phenomenon that precipitated the success of a sycophantic and bourgeois Civil Rights movement over more radical and determined revolutionary struggles.

It is precisely his acceptance amongst the liberal elements of the bourgeoisie that propelled Martin Luther King, Jr. into heroic stature. Why does the US not hail the work of revolutionaries such as Harry Haywood, who staunchly expressed the need for class-struggle as intertwined with the liberation of Africa-Americans, or Fred Hampton, who also saw the struggle against the oppression of African-Americans as inextricably linked with the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism?

The type of movement embodied by Martin Luther King, Jr. failed to take into account the material conditions that defined African-Americans as a nation within a nation, something owed to Harry Haywood and Josef Stalin. Haywood developed the theory of a separate “Black Belt Nation” within the United States employing Stalin’s definition of a nation.

In contrast, Martin Luther King, Jr. ignored the material conditions facing African-Americans and gave no credence to dialectical materialism as the source of his understanding of how the movement for the liberation of African-Americans should proceed.

And what have been the resulted? The racial codes and explicitly oppressive regimes in the South have been replaced by liberal attitudes of racial coexistence between Whites and Blacks. This ultimately spelled the overall inclusion of African-Americans into the mainstream economic system, i.e. wage-labor. But this development concurs with the natural development that capitalism operates more efficiently when not restricted by external forces.

This was the basis for the defeat and inevitable destruction of slavery in the South. Contrary to the American Civil War mythos – while some held slavery with the utmost moral contempt – the ruling elite and representatives of expanding industry saw it as an economically unfeasible and prohibitive system. Capitalism, as a far more advanced form of economy over slavery, was victorious precisely because of its inherently more efficient capacity for productions and distribution.

The inclusion of African-Americans into the mainstream economic realm would necessarily result in more liberal tolerance in the political, social and cultural infrastructure. Racist legislation and prohibitions are cumbersome and prohibitive. They are inconsistent with the advancement of wide profit margins. The liberal bourgeoisie, bequeathed with enough foresight to recognize this, understood that de jure racial chauvinism manifested themselves in wholly negative forms in the economic sphere. As a result, African-Americans have slowly gained more mainstream acceptance into the broader American political, cultural and social realms.

The inclusion of African-Americans into the mainstream American society was not the result of Martin Luther King, Jr. It was a development that would have occurred regardless. Whatever contributions MLK made to this advancement were only possible because the material conditions at the time allowed for it. That is why Martin Luther King, Jr., as an agent of the bourgeoisie, was widely accepted by the general public.

The biggest mistake most people make when analyzing political, social, cultural and economic developments is a tendency to trust idealism over materialism. Only materialism can adequately explain how society tends to move forwards – and does not depend on idealism or ideology, which is in fact dependent on the physical, material reality of our world.

The ideas of MLK were accepted because they were representative of the dominant force in American society – the liberal bourgeoisie. The cultural idealism of the “Great Society” was evident of the growing prosperity and power of the petty-bourgeoisie, who later would become one of the most powerful elements in imperialist countries like the United States. The petty-bourgeoisie in the US understood its alliance with the ruling bourgeoisie and acted accordingly, to the expense of exploited workers, both White and Black.

A curious comrade e-mailed us a question asking about revisionism. The question revolved around what constitutes revisionism and why is it so important to fight against it.

Revisionism, in reference to communism, is a distortion or deviation from the theoretical basis of Marxism-Leninism. In the broadest sense, it implies that one somehow detracts from the fundamental basis of Marx and Lenin’s conception of scientific socialism, which becomes a far greater concern when it follows into the practical chain of events.

Revisionists seek to destroy the revolutionary spirit of Marxism and to undermine the faith of the working class in socialism. They oppose the historical necessity of a proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. They deny the directing role of the Marxist-Leninist party. They reject the principles of proletarian internationalism, call for the abandonment of the basic Leninist principles of party building, and seek to transform the Party from a revolutionary organization into a discussion club.

Contemporary revisionism opposes Marxist-Leninist doctrine on all points. It rejects the necessity of revolution and asserts that capitalism should be reformed. It claims that the modern scientific and technological revolution is reshaping the structure of society and “erasing” class antagonisms. This transformation is supposedly leading to the humanistic rebirth of capitalism. As a result, the working class is alleged to lose its revolutionary traditions and leading role, which passes to intellectuals.

For instance, denying Marx and Lenin’s understanding that the bourgeoisie will never voluntarily share the state apparatus with the proletariat will ultimately lead to a reformist-style social-democracy, which believes in the legitimacy of bourgeois political institutions (such as voting). This revisionism is particularly contagious in imperialist countries like Great Britain and the United States, where the masses are pre-conditioned for it by a relative comfort that hides the most hideous elements of capitalist exploitation in the minds of the workers (thanks to the labor aristocracy).

So, while there are many different ways for one to be considered a “revisionist,” the contention originates more with the practical outcomes (i.e. what happens in real life).

The correct theory is inextricably linked with the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and in establishing the masses on the correct path towards socialism. Thus, the importance of theory is not insomuch as it sounds good, or gives intellectual credibility to Marxism-Leninism, but that it is intended to lead towards one and only one conclusion: the establishment of socialism, followed by communism.

Anti-revisionism understands that the line of thinking and application of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin (and sometimes Mao) is the fundamentally correct line. That does not mean though that it is rigid and inflexible. On the contrary, anti-Revisionism is anything but dogmatic. It understands that different conditions are unique and distinct to one’s own society through the economic base and political, social and cultural infrastructure. It doesn’t hold that workers in Bolivia ought to mirror the revolutionary efforts of the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Revisionism takes many shapes and forms. Sometimes it is explicit as is the case of the Communist Party USA. Other times revisionism comes in the outward expression of genuine Marxism-Leninism, only to contain within it the seed of revisionist deviation. That is why the struggle against revisionism, along with the struggle against factionalism, sectarianism and opportunism, are of such great importance to the success of the international proletariat.

Lenin himself issued a prophetic warning against the threat of revisionism and opportunism in the communist movement. His words today emphasize the need for the struggle against revisionist elements within the Marxist-Leninist movement and to condemn and expose those guilty of revisionism/opportunism. The defeat of imperialism, capitalism and revisionism are inevitable.

Those who look to blame a group of people for the demise of American ethnic nationalism should instead blame the rise of cultural homogeneity.  When the cultural lines of religion, language and attitude approximately split along racial lines, then racial nationalism was convenient.  However, racial nationalism ended in America as soon as the non-whites became assimilated into American culture.  In a nation of immigrants, no group really has a “right” to declare itself indigenous; not the Anglo-Saxons from Britain and not the Native Americans from Siberia.  Multi-nationalism is actually widely viewed as the logical outcome of an experimental “nation of immigrants” like America.  It has been taken to an extreme, to the point where whiteness is a dirty a word, but it is, in moderation, the conventionally held logical outcome of the American state, even in the days of the founders.  While discrimination was often used in the awarding of citizenship, never was it a goal to build a white nation from Ocean to Ocean and PHYSICALLY throw out every Indian and Negro in the process.  Because that was never the goal, it cannot be argued that white nationalism existed in America.

Many racialists are abnormally fixated on Jews and attempt to accuse Jews of hypocrisy, arguing that they support Israel as an ethnostate but not America.  What they forget about is that ethnostates for European ethnic groups already exist – in Europe – and America itself was never set up as an ethnic state in any way except for the pragmatic exclusion of granting CITIZENSHIP (but not residence) to most non-whites during warfare with Indians and Agrarian Slave-Driven economies.  Chinese Immigration was banned at one point pre-1960, due to competition with local workers, but that was a national issues; never was Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and Cambodian immigration banned (though citizenship was limited).  Such a thing as a “Free Black” always existed, various Indian tribes allied with the warring British and French colonialists when convenient, and Mongoloid Native Americans in the Spanish colonies mixed sexually with Southern Europeans Spaniards.  To call the American Continent (or even the American country) a one way racialist street that was derailed by Jews is a flat out joke and I laugh at anyone who takes the idea seriously.  Even the South had Blacks and Whites living closely to each other, even in the same households and plantations, just at a general different level of status.  At the time period between the fall of the Confederacy, the Reconstruction and the rise of the first Era Ku Klux Klan (which did not target Jews and Catholics), Blacks, at the hands of Yankees, actually temporarily ruled over the South.  If you do not believe me, then watch The Birth of a Nation.

The ideal was always to shed the American of his/her European skin, as Benjamin Franklin remarked, it was just that differences in culture with regards to Blacks and Indians prevented the full advancement of this ideal.  In terms of “who was white,” the definition was actual very liberal, including every Caucasoid group except for Asian Indians, even if immigration was controlled.  As soon as the culture of American imperialism became salient in non-whites as well as whites, the mild racialist legislation of America was repealed.  Subsequently, this liberal imperialism was militarily spread around the world in the name of “democracy.”  Not to mention, George Washington spoke openly in support of Sephardic Jewry, but that is a whole different issue (Ashkenazi Jews had not yet arrived).

As for the question of whether Jews have pushed racial liberalism as a group?  The answer is “Yes!”  However, it would have been more of a surprise, considering general American attitudes, if they did not do as they did!  The micro trend of Jewish attitudes did not largely contradict the macro culture and direction that the country was moving in, Jews or no Jews.  If one looks, one will find no European ethnic group that is consistently against Civil Rights.  In addition, one will even find minority European groups such as the Irish Catholics (including the Kennedy’s) who involved themselves in the Government at the time the legislation was passed.  If Jews can be charged with the accusation of using disproportionate influence as a minority to pass civil rights, then they cannot be charged exclusively and uniquely.

Needless to say, I argue AGAINST the American ideal and support ethnic tribalism like the Middle East does and to a lesser extent Eastern and Southern Europe do.  I view ethnic tribalism as irreconcilable with classic Americanism and that is where American internet racialists go wrong.  There needs to be a new order in America for true tribalism to rise, not a nostaligia for the America before the Civil Rights legislation and Immigration laws of the 1960s.  One cannot go back to the past, neither is it ideal to go back to the past.  Ethnic awareness must reinvent itself in a futuristic way.

I will make an analogy.  Let’s say we were going to hire a mechanical engineer to build a machine to print out pamphlets for Free Media Productions.  If we simply voted based on a gut feeling, and let everyone vote equally, we would be making a mistake.  The truth is that we would have a set of qualifications and require the candidate to be very qualified.  Credentials would come first.  Personality and consensus would come second.

Unfortunately, in America, those who hold office are picked on criteria that would be more relevant to picking a receptionist at McDonalds than the Mechanical Engineer I discussed.  That is the problem with America.  Popularity contests determine who leads.  Different qualifications and certifications should exist for various offices; relevant qualifications that one must obtain before even being considered.  Surely Bush couldn’t have been a President in such a scenario.  Democracy doesn’t work.  Credentials must come first.  You cannot let the public vote for the leader, if the public is not qualified to lead.  That is America’s problem.