.

Archive for the ‘Neo-liberalism’ Category

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.

Internationalism vs. Decay

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Most Marxists say they stand for internationalism.

That means that Marxists stand for nations. Because without nations, you can’t have internationalism. Without organs, you can’t have a human body. Without different types of plants, you can’t have an ecosystem.

Individualism and internationalism are not the same thing. Liberalism and internationalism are not the same thing.

The struggle for class conscious ideology is worldwide. It is capitalism, however, that attempts to “melt” and alienate people away from collective identities, not Marxism.

The SchuylKILL Distressway; Capitalism in Action

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

The link
To quote a post:

The Schuylkill Expressway’s problem has nothing to do with a lack of engineering ingenuity, and everything to do with the cost of upgrading the highway. Most of the cost would be required to purchase additional right-of-way that didn’t come with the highway when it was built prior to the implementation of the Interstate Highway System. The cost of acquiring right-of-way adjacent to the highway between I-676 and I-95, let alone adjacent to other segments of the highway would make such a project astoundingly expensive.

As for the train tracks, they’re owned by the rail companies that use them, so building commuter rail on those lines would require not only approval from the company that owns the tracks, but lease payments by SEPTA to the company. Train-track politics are tricky. For example, they’re the main reason why PA 28 is only now being prepared for widening between downtown Pittsburgh and Millvale, because PennDOT first had to get Norfolk Southern’s approval in order to realign the train tracks to make widening the highway a possibility. (And realigning the train tracks requires a strict engineering procedure as well.)

A lot of people simply do not understand the politics of infrastructure, which is why I tend to get the most heated about infrastructure-related topics.

isn’t that insane?

Imagine if there was a Technocratic Dictator like Hussein or Stalin who just said “build,” and shot you if you didn’t. That would work.

Has It Become a Sin To Be White? – Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

The link
This is an article that I found interesting enough to post. There is not really much more for me to comment.

How much longer will the American public tolerate the anti-white rhetoric coming from the mouths of liberal politicians and the pen of the media?

Over the past few months, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and Democrat politicians, including former President Clinton and others, have questioned the legitimacy of the Tea Party movement because, as they say, it is “too white.”

To them, such “whiteness” is evidence of “racism.” They are attempting to drumbeat into the American consciousness two principles: one, that political speech and positions vocalized primarily by white people is, basically, invalid; and, two, opinions emanating from non-liberal white people is motivated by racism.

Throughout the entire healthcare debate, liberals assigned “racism” to those opposed to the massive overhaul. In fact, the opposition among the middle class had nothing to do with “hidden racism” but was a neutral and understandable desire to maintain for themselves the liberty to choose their own doctor, the fear of diminished quality care, the horror of being over-taxed to a degree that leaves little disposable income for working parents for their own family, and the bedrock, historic American belief of self-responsibility.

Similarly, those wanting closed borders and an end to illegals entering the country and blithely living off taxpayer largess are accused of “white racism.” when the underlying reason has to do with protecting themselves from crime, rape, murder, property damage and the closing of schools, hospitals and other essential services due to local and state bankruptcy born of the expenses of subsidizing illegals.

The left is trying to muzzle its political opposition by brainwashing us into accepting their mantra that non-liberal whites are racist. Our reply in proving that we are not racist has been to show that blacks are among Tea Party members. To be sure, that is important, but, by so doing, we are capitulating to the premise that by itself “white” opinion is somehow invalid.

Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is found a footnote or asterisk that freedom of speech or assembly is conditioned on its racial diversity, its “un-whiteness.” Our answer to those who ask “how many blacks, Muslims, or Hispanics are members of your group, should be: “It doesn’t matter, what matters is the cogency of our argument.”

We should have enough confidence to answer: “The problem is not with our beliefs, rather with those who do not share our core American values or are unwilling to gather and associate with a group overwhelmingly white”.

Freedom of speech and assembly should not be based on a quota system. Will we now have a situation in speech, like that in hiring, that requires 12% black or 11% Hispanic or 2% Muslim for that speech to be politically valid and acceptable?

What started out years ago as inclusiveness of others has dangerously degenerated into an exclusion of speech and validity if exercised by the white community. Obsessive identification with minority-group views has led to, among elite liberals, a complete indifference and callousness to the feelings and yearnings of the majority white population.
Truthfully, this has always been the goal of liberal multiculturalism. Its intention was never to simply open up our society but to close down those representing the historic ethos and values of America: the white middle class.

For the liberal left, other cultures are not simply to be admitted but should reign supreme—a tyranny of the minority over the majority, orchestrated by white liberals, and minority power brokers, wishing to subdue the majority standing in the way of their political and cultural hegemony, and feeling righteous doing so out of a conviction that non-liberal white people are racist and must be stomped down.

The truth is that many in the liberal community preaching to us about racism are, themselves, bigots against white Christians, labeling them red-necks, un-educated, racists, and simpletons. No one calls them on their bigotry since it’s difficult to conceive that those always touting civil rights and diversity are imbued with their own bigotry. Their never-ending indictment of American society as racist cloaks what is their own variety of bigotry.
The crusade of the liberal establishment to sew into the collective consciousness a belief that whites are inherently racist and “extremist” was displayed in the media’s endless speculation about a “white male” as the perpetrator during the first hours of the Times Square terrorist incident and yet played down the Moslem origin of the actual terrorist when so discovered. Even Rep. Jerold Nadler (D.-N.Y.) and Mayor Michael Bloomberg alluded to a white person “angry over the healthcare bill.” In the liberal mind, white people are closet Timothy McVeighs. It is a subtle bigotry that the American public dare not allow seep into their world view. It is a presumption which must be decried as racism against the white majority.

This belief is so ingrained that after the discovery of the Pakistani terrorist, Mayor Bloomberg warned that: “No reprisals and backlash against the Pakistani community will be tolerated.” Why the need to make this warning given that since 9/11 and numerous Islamic attacks since then, there have been no burnings of mosques or backlash riots against Islamic communities?

Instead of liberals admiring the majority, white community for their monumental restraint and fairness, liberals continue to peddle to “white America” how our evil impulses must be continually reigned in. President Obama has often delivered this very same message, and in a weekly radio address appealed to “Blacks, Muslims, Latinos and women to coalesce into standing behind his hopes and agenda for America”.

The reason for this never-ending liberal portrayal of “racist and extreme white-male America” is to intimidate us into silence. The left knows that the only thing standing in the way of their complete takeover of American government, culture and values is disenfranchising the legitimacy of the middle class. America is unique and different than other countries that are divided into a ruling class and a recipient class, with a very weak middle class. Americanism, on the other hand, comes from a prosperous, self-assured and vigorous middle class.

Liberals cannot out-rightly condemn the middle class. They have decided to strip it of its self-confidence and legitimacy by categorizing it as “white,” with all the orchestrated belittlement and demonization of whiteness we are now hearing. The economy is being transformed in such a way that entrepreneurship and small business, the backbone of the middle class, is being thwarted. An impoverished middle class is an impotent class. The elites are engaged in the destruction of the historic American ethos and value system embodied in the American majority. They want to convince us that “white values” are dangerous. What we have here is nothing less than cultural ethnic cleansing.

Dick Morris on Illegal Immigration

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

The link

Here is a nicely written non-partisan article which describes how the immigration issue is buthchered by corrupt politicians.  Over and over again, Americans poll that they want the borders closed down and illegal immigrants approached instead of ignored or legalized, but over and over again, the leaders of the establishment are very reluctant to do what should be very easy.

Quotation from Dick Morris

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

In their desperation, President Barack Obama and senators with large Latino populations in their states (like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.) are seeking to polarize Hispanic and Anglo sentiment over the issue of illegal immigration. In his frequent messages calling for higher Latino and black turnout and his condemnation of the Arizona immigration law, Obama is trying to recapture over immigration the voter approval he lost over healthcare.

Arizona acted as it did because of a lack of federal enforcement of federal law barring undocumented immigrants. With a porous border, they felt that they were left no choice but to pass a law allowing potentially intrusive searches to ferret out illegal immigrants. Because this law could subject American citizens of Hispanic origin to undue scrutiny and perhaps to needless trips to the police station, the Arizona law antagonizes the jump ball in the immigration debate — Latino-American voters. If there were a real national identification card, the requirement to produce papers might be less intrusive. But, as it is, with the burden of proof on the citizen (or the illegal immigrant), the law is bound to raise tensions between Anglo cops and Latino citizens.

But being forced to support or oppose the Arizona law is a false choice. It reflects the unimaginative politics of confrontation that jeopardize race relations and elect demagogues like Barack Obama. (Obama’s share of the white vote was the same as Kerry won in 2004. He was elected only because of a three-point increase in black turnout and a shift in Latino votes to his corner. He won because of race, and now he schemes to keep control of Congress by using the immigration issue.)

The real answer is not to round up Latinos in the streets of Phoenix and hope to catch illegals in the net. Nor is it even to pretend that we can stop determined men and women from crossing the border by way of more guards, more troops and better equipment. The answer is to dry up the will to cross the border in the first place by stopping employers from offering jobs to undocumented workers. If there were felony penalties — jail time — for hiring illegals, they would not be hired. And if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigration.

The Republican position on illegal immigration should be to demand tough employer sanctions, including jail, and coupling that program with a vigorous guest-worker program to bring needed workers in legally, pay them a living wage and then escort them out when they are no longer needed. The United States, in need of a younger population to pay for our current and future retirees, should also raise the allowed levels of immigration.

Both parties are hypocritical on immigration. Democrats, controlled by unions, want Latinos to vote but not work. Republicans, controlled by agribusiness interests, want them to work but not vote. The answer is to stand up to union and to agribusiness pressure and take tough action to stop the hiring of illegal immigrants.

If there were no jobs for illegals outside of guest-worker programs, there would be no need for amnesty. They would all go home of their own accord or wait until they got legal status.

We would need a foolproof, biometric identity card to speed identification of those eligible for employment to accompany the sanctions against hiring illegals, but this is a small price to pay for an answer to so pressing a problem.

But Obama will not take the step that could end illegal immigration. Why? Because he wants immigration. He seeks to reshape the partisan balance in America by increasing the number of Latino voters and marrying them to the Democratic Party by provoking Republicans who just want law and order to appear racist to Hispanic-Americans. His is a game of great duplicity and racial opportunism. But good legislation can defeat his designs and solve one of our most pressing domestic problems at the same time.

America’s Lax Immigration Laws Help Domestic Terrotism

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

The link

The extreme naivety of the bourgeois leadership of the American people is shown by their inability to recognize the methodologies that can be used against them by hostile parties.  Anyone who studies criminal profiling would not be shocked by the fact that people can “camouflage.”  Though in this case, the camouflage should have been fairly obvious!

Quote:

Quotation from Jeffrey Goldberg

I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.

America’s homeland-security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad’s US citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg’s response was typical: “I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor.” Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception.

Shahzad’s path to American citizenship — he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas — is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham-marriage racket for years. And immigration-benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for US-based Islamic plotters, including many planning attacks on New York City. As I’ve reported previously:

* El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired US citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.

* Ali Mohamed became a US citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. He became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.

* Embassy-bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.

* Embassy-bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband’s employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about her husband’s work.

* Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, NC, married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card.

* Hammoud’s brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving here on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror-cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.

* Eight Mideastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 — Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh — all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying US citizens.

A year after 9/11, homeland-security officials cracked a vast illegal-alien Middle Eastern marriage-fraud ring in “Operation Broken Vows.” Authorities were stunned by the scope of the operations, which stretched from Boston to South Carolina to California. But marriage fraud remains a treacherous path of least resistance. The waiting period for US citizenship is cut by more than half for marriage-visa beneficiaries.

As former federal immigration official Michael Cutler warned years ago: “Immigration benefit fraud is certainly one of the major ‘dots’ that was not connected prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and remains a ‘dot’ that is not really being addressed the way it needs to be in order to secure our nation against criminals and terrorists.”

Jihadists have exploited our lax immigration and entrance policies to secure the rights and benefits of US citizenship while they plot mass murder — and we haven’t done a thing to stop them.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_jihadis_marriage_fraud_scam_iCj3GkDvQHmxATUMP8VTrJ#ixzz0nADESCAE

On Marx, Marxism, Capitalism and Globalization

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

First of all what was thought by Marx is not always thought by Marxists. And what is thought by Marxists was not always thought by Marx. Marx said he was not a Marxist, but that is beside the point. While Marx and Marxists viewed globalism as inevitable, they did not explicitly view “ethnic replacement” and “free movement” as inevitable. Only Trotsky viewed “ethnic mixing” as an important Communist goal.

Globalism means spreading revolution. It does not mean free movement.

Hardcore capitalism however requires free movement. Therefore, aside from the Trotskyites, the Jewish Bolsheviks are preferable to the liberal capitalists.

The Free Market is the American Religion

Monday, March 1st, 2010

The link
The reason America never fixes its problems is that it believes they will auto-correct. This article is the ideological foundation of authoritarianism. If you prefer to smear it, I guess you could call it “emergency dictatorship,” “capitalism in decay” or “fascism.” It is the idea that freedom and liberty “don’t work,” but the logical conclusion is that authority is needed to patch society. It is not really stressing class conflict or the need for the complete elimination of private property, and thus not really addressing the issue from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint but a corrective authoritarian standpoint.

It requires a religious belief in capitalism in order to keep trying to succeed against all odds, because otherwise it is easier to give up. After all, to succeed requires many failed attempts and/or a special networking connection, especially in this global economic meltdown. I can attest to the fact that most hardcore entrepreneurs truly believe these values.

WASHINGTON — The most popular religion in America isn’t Christianity, as most of us have been taught to believe. The most cherished belief system celebrates the principles of unfettered capitalism.

That misplaced faith in free markets was on display in this past Thursday’s health care summit, when — between sound bites and talking points — Republicans argued that “choice and competition” would largely resolve the country’s health care problems. That belief — that the arbitrary, confusing and consumer-unfriendly policies and practices that we euphemistically call a health care “system” can be transformed by relying on free market principles — is confounding.

Except for beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Affairs system — all government-run insurance programs — those of us who have insurance are utterly reliant on the private market. That’s what got us into the mess we’re in.

The health care market simply doesn’t operate like the market for cars or computers or flat-screen TVs. Sony and Samsung make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can. Health insurance companies make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can and then trying very hard not to actually deliver them.

Try to imagine that you’re awaiting delivery of your brand-new 50-inch TV, for which you’ve already made a hefty down payment. But the company calls to tell you that you violated some obscure clause in your contract, so they’re not going to bring it! In the health insurance world, it’s called “rescission.” Insurers decide they won’t honor the contract because of some alleged violation by the policy-holder.

They do that to keep their fat profit margins. Health care giant Wellpoint has proposed substantial rate increases in the individual market (policies for individuals who don’t have employer-based insurance), not just in California but in several other states. In congressional testimony last week, WellPoint president Angela Braly said the company had to raise premiums because of soaring health care costs. But Wellpoint hardly seems to be hurting; it reported a profit last year of $4.7 billion.

California’s Wellpoint subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, is not only proposing stunning rate hikes. The state’s insurance commissioner has announced that the company has also repeatedly violated state law by failing to pay medical claims on time and by misrepresenting policy provisions to consumers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

So, it seems, the company tells you that a policy offers broad coverage when they’re trying to get you to buy insurance. But when you need the coverage, you find out that the policy doesn’t offer broad coverage, after all. That helps explain why so many people, even with health insurance, go bankrupt after a costly illness.

Without stricter government oversight and regulation — which is the essence of the health care reform proposed by President Obama — health care costs will continue to soar while consumers get less and less. Obama’s proposals don’t represent a “government takeover,” as critics contend. The vast majority of Americans would still get their insurance in the private marketplace. But insurers would have to live by a different set of rules.

Vice President Joe Biden said it best at the summit: If Republicans agree that insurance reform is necessary, that health insurance companies should be prohibited from turning away consumers because of pre-existing conditions, that they should be prevented from enforcing lifetime caps on benefits, then the GOP must see the need for strict government regulation. You don’t get those changes in the “free market.”

And, unlike the choice of buying a computer or a car, you’d don’t really get to walk away from health insurance. If you do, you take your life into your hands. Having health insurance increases your chances of longevity.

Once upon a time, political leaders realized that all Americans needed access to electricity, and they stepped in to ensure that all households got that small miracle at reasonable rates — something that the “free market” could not provide. Americans need a similar intervention in health care now.

Freedom isn’t Free

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Dear Metal Gear please post this,

The other posters here just don’t get it.  Freedom is not free.  Free market liberalism is based on “principles” rather than greed.  In other words free markets are about the liberation of the individual and not about the profit of corporations which are separate from the state.

If it was not for American imperialism, real Communists and real Fascists would have you all interned in camps.

MY COUNTRY TIS OF THEE SWEET LAND OF LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH BEUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES!

DON’T WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN IDIOT

(blood from slit wrists was found on the document)

Liberating Arabs from Theocracy

Monday, January 25th, 2010

The Kahanist approach of opposing all Arabs is incorrect. Kahanists may have common enemies but they are only useful to an extent.

Kahanism is not the right path to fight Islamic extremism.

The neo-con path is not the right path either. Liberal democracy is not the right path when confronted with theological threats.

A third way is the real option.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor