Archive for the ‘Propaganda & Information’ Category

Israel on its own

Saturday, April 14th, 2012

If Israel did not receive aid from the west:
-The gap between rich and poor would grow. Because Israel lives off of the money America sends it, most of the Jews there get a free ride. But if that started to change, it is inevitable that some Jews who feel disenfranchised would ally against the ruling class. There would be “proletariat” Jews who see the Palestinians as their ally and see the bourgeoisie as the enemy.
-Palestinians would be doing more than suicide bombing a few people. They would be resisting and because Israel would be weaker, they would have more success.
-The Media would have less funds to support the official ideology.
-Without a free ride, Israel would have to produce its own wealth. If it used a market economy, which most Israeli Jews prefer, the market would open cracks for Palestinians to sneak in. Just like illegal Mexicans are used in the American market and Black Slaves used to be used. Cheap labor is a feature of capitalism and it would occur in Israel if America was not paying the bill. This would threaten the Jewish identity of the state, but it would happen if Israel did not get a free ride.
-Jews would start to leave Israel and go back to America / Russia / Europe / Wherever else. Employment, security and weaker media propaganda would all play a role.
-It is inevitable that eventually Israel would stop pretending to be a state for “The Jews” around the world and would start being a state for its own people (Jew and Palestinian). Without the free ride which allows it to to fight perpetual wars and due to the employment of Palestinians in industry and return of many Jews to Europe/America, Israel would become Palestine. It would have to rely on its own market system so it would have to employ Arabs and other Gentiles who live in the area.
-In summary, Israel is based on a text that comes from the bc era, but if it did not have a free ride, it would have to face reality and change its game. It’s easy to “experiment” with an abstract idea of Jewish unity on land that was stolen when America is paying the bill.

Closing Comment
Even though Israel is objectively pretty parasitic in its behavior, it is “friendly” towards the capitalist system to the extent it gets a free ride and the surrounding countries are hostile. People who support imperialism in the West do have reasons, however corrupt, to support Israel. American imperialism would continue even if Israel had a revolution and went away.

Class Conflict and Identity Politics

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

I reached a huge milestone in my understanding of the world when I realized that issues of identity politics are simply used to advance material goals. This applies as much to liberal Americans who trumpet “freedom and demoracy” and use it to invade countries as it does to National Socialists and Zionists who hide behind identity politics as well in a more explicit fashion. It applied to Christopher Columbus when he invaded countries for “Christianity” but really wanted Gold (nod to Howard Zinn) and it applied to Muhammad as well who clearly invented the the Koran based on millennial outdated myths (the Torah and Gospels) to gain influence over the people of Mecca and Medina.

Historically, why was Slavery supported? To advance Southern agrarian economics!

Why was Slavery opposed? To support Yankee imperialist industrial economics!

Why did Hitler obsess over Jews? To create a false racial theory (“aryan” and “semite” are linguistic terms) so that he could explain the economic depression, send the Germans to war (military industrial complex) and take over Polish land and then argue that the Jews were responsible for the war because they were “controlling” (lol) America and Britain (Poland’s allies) and crashed the economy to begin with.

Why did Britain and America oppose Germany? Aside from self-defense (Pearl Harbor bombing, the proximity of Britain to Germany), the Americans and British wanted to advance capitalist imperialism in a way which was more eloquent than German Nazism. Pragmatically, this is why Israel became propped after 1948! A zig-zag by an opposing capitalist power to support Imperialism by using Jews as the useful idiots instead of using them as the scapegoat!

Why has the ruling class in America rejected racialism? First of all, labor (non-whites gained economic strength), but secondly the Cold War because the ruling class realized that if it did not drop its racialism, then non-whites would revoke their alliance to the bourgeois class and Marxism would appeal instead. Besides, there are a host of ideologies available that include non-Whites which could attract them if America continued to support racialist policies. Just as antisemitism caused Jews to side (temporarily) with the Soviets against the Tzar, racialism could cause non-Whites to abandon American politics. It’s interesting that as soon as Jews had an opportunity to join the bourgeois class, many of them abandoned proletarian politics and switched to Zionist-American politics! As scumbag “Prak Stal” wrote, “use the latter then kick it away” (I don’t plagiarize he only invents that).

Why is there mass immigration, outsourcing of jobs? Again, economics!

People who believe that “moral principles” guide racial policy are idiots. Internet “white race spokespeople” who speak of the “rights” of races to survive and liberals who speak of the “rights” of minorities are mistaken. Under capitalism nobody has any rights, but simply privileges which are granted based on both present and outdated material conditions but hidden behind bullshit ideology. The cold truth is that I will be more honest. Socialism does not believe the “bourgeiouse” has any rights! When you realize the sham of human rights activism, you realize that society is latent with racial double standards because of capitalism primarily, rather than Catholicism or organized Judaism (any resemblance is coincidential). “Human rights” are simply tools used to rally segments of population behind propaganda. The Media does not care about the truth when it under-reports Black Crime (I like thugs) and Judicial system does not see Black or White, it sees Green (dollar bill). “All men are created equal” did not always mean Black men but still emotionally this stirred many American revolutionaries against the British Imperialists. “Human rights” are a propaganda tool, whether used by American colonial Whites (but not Blacks) or used by a biased Media that makes stupid narratives around crime cases to make it appear as if “white supremacists” are frequently attacking Blacks when data shows otherwise.

Another comment. Have you ever seen Abraham Foxman’s salary? Norman Finkelstein (the most skilled writer on the Zionist question) explains the money politics behind victim whoring very well!

The people who I fought with on forums are idiotic morons who are living in a false world in which identity politics are legitimate instead of covers for material politics. They believe “The Jews” and Nazis actually were/are sincere in their identity politics and not simply using them to exploit the stupid. Hell, even Jim Giles made fun of the “white money movement” (note that Hunter Wallace is no longer part of it).

Public Service Announcement

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

9/11 and atheistic Propaganda

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

To the extent that good people died, and many did, I truly regret the deaths of any good people who died as a result of 9/11. Surely when a building goes down, some people are good people, others are bad people. Yet politically, I think 9/11 should be exploited by people who are against religion. Just because American imperialists exploit it doesn’t mean we (truly militant atheists) shouldn’t exploit it.

There are ways to do this that do not serve imperialism. We can stress that Saddam Hussein and even the Taliban did not cause 9/11. We can accuse America of hypocrisy, because America supported Bin Laden against the Soviet Afghan Regime during the era of USSR. These approaches are more logical than declaring 9/11 as some manifestation of class struggle, as it clearly is not. It is clearly motivated by religion and killing people of diverse class status. The Saudi oil families are pretty rich. I do not see Bin Laden attacking them. I realize that other important members do not like this approach (it is my hunch), but no two people can agree on everything, and i believe my position that the nature of 9/11 is classless is correct. I do agree with anyone who believes that Bin Laden was motivated to an extent by opposition to American imperialism. This does not change the fact that Bin Laden’s philosophy is “Islamic imperialism.” Does anyone seriously believe that Bin Laden only wants to preach to the converted, and is not willing to kill atheists?

In my opinion, 9/11 should be used as a poster example, just like Zionism, as what happens when actions are declared ethical based on primitive religion. Just like Zionism, just like George W. Bush and his invasions, religion is being used to justify an act. Can this really be denied?

I do not think 9/11 was “worth it,” but I do think the way it has weakened organized religion is good. I realize Bin Laden did not intend this, but I still believe in exploiting the pragmatic reality. I think when the crimes of Zionists become more widely known, it will become fashionable not just to bash Islam, but to bash ALL religion.

The holocaust, 9/11, the genocides between Serbs and Croats, Zionism – all are at least partially motivated by religion. Even though Hitler saw Jews as a race (he meant nationality, he also saw Poles as a race), there was also clearly something theological about his attitudes towards Jews, whether Pagan or Catholic.

My point is that the events between 1940 and 2004 have really harmed organized religion. 9/11 has, the holocaust has, zionism has, George W Bush “talking to God” has. These events can be tied together to trash the whole idea of religion. It is no longer my religion vs. your religion, but a rebellion against all religion. To do that, 9/11 is useful to my propaganda. Sorry if you disagree or think it is bad for anti-imperialist relations with religious people, but I think the correct approach is to exploit 9/11 more effectively than the opposition, as opposed to worrying about how this will effect reputation with Islamic regimes and fellow posters / associates who may in fact (in error) believe that only American imperialists talk about 9/11 negatively.

American Propaganda – Sunni Al-Qaida and Shia Iran are in cohoots

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

The link
Note to Washington…When creating propaganda, first remember that Sunni Fundamentalism (Al-Qaida) is not Shia Fundamentalism (Iran) and that neither are Ba’athism (Iraq).

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaida operatives who have been detained for years in Iran have been making their way quietly in and out of the country, raising the prospect that Iran is loosening its grip on the terror group so it can replenish its ranks, former and current U.S. intelligence officials say.

This movement could indicate that Iran is re-examining its murky relationship with al-Qaida at a time when the U.S. is stepping up drone attacks in Pakistan and weakening the group’s leadership. Any influx of manpower could hand al-Qaida a boost in morale and expertise and threaten to disrupt stability in the region.

U.S. officials say intelligence points to a worrisome increase in movement lately.

Details about al-Qaida’s movements and U.S. efforts to monitor them were outlined to The Associated Press in more than a dozen interviews with current and former intelligence and counterterrorism officials, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The relationship between Iran and al-Qaida has been shrouded in mystery since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, when many al-Qaida leaders fled into Iran and were arrested. The Shiite regime there is generally hostile to the Sunni terrorist group, but they have an occasional relationship of convenience based on their shared enemy, the U.S.

U.S. intelligence officials have tried wiretapping and satellite imagery to watch the men. The CIA even established a highly classified program – code-named RIGOR – to study whether it could track and kill terrorists such as al-Qaida in Iran. Results have been mixed. Monitoring and understanding al-Qaida in Iran remains one of the most difficult jobs in U.S. intelligence.

“This has been a dark, a black zone for us,” former CIA officer Bruce Riedel said. “What exactly is the level of al-Qaida activity in Iran has always been a mystery.”

That activity has waxed and waned, officials said. Sometimes the men could travel or communicate with other operatives. Other times, they were under tight constraints and the U.S. considered them to be out of commission. There was no obvious pattern to the movement.

The departures began in late 2008 as the U.S. stepped up international efforts to sanction Iran for its nuclear program. Saad bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, was allowed to leave the country around that time with about four other al-Qaida figures.

Since then, U.S. intelligence officials say, others have followed. One former CIA official familiar with the travel identified the men as moneymen and planners, the kind of manpower al-Qaida needs after a series of successful U.S. drone attacks on al-Qaida’s ranks. But a senior counterterrorism official said the U.S. believes anyone who has left Iran recently is likely to be lower-level.

A major concern among U.S. officials is that this movement foreshadows the release of al-Qaida’s “management council,” including some of al-Qaida’s most dangerous figures.

Most recently, the concern focused on Saif al-Adel, an Egyptian-born confidant of Osama bin Laden who is on the FBI’s most wanted list in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In the past year or so, intelligence officials circulated a bulletin saying al-Adel, one of al-Qaida’s founding fathers, was traveling to Damascus, Syria. The U.S. is offering a $5 million reward for his capture.

The Damascus connection ultimately was disproved but, underscoring the difficulty of monitoring the men, U.S. intelligence officials are divided on whether Saif has been allowed to travel in the region. The senior counterterrorism official said there’s no clear evidence Saif has left Iran.

“Regardless of where he is, we haven’t forgotten about him or stopped looking for him,” said Don Borelli, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s terrorism task force in New York. “He’s a most-wanted terrorist and we intend to find him.”

The roster of al-Qaida figures in Iran is something of a who’s who for the terror group. One is Abu Hafs the Mauritanian, a bin Laden adviser who helped form the modern al-Qaida by merging bin Laden’s operation with Ayman al-Zawahiri’s Islamic Jihad. Al-Qaida’s longtime chief financial officer, Abu Saeed al-Masri, has been held there. So have bin Laden’s spokesman, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, and Mustafa Hamid, an al-Qaida trainer with a terrorism pedigree that spans decades.

Several members of bin Laden’s family also have been under house arrest.

All fled into Iran after al-Qaida’s core split up after the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden led some confidants toward the mountainous border with Pakistan. Al-Adel led others into Iran, which has historically allowed al-Qaida members safe passage through the country.

Iran arrested the men in 2003 and has held them as both a bargaining chip with the U.S. and as a buffer against an al-Qaida attack.

Using spy satellites, the U.S. has monitored vehicles in and out of the compound where the al-Qaida operatives have been held. U.S. officials have gleaned some information about the men through intercepted Iranian phone conversations and e-mails. But generally, the U.S. has only limited information about them.

If Iran were to release any of the major al-Qaida figures, it would be a violation of a United Nations resolution. A senior U.S. counterterrorism official said Iran is well aware of U.S. concerns that they not be released.

Late in President George W. Bush’s administration, the CIA began developing a broad and lethal counterterrorism program, RIGOR, that targeted an array of terrorists in different countries. Part of the program examined the possibility of finding and eliminating al-Qaida inside Iran, former intelligence officials said.

They described the program as a feasibility study. One aspect was to figure out whether the CIA could slip spies into Iran to locate and possibly kill al-Qaida figures. RIGOR was separate from an earlier program involving contractors from Blackwater Worldwide.

RIGOR existed on the books for about two years but never progressed any further. CIA Director Leon Panetta canceled RIGOR last year. A U.S. official familiar with the program said a list of specific targets had not yet been identified when the program was nixed.

U.S. officials realized that things in Iran were changing in the waning days of Bush’s administration when Saad bin Laden crossed into Pakistan. The administration took the unusual step of announcing bin Laden’s move and freezing his assets. As many as four others were believed to have been with him.

“This served in large part as a symbolic act to remind both Iran and al-Qaida that we are watching this relationship,” said Juan Zarate, Bush’s former deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism. “We were concerned operationally about his movements, which was another reason for the designation.”

In July, intelligence officials revealed that Saad bin Laden was probably killed in a drone airstrike. Intelligence officials suspected he was traveling with Abu Khayr al-Masry, an Egyptian who had also been held in Iran. Officials believe al-Masry – an al-Zawahiri deputy – is alive and in Iran.

At the time, officials didn’t believe bin Laden’s departure was an isolated event.

Indeed, it wasn’t.

Since Saad bin Laden left Iran, other al-Qaida figures have followed, current and former officials say. They are suspected to be taking smuggling routes heading toward Saudi Arabia or the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. Last fall, top CIA officers received intelligence reports suggesting the release of several al-Qaida members from Iran, according to a former CIA official.

One of the men placed a phone call to a relative in Saudi Arabia. The call was made from Baluchistan, a western Pakistan province bordering both Iran and Afghanistan. It is known as a transit point for al-Qaida operatives.

But even when they have known that al-Qaida had traveled, U.S. officials say they have rarely understood the purpose.

The activity comes as Iran allowed Osama bin Laden’s daughter Iman to leave the country in March and settle in Syria. Details are murky.

“Clearly, there’s something going on on the Iranian front,” said Riedel, the former CIA officer who is now a Brookings Institution scholar.

Some experts believe that anyone from al-Qaida freed to leave Iran must be returning to the battlefield. Others believe that, with al-Qaida families left behind, terrorists may actually be working for Iran, gathering intelligence or passing messages before returning to Iran.

Either way, it’s being noticed. Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer and a senior fellow at Center for Security Policy, says it’s not a good sign.

“Movement like this doesn’t augur well,” she said.

An Intro to Juche

Sunday, April 4th, 2010

Watch in High-Definition!

HOAX NEWS: Russia attacks Georgia, Saakashvili killed

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Birthday Greetings to Kim Jong Il

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Free Media Productions extends heartfelt greetings of solidarity and congratulations to the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the momentous occasion of the 68th Birth Anniversary of General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and Chairman of the DPRK’s National Defense Commission, Dear Leader KIM JONG IL!

Iran Celebrates 31st Anniversary of Islamic Revolution

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Review: Glenn Beck’s ‘Revolutionary Holocaust’

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

From the Red Phoenix, official organ of the American Party of Labor

Part I of VI: Beck’s Countless Lies about America & the Founding Fathers

By Marcus Winter, Farabundo Morazán and Ismail LaLanne

On January 22nd 2010, another hardened reactionary tried to attack the history of leftism and Marxism and (surprise) managed to bring nothing new to the table at all. Shock jock Glenn Beck, an admitted alcoholic and former cocaine addict, has made a career out of appealing to the most lunatic fringe of the right-wing. Even so, this week he finally managed to outdo himself, even after the time he said Obama was “a racist” and had a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die begins oddly—with white X-Files font letters against a crackling static background. What this has to do with or why this is the least bit appropriate for the subject matter Beck tackles is anyone’s guess. As we shall see though, this is symbolic for the entire presentation, which, while clever, is the same hodgepodge of anti-communist views that we have all seen and heard a thousand times before.

A good question for Glenn Beck: why is such radical anti-communism necessary today if communism is discredited, dead, and buried? If communism is supposedly dead in the water, a footnote of history, and so on, and if capitalism is truly the greatest system, then why is it that we are facing a wave of anti-communist hysteria not seen since the Cold War? Mr. Beck, it might do you well to remember that hysteria and desperation are signs of weakness…and liars.

No matter how hard he tries, Glenn Beck cannot sell his line about how “this story has never been told.” Horror stories about communism have been told since before communists ever came to power in the first place. The opening of the secret Soviet archives actually reveals that these claims were in fact ridiculously exaggerated, not worse, than previously claimed.

So, what are his intentions here? Many things all at once—among them licking the boots of the bourgeoisie and re-packaging old and debunked lies. We shall tackle them one by one using our own sources and information. The complete transcript of Beck’s program is available here until further notice: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583732,00.html.

Because of the length of his program, we have decided to break this presentation up into several parts. For right now, we will content ourselves with refuting the introduction to his program.
We invite you to stay tuned for a little series of our own.

Beck’s Thesis
Glenn Beck’s allegedly “groundbreaking” exposé of “progressives,” whom he conveniently lumps together, is by no means new or groundbreaking at all. Revolutionary Holocaust seeks to establish a link between Joseph Stalin and communism on one side, and Adolf Hitler and Nazism on the other. While doing this it also seeks to talk about the reign of Mao Zedong in China, along with a segment about liberal icon Che Guevara.
This same “thesis” of fascism and communism being almost exactly the same or at least sharing fundamental similarities, has been repeated for us endlessly since we were kids. For Beck to champion this as a “new and groundbreaking” idea is either foolish or stunningly arrogant. It has been the dominant narrative shoved down our throats since the publication of The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951 by Hannah Arendt. For a closer look at this laughable “theory,” look here: http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2009/09…otalitarianism/

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, & Slave-Owning Freedom
The video begins with Glenn Beck praising the United States of America and its associated American Dream. “The story of America,” he pines, staring into the camera with his intellectual glasses on, “is really one of self-reliance and optimism, and profound faith.” He continues to milk this image for all its worth, bringing up the merits of the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

Glenn Beck has willfully ignored the history of the American Revolution. The spirit of the American Founding Fathers is only a myth and not a reality.

First, the Constitution of the United States was not set up by “the” people or any sort of popular democracy, but by financial autocrats. White males with property were the only ones allowed to vote under the system that men such as George Washington (the richest man in America), James Madison (owned enormous slave plantations), John Hancock (a rich merchant), Benjamin Franklin (a wealthy printer) and others aimed to set up. Of the 55 men who gathered to write the Constitution in 1787, most were lawyers and men of enormous wealth, making their fortunes in landowning, slave trading, manufacturing or shipping. Half loaned money out for interest, 40 held government bonds.
Regarding the writing of the Constitution:
“The manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slaveowners needed federals security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds” (1).

Governments are not neutral. They reflect the economic interests of the dominant class, expressed in America as men such as the Founding Fathers. The Constitution protects “life, liberty, or property” and little else in reality. Women, Blacks, Indians and poor whites were not mentioned, but the defense of private property was.
The clause about the “freedom of speech” was soon enough violated, as it is today, by clauses such as the Sedition Act of 1789, which was a response to the French and Irish Revolutions. It forbid under law the practice of writing or saying anything “false, scandalous and malicious” against the United States government, the Congress or the President. It is not immediately apparent that anyone’s “liberty” should be left to a government run by the rich and powerful.

Despite this, Beck says that “[…] those seeking a different path than the ones the founders settled on realized the only way to really defeat the Constitution was for the people to stop reading it.” He then insists that the Constitution, through its supposed system of check and balances, “kept dogs at bay” for 200 years. Despite this Utopian dream, the Founding Fathers were not men seeking a “balance” in society, and certainly didn’t believe that all men were created equal. If they wanted any sort of balance, it was between the wealthy, and not between such groups as Indians and whites, blacks and whites, men and women, boss and worker, or rich and poor, slave and slaveowner, and certainly not property owner and the propertyless.

Next Article
In the next part of the series, we shall see how Glenn Beck uses the story of Nazi Germany and WWII to further his own ends, and ends up whitewashing Nazi crimes in order to attack the USSR.

1) Zinn, Howard. Peoples’ History of the United States, page 91.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor