————————————————————————————————————————————————
Monthly Archives: December 2011
Ron Paul and the "Far Right" Reply
Article from the New York Times.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————
The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies ofRon Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”
Mr. Paul often espouses positions at odds with most of the Republican Party but has assembled a diverse and loyal following.
Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.
Far-right groups like the Militia of Montana say they are rooting for Mr. Paul as a stalwart against government tyranny.
Mr. Paul’s surprising surge in polls is creating excitement within a part of his political base that has been behind him for decades but overshadowed by his newer fans on college campuses and in some liberal precincts who are taken with his antiwar, anti-drug-laws messages.
The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.
But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.
Michael Scheuer Endorses Ron Paul for President Reply
It’s interesting to see such a stridently anti-empire analysis from such a hawkish commentator.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Michael Scheuer is the former head of the Bin Laden unit for the CIA. He was with the CIA for 22 years. He quit in disgust after the 9-11 commission report was released. He is the best-selling author of four books on the subject of foreign policy and the Middle East, and he is a painful thorn in the side of the establishment.
Iowa’s Choice: Ron Paul or U.S. Bankruptcy, More Wars, and Many More Dead Soldiers and Marines
Two recent experiences underlined for me what Iowans will vote for next week in the field of foreign policy if they do not vote for Dr. Ron Paul. On Christmas day, I heard Chris Wallace’s program on FOX. He had a guest — Mr. Charles Lane — who made the false and scurrilous claim that Dr. Paul’s foreign policy was the same as that of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s America-hating policy, a doctrine that appealed to Barack Obama for more than twenty years and whichthe President and his party are now implementing. Following this imbecilic assertion of Mr. Lane to its logical conclusion, U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines also must be ardent devotees of Rev Wright’s anti-Americanism as they donate many times more money to Dr. Paul than to all the other Republican candidates combined.
Then on 26 December, I visited Mount Vernon’s new and extraordinary multi-media museum documenting the life of George Washington. At the end of the exhibition there is video of U.S. Senators reading Washington’s Farewell Address into the record, something they appear to do every year. When I arrived in front of the video Senator John McCain was reading Washington’s clear warnings about the dangers of foreign intervention and the fatal impact of mindlessly favoring one country over another. To hear this from McCain’s interventionist, war-mongering, and Israel-is-always-right mouth was sound evidence of his hypocrisy and deceitfulness, as well as his and his senatorial colleagues’ ignorance of Washington’s ideas, and U.S. history in general.
Based on these two experiences, let us examine what Iowans voting for someone other than Ron Paul will do to an America already terribly wounded by the Republican and Democratic interventionism in the Muslim world.
28 Signs That U.S. Public Schools Are Rapidly Being Turned Into Indoctrination Centers And Prison Camps Reply
We don’t need no education. We don’t need no thought control. Burn the fucking schools.
————————————————————————————————————————-
It has been said that children are our future, and right now the vast majority of our children are being “educated” in public schools that are rapidly being turned into indoctrination centers and prison camps. Our children desperately need to focus on the basics such as reading, writing and math, but instead a whole host of politicians, “education officials” and teachers are constantly injecting as much propaganda as they possibly can into classroom instruction. Instead of learning how to think, our children are continually being told what to think. Not only that, our children are also being trained how to live as subservient slaves in a Big Brother police state. Today, nearly everything that children do in public schools is watched, monitored, recorded and tracked. Independent thought and free expression are greatly discouraged and are often cracked down upon harshly. If students get “out of line”, instead of being sent to see the principal they are often handcuffed, arrested and taken to the police station. In addition, law enforcement authorities are using weapons such as pepper spray and tasers against young students in our public schools more than ever before. Children in U.S. public schools are not learning how to live as strong individuals in the “land of the free and the home of the brave”. Rather, they are being trained how to serve a Big Brother police state where control freaks run their entire lives. If we continue to allow all of the liberty and freedom to be systematically drained out of our school children, then there is not going to be much hope for the future of this nation.
The following are 28 signs that U.S public schools are being turned into indoctrination centers and prison camps….
A Tale of Two Cities: Weimar and Washington Reply
————————————————————————————————-
Mark Twain is credited with saying that “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today’s United States is often compared to other historic nations, whether at their prime or about to decline and fall depending on one’s own political perspective. Neoconservatives frequently eulogize Washington as a new Rome, promising a worldwide empire without end carried on the back of a Pentagon bristling with advanced weaponry. Other observers also cite Rome but are rather more sanguine, recalling how in the 5th century the empire failed dramatically and fell to barbarian hordes. Still others note the fate of the British Empire, which came apart in the wake of the Second World War, or the Soviets, whose collapse was brought about by 50 years of unsustainable military spending.
But the historical analogy that appears to be most apposite for post-9/11 Washington is that of the Weimar Republic. To be sure, any suggestion that the United States might be following the same course as Germany in the years that led to Nazism must be pursued with caution because few Americans want to believe that the descent into such extremism is even possible in the world’s most venerable constitutional republic. But consider the following: both the United States and Weimar Germany had constitutions in which checks and balances were integrated to maintain a multi-party system, the rule of law, and individual liberties. Both countries were on the receiving end of acts of terrorism that produced a dramatic and violent reaction against the presumed perpetrators of the crimes, so both quickly adopted legislation that abridged many constitutional rights and empowered the head of state to react decisively to further threats. The media fell in line, concerned that criticism would be unpatriotic.
Matt Damon Rips Into President Obama, Says He Failed to Lead Reply
————————————————————————————————–
Matt Damon is expressing his disdain for Barack Obama’s presidency again, this time saying that the President doesn’t have any “balls.”
Once one of Obama’s biggest cheerleaders, Damon slammed the president in a new interview with Elle magazine.
“I’ve talked to a lot of people who worked for Obama at the grassroots level,” he said. “One of them said to me, ‘Never again. I will never be fooled again by a politician.’
“You know, a one-term president with some balls who actually got stuff done would have been, in the long run of the country, much better,” he added.
My Position on Immigration 24
Article by Michael Hutchinson of the World National Anarchist Alliance.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-
This is a touchy subject among some National Anarchists and Anarcho-Capitalists. The former due to worry of preservation, and the latter due to realizing that we have a welfare state right now and them not wanting to pay the bill.
In my opinion both reasons are fatally flawed. The reason that NA’s are flawed on this issue is simple. Their reason is to want to preserve their identity, yet they neglect the fact that the fucking line is meaningless. Tribes are composed of real people and property, therefore it is reasonable to want to be exclusionary in at least some regards. The line represents not actual people and their tribe, but the corrupt ideology of the Manifest Destiny. It is supporting what the state put into place. The Mexicans are ancestors of those who used to freely travel the land. People bitch about the invasion of Europe, but it is okay for us to take over the land and exclude the original inhabitants? This is not a consistent position. It is largely contradictory.
The solution for the NA’s? Keep them out of where people reside in your tribe. Are you mad that whites are not breeding enough? BREED! Have some kids! Most people I see bitching about the birthrates don’t have more than 2 kids to increase the white population when they die.
I know that I am questioning some of the founding principles of National Anarchism itself, and people will ask why I use the title for myself instead of leaving. Every school of thought has some flaws that need to be addressed. What I have been discussing here should work for those who are racialist and non-racialist. It gives both sides the chance to do what they wish in their tribe. Am I a bit angry? Yes! State borders are the function of the state and this is contradictory to the principles of anarchism. Where people in a particular tribe reside, however, is very real. THAT is not a fiction. Thus, the tribe would be within its right to include or exclude whoever it pleases.
If I have to criticize Troy Southgate to be more consistent, then so be it. With the “protect our borders” rhetoric, we will never get sympathy from those on the left. I thought our point was to unite both left and right to work together on points of agreement. We are not crypto-Fascists, but this stuff makes them suspect it.
Promote the idea of tribes and voluntary association. With these two, everyone gets what they want.
Colloquy on Thomas Edsall and "The White Working Class Reply
Article from the CPUSA’s theoretical journal.
This fits well with my analysis of the liberal-left as the party of the New Class.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Editor: This post is a colloquy — conversation — between Political Affairs Writers on an article by Thomas Edsall that appeared several days ago in the New York Times arguing, among other points, that Obama should disregard the so-called “white working class” in favor of a coalition of liberal “middle-class” whites together with African-American, Latino, Asian-American and other national or racial minorities, women, and the LGBT communities to win the 2012 election. I call this advice on how to lose the election, from a “Fox-News” democrat, or “faux Democrat”. But since efforts to divide progressive forces and thus elect a Republican can be expected to come from all directions, it behooves us, I think, to explore the notions behind this “friendly advice” — friendly somewhat in the manner that a rope supports a hanged man!
John Case: The thesis of this article – that only white bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces, not white workers–can be won to multinational, multi-racial positions and unity — needs to be resolutely defeated — or there will be little future to the Obama coalition in any progressive sense, in any sense that bears upon the 1% vs the 99%, that bears upon advancing either democracy, or socialism.
Is the World Really Safer Without the Soviet Union? Reply
Interesting article by Mikhail Gorbachev.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
A man waves a Russian flag during a rally November 21, 1988 (MF/AA/REUTERS Pictures)
Virtually all American commentary about the end of the Soviet Union extols what the West is believed to have gained from that historic event. On this twentieth anniversary of the breakup, The Nation presents three writers who focus instead on what may have been lost. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last leader and first constitutional president, argues that a chance for a more secure and just world order was missed. Stephen F. Cohen, a historian and longtime Nation contributor, reminds readers of the political, economic and social costs to Russians themselves. And Vadim Nikitin, a US-educated Russian journalist, presents a new interpretation of pro-Soviet nostalgia. —The Editors
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union twenty years ago, Western commentators have often celebrated it as though what disappeared from the world arena in December 1991 was the old Soviet Union, the USSR of Stalin and Brezhnev, rather than the reforming Soviet Union of perestroika. Moreover, discussion of its consequences has focused mostly on developments inside Russia. Equally important, however, have been the consequences for international relations, in particular lost alternatives for a truly new world order opened up by the end of the cold war.
Following my election as general secretary of the Communist Party in March 1985, the Soviet leadership formulated a new foreign policy agenda. One of the key ideas of our reforms, or perestroika, was new political thinking, based on the recognition of the world’s interconnectedness and interdependence. The top priority was to avert the threat of nuclear war. Our immediate international goals included ending the nuclear arms race, reducing conventional armed forces, settling numerous regional conflicts involving the Soviet Union and the United States, and replacing the division of the European continent into hostile camps with what I called a common European home.
