.

Archive for the ‘Contemporary Politics’ Category

An Old Post of Mine

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

I stumbled upon an older post.

It’s a good reflection. This is at the point where I rejected “mainstream politics” (for some reason I thought Chaim Ben Pesach was mainstream) and supported what I called “Third Positionism.”

But knowing what I know now, it’s not “Third Positionism,” it’s become full blown Marxism.

“In many political movements, there is a debate between extremists and gradualists. The same debate occurred with the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks within Marxist circles for example. The strategy being advocated here is an attempt to infiltrate the system. I personally disagree, the system should not be infiltrated, it should be crushed, and I personally do not believe in gradualism. It’s not enough to support conservatives over liberals. Conservatism is liberalism in the greater scheme of things, and the debate between the two sides is internal to American politics. Compared to the Taliban, the Nazis, the Communists, the Fascists, the Monarchists, The Feudalists, The Ba’athists, etc, the Republicans are basically liberals too. In my opinion, an entire third positionist constitution should be supported, and the entire system of government should be rejected. Race realism should be part of any intelligent government (but I do not label myself “white nationalist” because my understanding of race is more influenced by Coon and Dienekes than by Taylor and Duke). But to work within the system is to submit to the system. In my opinion, a solution has to come outside the system.

However I wish you luck with your approach, it’s just not my approach. Conservatives think the greatest virtue is to wave an American flag and everything would be fine if people from every race were doing that. I deny this, arguing that the very American flag that conservatives wave is responsible for the liberal imperialism that is destroying ethnic nationalism. I realize my views are controversial, but I do not believe in gradualism, so they are supposed to be!

-Metal Gear – 9/20/2008

Rethinking Obama

Friday, March 9th, 2012

A long time ago Free Media Productions endorsed Palin saying “worse is better.” That wasn’t really my decision, but I thought it was humorous.

I would like to say though that while I still believe that there are internal contradictions that plague the system no matter which party or individual leads, I also do believe there are greater and lesser evils internal to that system. Yes we are in the capitalist phase no matter who leads, but no, all leaders are not equal. I took a very extreme stance back in 08-09 that it “didn’t matter who lead” but now I am taking a more moderate stance that it matters but only in moderation.

Objectively, Obama is probably a slightly, and I mean slightly, lesser evil than Romney, Gingrich or Santorum. I would say that Paul would objectively be the best candidate, but he’s in it to make a statement not really a contender to win.

All the candidates have negatives and positives, the question is how they weigh against each other, how that affects real life and how that will affect the promotion of scientific socialism. I do not think that people will mistake Obama for a legitimate Socialist, therefore there is no need for “worse is better.”

The Republican Race

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Whoever wins, all the candidates will be plagued with the same internal contradictions. That said, there are better and worse candidates. Personally, internal to our current economic order and political system, I am glad that Romney is prevailing over Gingrich and Santorum. Romney is simply a pragmatic businessman, whereas Gingrich supports imperialism even more than the average Republican and Sanatorium makes religious statements designed to distract people away from economics (this could come out of a Marxist textbook). Romney makes people think about the economy. I do not think Ron Paul has a shot at it.

Newt Gingrich : American Imperialist

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pBe1z7XSTa4

Newt Gingrich is exposing US imperialism for what it is. This may be a good thing. He is showing his cards, now we can rally the working class to oppose him.

Don’t count on Barack Obama to oppose him. The working class must destroy the imperialists the same way the working class has destroyed SOPA.

I must credit Hunter Wallace for revealing this to me.

An Exchange about American Imperialism and Zionism

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

The link
Above contains a good exchange between me and another poster on politicsforum. I tie Zionism to US imperialism and capitalism, oppose the expansion of capital, all while condemning Hitler and Nazism at the same time. I show a differentiation between Kevin Macdonald style anti-Zionism and Free Media Productions style anti-Zionism.

Metal Gear : Israel is wrong because it is an imperialist country which collaborates with another capitalist imperialist country, America. While Jews were hurt by an imperialist named Adolf Hitler, it does not follow that Zionism is the correct ideology.

Chmmr : Pray tell, how exactly is Israel imperialistic? Where exactly is this vast empire that it governs? Colonies in faraway lands?

Metal Gear : The capitalist sphere of influence expands by adding Palestine to its influence under the name of Israel.

While Israelis are “racist” and their racism does contradict capitalism, they are seen as far more mailable to the interests of capitalism (America leading the surge) than their Islamic counterparts.

Until I became a Marxist, I was flirting with Zionism as an ideology. When you learn the patterns of imperialism and capital, you can notice these patterns and see that the same patterns which apply to US imperialism in Vietnam and Iraq also apply to Israel. It is just that Jews, having suffered a holocaust, became willing collaborators with US imperialism and afraid of totalitarian regimes causing an embrace of neo-liberalism and capitalism. To say this does not reinforce theories of Antisemitism.

Revleft 2

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

After stirring up revleft, I followed Spark, Mazdak and Besoshvilli to be the 4th lyceumite who was booted off of that forum. I thought I had a reasonable argument but these people don’t listen to ideology, they just chant slogans about racism and capitalism. They don’t actually understand Karl Marx.

Anyways, revleft 2 has been invented along with “revforum.” I will join both and encourage others to join.

Here is a thread about it.

First Free Media Productions Track

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

The Song Stages has been put together. I did not add the skit yet but just the song.

Free Media Productions has invented a new genre. It is subversive Political rap. I would not call it gangster rap (ice-t), I would not call it horrorcore (insane clown posse), I would not call it party rap (vanilla ice), I would not call it rap metal (limp bizkit) or rap rock (kid rock) or comedy rap (Eminem).

click here to download

Congress – Least Productive Year

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

Despite the lagging employment recovery of the recession, Congress has been less productive this year than any other according to Laura Litvan. It is “free market” politics. The internal contradictions that plague capitalism in no doubt find parallels in the Government which sets the legislation and power structure to maintain those contradictions.

Congress is ending what may be its least productive year on record after government shutdown threats, the collapse of debt-reduction talks and little action to fix the worst U.S. economy since the Great Depression.

Just 62 bills were signed into law through November this year, meaning that 2011 may fall short of the 88 laws enacted in 1995, the lowest number since the Congressional Record began keeping an annual tally in 1947. In 1995, as in this year, a new House Republican majority fought a Democratic president’s agenda.

This year’s partisan battles brought the U.S. to the brink of a government shutdown four times, caused a two-week furlough of Federal Aviation Administration workers and led Standard & Poor’s to lower the nation’s credit rating after it said lawmakers didn’t do enough to reduce the federal deficit.

“It’s been one of the worst Congresses in modern history,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat. “We have failed to meet our minimum standards of competency and endangered America’s credit rating. We have failed to pass key legislation on time. And there is very little hope for improved behavior.”

Voter approval ratings for Congress are at record lows. Republicans, ranked lower than Democrats, insist both parties are to blame.

“People have a right to be frustrated and disappointed, so next year may be a good year for challengers,” said Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican leader.

Risks to Economy

The inaction by Congress poses risks to the economy, said Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research Inc. in New York. While the unemployment rate hovered around 9 percent most of the year, he said Congress did little to stimulate job growth. Lawmakers also were unwilling to make deep budget cuts or raise taxes to rein in the deficit.

“Usually gridlock is seen as a good thing from the stock market’s perspective, but clearly the out-of-control federal deficit needs to be addressed and there is no political will to do it,” Yardeni said.

S&P, in its ratings downgrade, said the government is becoming “less stable, less effective and less predictable.” Even so, the government’s borrowing costs fell to record lows as Treasuries rallied.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note fell from 2.56 percent on Aug. 5 to below 1.72 percent on Sept. 22. The yield on the 10-year note was 1.84 percent at 2:35 p.m. New York time today.

Voters Critical

The public is less sanguine. Seventy-six percent of registered voters in a Nov. 28-Dec. 1 Gallup Poll said most members of Congress don’t deserve to be re-elected, the highest percentage in the 19 years Gallup has asked that question.

A Dec. 7-11 Pew Research Center poll found 40 percent of adults blame Republican leaders for a “do-nothing” Congress, while 23 percent blame Democrats.

“It’s more likely that Republicans will be hit harder than Democrats,” said David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

In a year dominated by budget clashes, Congress passed a few significant measures.

Congress approved free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The South Korea deal was the biggest since 1993’s North American Free-Trade Agreement.

Patent Overhaul

Congress overhauled the patent system, long sought by companies such as International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) and Microsoft Corp (MSFT), and extended the USA Patriot Act until 2015, providing law enforcement continued power to track suspected terrorists.

Such output pales compared with 2010, when Congress approved a health-care overhaul, the biggest rewrite of Wall Street rules since the Great Depression, a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia and ended a ban against openly gay men and women serving in the military.

This year’s trade and patent bills, while important, are sideshows in the broader economic context, said Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

“Those are not insignificant things, but none of them get to the meat of the economic crisis,” Baker said.

Most of President Barack Obama’s $447 billion job-creation agenda was opposed by Republicans and some Democrats who rejected his proposed new spending and tax increases on the wealthy to help pay for it.

Tax Credits

Congress approved tax credits for companies that hire unemployed veterans and canceled a requirement that federal, state and local governments begin withholding 3 percent of payments to contractors in 2013. This week, lawmakers are working to extend a payroll-tax cut for workers through 2012.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said a “fundamental divide” with Obama and a Democrat- controlled Senate stymied House Republicans, who sought to repeal the president’s health-care overhaul and create a Medicare voucher system.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio heralded a shift toward cutting the size of government after Republicans forced $38.5 billion in budget cuts this year and Congress agreed in August to reduce deficits by $2.4 trillion over a decade.

Social Security ‘Conversation’

“For the first time in my 21 years here there has been a serious conversation about dealing with the entitlement programs” such as Social Security and Medicare, Boehner said at a Dec. 14 breakfast sponsored by Politico.com, a political news web site. “We are talking about real change,” he said, adding that he wasn’t surprised the public has a low opinion of Congress.

Democratic leaders see it differently. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters today it was a “year of missed opportunities and made-up crises.”

The nation has “been engrossed in a year of manufactured crises, with multiple threats of a government shutdown and an increase of uncertainty for business and in our markets as a result of the debt ceiling being held hostage,” said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Independent analysts say that on the matter that dominated — deficit reduction — the results are murky.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the $38.5 billion in spending cuts in this year’s budget, agreed in April to avert a government shutdown, cuts the deficit by just $352 million this year, with most savings coming later. Some money cut from programs wouldn’t have been spent anyway, so it wouldn’t do as much to curb a $1.3 trillion deficit, the CBO said.

Automatic Spending Cuts

The debt-reduction measure adopted in August relies on automatic spending cuts for about half of its $2.4 trillion in savings over a decade. A congressional supercommittee’s inability to agree on at least $1.2 trillion in cuts kicks the debate over specifics into next year. To achieve the rest of the deficit reduction, lawmakers must stick with annual caps on spending for a decade.

Based on experience, Congress won’t stick with the deficit- reduction deal for more than a few years, said Stan Collender, managing director of Qorvis Communications in Washington and a former House and Senate budget committee aide.

“Budget deals are always modified, seemingly in seconds after they’re enacted,” he said.

A battle we can win

Sunday, October 9th, 2011

Let us describe the way that social media background checks would be governed if the Government worked the way it should on behalf of the populace. If the Government really wanted to allow rights to its individual citizens, instead of allowing corporations to penalize people for free speech because corporations directly fund the capitalist and imperialistic Government, then some of the rights of corporations would be smaller. In exchange for a true right to free speech, employers would have to lose some of their rights to make hiring decisions off of political ideology or off the job legal conduct. What the bourgeois class loses, the middle and proletariat classes gain.

Instead all we hear about is “free markets,” the “rights” of employers and “democracy.” But below is a reasonable moderate social media policy. While many goals that the working class are shooting for are a bit out of reach, I do believe we can reach this goal. We can make it illegal for employers to penalize employees and potential employees based on off the job conduct that is legal and not directly impacting on business operations. I do believe the fear of being out of work in a bad economy causes a large amount of people to stay silent who otherwise would correctly fight harder for change.

When discussing social media, blogs and employment background checks, one of the trite arguments made by apologists for the bourgeois class is “if you make it public, then we can judge you on it.” In legal issues, the standard proof of criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I believe a similar standard should be required of employers who assess employees not on their performance but on their lives outside of work. The standard must be that it must be determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a Jury that the conduct is directly causally related to a legitimate and proven loss of business (loss of customers, loss of employees) for such behavior to be retaliated against.

For example, if John Doe posts about his hatred of midgets and you find it on his facebook, your business should not be able to retaliate against John Doe by firing, not promoting or treating him differently simply because YOU are offended. Instead, John Doe’s right to free speech should be prioritized over your “right” to retaliate against him. Sure, you have the right to disagree with John Doe and say “hey, that is offensive, I disagree” but that should be the end of it.

John Doe has the right to say he does not like midgets or the Government of Iowa. A business should have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt by a Jury, that John Doe making his “tweet” about midgets is costing the company employees or customers. Correlation is not causation. Now it is true, he did “put it there” and it is “public,” but if it is not directly tied to a business issue, retaliation should not be an option. You being offended about John Doe’s tweet should be an insufficient cause for termination, lack of promotion or consideration of the behavior.

We must find a strategy to lobby for such change in legislation, so that the American people can be truly empowered to speak up for their own interests instead of for the interests of the small minority who profit the most from doing in the private sector what the Government does not do in the public sector. Let us face it, until we develop labor solidarity, we will never have any rights.

It is entirely legitimate to make jokes, to speak informally when addressing friends, to post a picture, to make political opinions, to listen to music others do not like, to write music, to have a life. Until the government sets an example by criminalizing the retaliation against free speech in the private sector by employers against employees and potential employees, there are no rights in the “land of the free” (the land of imperialistic warfare, cosmopolitan greed, rootlessness, racial self-hatred and politicized religion).

Reading Pennsylvania and Socialism

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Cited below, by the inclusion of relevant content in picture format, is a very old book about Pennsylvania history. What is very interesting is that much of the existing infrastructure in Pennsylvania today is a result of what was set up earlier. It was good to find that the Pennsylvania of Yesterday is very much recognizable when compared to the Pennsylvania of today.

Reading Pennsylvania was founded by English but inhabited by Germans between Lancaster, Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia. When reading the section on Reading (no pun intended) Pennsylvania, I learned that this Pennsylvania Dutch town actually had what was described in the book as a Socialist administration and a history of Union activity and strikes. I also learned that during the original American revolution, the population of Reading was quite revolutionary against the British imperialists. This is interesting, because the people of Reading rejected the mainstream economy and society for revolutionary change, just like the Amish outside of Lancaster City have. However, Reading moved away from capitalism in a Socialist direction, whereas Lancaster Amish purposely insulated their own community from finance capitalism and modernism in a separatist religious direction. Still, it is interesting to be aware of the historical ability of the region to arrange society instead of simply riding the course of history passively. No one can doubt Philadelphia’s own role in bringing about the original American revolution.

While Pennsylvania may have trampled over Southern Revolutionaries, Pennsylvanians have proven themselves capable of revolutionary thought and action. Yet in my opinion what existed in Reading Pa was not true socialism, but capitalism administrated by people with socialist ideologies. The system was still capitalist, but the people who ran the system were socialists. This would most likely be comparable to Mensheviks if any parallel could be drawn to Russia, but drawing a parallel is always an oversimplification of history. Considering the material conditions of America as a whole, Pennsylvania as a state and Reading as a city, that may have been the most ideal arrangement at the time.

By my colloquial knowledge of the region, I know that Reading has a history of being an important manufacturing city with outlets (and is now being outsourced). The included content below alludes to this. Perhaps something about the economy brings about class antagonisms and something about the culture caused people to fight for populist change on behalf of those antagonisms.

Included below is the material which I referenced.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor