Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

Nazis and Neo-Cons: compare and contrast

by Nazis and Neo-Cons: compare and contrast Monday, Jul. 03, 2006 at 1:04 PM

It’s not uncommon to hear a left-leaning person denounce the Bush administration with a barrage of Nazi-related epithets. The slurs are typically blurted out in anger with little thought to evidence or validity. In fact, whenever analogies are made linking a person or current event to either the Nazis or Holocaust, accusatory responses of “exaggeration” and “slander” are usually justified; it is indeed immature to randomly compare anything to the machine of Nazism that took the innocent lives of so many. While taking this into full consideration, the following is nevertheless an attempt to make some unpleasant connections.

Contrary to what many historians claim, Fascism does not appear out of thin air. There are economic and social conditions that— appearing repeatedly throughout history— have led to the possibility of tyranny and atrocity. The fascist nations of Italy, Germany, Japan, and Spain are often explained simply as phenomenon of irrationality: charismatic leaders hypnotized the masses into behaving like zombies while willfully contributing to the most horrific crimes. This myth conveniently dilutes the past behind a veil of banalities, leaving the slightest comprehension of a crucial era of history impossible. It is hoped that in explaining the historic and ideological origins of fascism, and showing where they are relevant to the present day, a better understanding of social processes can be gained, and in consequence, a means to combat the current degeneration of the United States. There can be little doubt that such an understanding is essential in determining if a public is well informed and involved in shaping its future, or otherwise reduced to the mentality that was once shared by all ‘good Germans’.

For one to comprehend how Fascism first materialized, a quick review of the social atmosphere of its birth is necessary. Europe, like most of the world at the beginning of the 20th century, was in a state of constant flux and social upheaval due to an international economic expansion—the 1st round of globalization. The end result from this change of worldwide economy was depression, war, and unpopular government. In response, the average worker became increasingly militant, organizing over basic demands for improved conditions and sometimes, insurrection. Perhaps the epitome of this era was the Russian revolution, where for the first time the working-class took political power into its own hands. After the revolution in Russia, the upper layers of society trembled at the thought of such a happening in their own countries, immediately putting their publications to work in creating anti-communist hysteria. It must be pointed out that at the time of its inception, soviet Russia was antithetical to the bureaucratic totalitarianism later to be known as Stalinism, and was in many ways a democratically progressive form of government, expressing the interests and ambitions of the working classes— especially in Europe. Two of the principle worker parties in Europe, the Social Democratic Party and Communist Party, had variants of Marxism as their philosophical foundations. These two parties were instrumental in organizing and spreading the radical ideas that were the basis of militant mood of the masses, as well as the hardened contempt from the world of business; it is under these conflicting forces that Fascism came to the fore, promising order by repressing the ‘unruly elements’, i.e. anarchists, communists, unionists, activists, and dissidents in general.
The likeness of Italy and German fascism is revealed in the names given to the hired thugs that were the party’s original members: the ‘black shirts’ of Italy, and the ‘brown shirts’ of Germany. The names were similar not only because of the uniforms, but because of the mutual duties preformed by the two groups; the goal of these activities was the systematic destruction of the labor movement flourishing at the time. In Germany, the brown shirts attacked union meetings, disrupted speakers, and denounced all labor activities as Bolshevistic. As the criminal enterprises proved themselves effective at union busting and small-scale mob intimidation, more industrial magnates added them to their payroll— because it was a time of mass protest, general strikes, and factory occupations, the owners of industry were desperate to regain their previously unchallenged status. German industry had been forced into making repeated concessions to workers as the result of unions and opposition parties; as a result, the companies had been struggling in the international market, trying to maintain profit-rates among recession and competition. To insure its survival, German industry resorted to the above criminal tactics, creating what was in effect a class war.
As the economic crises deepened, so too did the pockets of fascist organizations. Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (a name of immense contradiction) soon found itself evolving from a hole-in-the-wall men’s club consisting of fanatics and petty criminals to a party of considerable influence. Eventually, the services performed by the henchmen became regular salaried positions. As resources increased the groups developed into professional mercenaries with official uniforms and unchecked powers, often trained by military officers. From what began as a group of thugs before 1930, turned into a highly disciplined terror organization, eventually adding to its duties the breaking up of worker demonstrations, planned assassinations, and instigation of street battles— the more complex work of ‘extermination’ was to happen only after the Nazis had complete control of government.
It would have been impossible for the Nazi party to become influential without the support of German industry. One reason why business decided to prop up Hitler was the Weimer Republics overly democratic nature. This means that the working class political parties were gaining considerable power at the expense of profits, preventing a political program that would insure the continued dominance of corporations over workers. The Nazi party was only able to rise above the many other fascist organizations because Hitler’s charisma was able to impress steel magnate Fritz Thyssen, a fact much more important than his sway over his small but eager group of constituents. In his book “I paid Hitler”, Thyssen details his involvement with National Socialism and explains how he involved Germanys other industrial tycoons. With considerable financial backing, Hitler was then able to shower the country with Propaganda, traveling extensively to utilize his speaking skills and spread the Nazi party principles of fear and revenge. After the Nazi party gained power, their supporters were rewarded for the contributions, Daniel Guerin writes in Fascism and Big Business:
"The economic policy carried on by the 'National-Socialists' nevertheless completely justified the confidence which the big industrialists had placed in Hitler. Hitler has in every other respect carried out their policy. He has destroyed the workers' organisations. He has introduced the 'leadership principle' in the factories. He has brought about an expansion of heavy industry in Western Germany by means of an immense rearmament programme and has brought the firms enormous profits” (1)
After becoming large enough to be recognized internationally, the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany soon gained credibility and praise from the United States and England for their unceasing effort in controlling rebellion. The industrial countries were particularly afraid of having the economic giant of Germany becoming the second Communist nation, and thus approved of the fascist ‘Anti-Comintern’ alliance against Russia; this was in fact the justification Britain gave in financially supporting Germany’s rearmament.
Hitler was a master politician in the sense that he realized and exploited the conflicts of interest between different countries. Though neighboring France wanted nothing less than Germany to be rearmed, Hitler’s harangues of defeating Bolshevism attracted the combined support of the USA and England. Not only were Nazi articles regularly published by Hearst-owned newspapers and magazines in America, but the party was consistently commended by the highest ranking politicians of the western democracies, since their countries suffered equally from the illness that was the working class. Winston Churchill was an especially keen admirer of both Mussolini and Hitler; the following exhibits his fondness for the fascism of Italy:
"…If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you [Mussolini] from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honor and stability of civilized society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism." (2)
This exceptionally candid appraisal of fascism highlights the priorities shared by even the most Democratic of countries; England and the USA both considered the fascist option of government a legitimate response to the ‘instability’ that is the result from the incessant demands of the working class. This is in essence why fascism exists in the first place— the defining characteristics of fascism have their origins in creating stability amidst economic turmoil, blurring class interests through patriotism and fear, widespread terror and repression, and removing civil liberties that allow freedom of protest and organization. This formula has proven successful in enabling the status quo to survive among turbulent times in countries around the world throughout the 20th century. It was only after Hitler encroached on the economic interests of England and France did Fascism become the dirty word it is today.
Fascism attempts to hide the class nature of society by focusing on certain, essential values; the historically most effective of these have been fear, racism, and ethnic and religious nationalism.

The German form of nationalism was based on Aryan pride, a racist fear of ‘foreign conspirators’ (communists), and the easily exploitable Jewish minority. The German public’s acceptance of discrimination toward Jews was a cultivated phenomenon that served the fascist political interest. Although Anti-Semitism had existed in Europe for centuries before Hitler came to power, the Nazi regime gave it an invigorated purpose. Hitler skillfully used people’s prejudices against Jews to amplify his already fervent anti-communist propaganda, creating the belief that communism was a doctrine created by the Jews to take over the world. Because many of the notable German Marxists were in fact Jews, it is not impossible to imagine that Hitler believed his conspiracy theory; his account in Mein Kamp on the subject appears sincere:
“As I calmly and clearly deepened my knowledge of Marxism and thus the effects of the Jewish people, destiny itself gave me the answer...”
…”The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and sets in its place the eternal privilege of power and strength of the mass and the dead weight of its numbers. It therefore denies the value of the human personality, contests the significance of nationality and race, and therewith withdraws from humanity the basis of its existence and culture. As a foundation of the universe this [doctrine] would bring about the end of any intellectually comprehensible order. And thus as in this the greatest recognizable organism, the realization of such a law could result only in chaos and, ultimately, death for the inhabitants of this planet”. (3)
Consequently the words ‘Jew’ and ‘Communist’ became inseparable; this propaganda helped portray many of the working class organizations as a foreign, Jewish element, making them automatic targets by the fanatic patriotism that was the basis of ‘National Socialism’. The ‘Jewish-Communist conspiracy’ became the banner under which Hitler whipped up hysteria and fear, vowing to protect good Christian Germans from the bloodthirsty Communist Jews. The media fully participated in pushing this angle, providing unlimited amounts of derogatory editorials and cartoons that depicted Jews as dangerous, sub-human plotters. The ancient customs of Judaism, coupled with the semi-feudal communist state of Russia, were used to symbolize the problem of a ‘clash of cultures’ that the industrialized Christian country of Germany served as the counterbalance. The ‘clash of culture’ propaganda was instrumental in dehumanizing the populations that Germany was eventually to attack or imprison.
A more abstract ideological theme of fascism is the notion of conservatism. Although the majority of fascists are conservative in the political-religious sense of the word, a thoroughly fascist regime will often take the idea of ‘conservatism’ to another level; the conservatism of the fascist countries in Europe sought to return to an era when they were respected world powers. Mussolini and Hitler had as their constituents former military and royal families who shared this belief— the case being especially true for Germany, where the once powerful Hohenzollern Empire was now disarmed and paying war reparations. This fascist idea of returning to a golden age is most eloquently stated by Mussolini:
“...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples who are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.” (5)

Thus, by this definition, a regaining of past prestige implies the use of military aggression. This aspect of fascist ideology was especially attractive to the nations steel and war manufacturers, who profited immensely from the rise and conquer mentality.
To emphasize how the conservative idea of ‘renewal’ and profit-making become inseparable in a fascist government, an important artifact of Nazi history is worth revisiting, first analyzed in Trotsky’s essay, Hitler’s Program. Before Hitler became Chancellor he authored an ‘open letter’ to then Chancellor Franz Von Papen, the notorious political representative of German industry. In his ‘open letter’(written for Germany’s elites) Hitler outlined the need for Papen to adopt the Nazi program to achieve the aims of the ‘nation’, i.e., the industrial classes. Hitler argued that Germany could not achieve its aims of rejuvenation and growth through democratic and legal means due to the restrictions of the treaty of Versailles, but only through the uniquely aggressive foreign policy of the Nazis.
Four months after the letter was published, The Nazis political support dropped dramatically; this was most likely due to an upturn in the economy that made Hitler’s constituency (the middle classes) more optimistic and less receptive to demagogy. However, the ruling classes had taken Hitler’s letter seriously, and rather than have political power shift again to a government less receptive to their needs, Hitler was ‘appointed’ Chancellor, so as to execute the ideas put forth in his letter. It is no surprise that Papen soon became an integral member to the Nazi party as an adviser and ambassador, where he used his international connections to strengthen German advancement. (6)

After Hitler became chancellor, an incident happened that forever changed the course of world history. This was the burning of the Reichstag building (German Congress). As the building was still ablaze and before any investigation could begin, Hitler declared it the work of communists and set the stage for what was to become the waging of wars and the destruction of the constitution (it is now believed that Nazi provocateurs were most likely behind the blaze). The following day, President Hindenburg signed into law the suspension of the sections of the constitution that covered basic civil rights as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state”. The decree included restrictions or removals of fundamental rights of ranging from free expression of opinion to more liberally granted search warrants. Although the directive was supposedly based on fighting criminal or conspiratorial organizations, legitimate political organizations were the typical targets.

Under the guise of defending the nation, Hitler soon asked congress to give him emergency powers so he could adequately deal with the ‘Communist conspiracy’. Sadly, even members of the so-called opposition in congress were fooled, or simply submitted to the charade. Under the deceptive name of the ‘enabling act’ the constitution was trampled over and the legal framework of a dictatorship was set up. It must be noted that at the time, few realized the repercussions of the law. It wasn’t until later when, Hitler’s pronouncements became more outlandish and unpopular, did many discover suddenly that there was no check to his powers, and that the word dictator was appropriate.

Along with the increasing power of Hitler came the many bogus legal justifications to fool the public. So as to not alarm their supporters, the Nazi party clothed its hegemony in Democratic finery, gradually consolidating its power until further pretension was superfluous. Only Nazi sympathizers were appointed to important positions or ruled over important decisions. One ingredient of this judicial rearrangement was the introduction of military tribunals to deal with those deemed to be part of the ‘world conspiracy’. William Shirer explains the setting up of the ‘Peoples Court’:

… It consisted of two professional judges and five others chosen from among party officials, the S.S. and the armed forces, thus giving the latter a majority vote. There was no appeal from its decisions or sentences and usually its sessions were held in camera. Occasionally, however, for propaganda purposes when relatively light sentences were to be given, the foreign correspondents were invited to attend… (7)
Along with the attack on civil rights came the end of Habeas Corpus, due to a new legal term called Schutzhaft, or ‘protective custody”. The end to this fundamental right enabled Hitler to arrest thousands of people in giant sweeps that he justified along the same bogus lines.
After President Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934, Hitler’s title became Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. The ‘temporary’ powers that he acquired to handle the countries ‘emergency’ enabled him to consolidate his control over the entire country. One of the essential ways these emergency powers helped strengthen Hitler’s powers was by the merging of the federal policing agencies known as the Gestapo and SS; the name of the new super-agency was called the Reichssicherheitshauptamp (RSHA). This extremely secretive and highly financed organization had at its disposal differing federal and local police agencies, and was used primarily to destroy any political opposition within Germany and the occupied territories. It was the organ also used to implement the ‘final solution’ that was to be the systematic destruction of the Jewish people. As soon as a territory was occupied by the Germans, the RSHA went into action by killing or imprisoning anyone who resisted occupation or could be characterized as a leader. It is no mistake that the first inhabitants of the concentration camps were intellectuals, Communists, Anarchists, Social-Democrats, and trade-unionists. The RSHA, through various methods of terror, managed to effectively pacify much of the potentially unruly population.
Although the megalomania and ultra-racism of Hitler helped to distinguish the Nazi brand of fascism from the many other varieties, the processes at play that created the phenomena were the same as in the many other countries that suffered from the cultural abomination.


American fascism
There can be no doubt that the United States is undergoing a transformation of sorts. With this transformation has come a mixture of reaction involving deep resentment by large sections of the population. The basis of this dissatisfaction most likely comes from a changing and ailing economy, and all the evils that come with it. The economy of the US is in fact a microcosm of the international situation, where corporations are desperate to attract international investment in the ever-changing world of a finance-dominated globalization. As Bush begun his first term, the promise of the technology boom had faded, and a slump had firmly established itself. Rather than bowing to economic reality, the President strove to compensate by aggressive wars, the dismantling of social programs, and unheard of debt.

Bush’s solution to the sluggish profit-rates of his corporate sponsors has also been an agreement to the virtues of capitalist-style globalization that, like war, comes with a disgruntled populace. Virtually every section of the economy has had substantial job loss due to trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA; the manufacturing sector leading the way with 2.9 million lost jobs in the last five years (8). The processes of this profit-driven globalization have created a polarization in America unknown since the 20’s— While a record number of millionaires have been created, there are 40+ million Americans living in poverty, with over two million in prison. Instead of improving, these figures will likely worsen as heightened interest rates and free-trade agreements have their continued effects.

The reality of the situation, though already bleak, has been largely shielded from the publics view, chiefly thanks to incredible government borrowing that has enabled the President to continue his aggressive policy without the predictable upheavals that come from a more major recession, or worse. The situation will invariably worsen once the debts start getting paid; thus far, two of the major indictors of the economy, the trade deficit and national debt, are well beyond the level of concern, and are merely waiting for their existence to force itself upon an unsuspecting public.

A sinking, debt-ridden economy and an intensifying anti-war sentiment is the swampy ground on which the current administration stands. Bush has made it clear however, that he will not yield to popular opinion, and the media and leading Democrats have echoed the perspective of what is now a completely alienated class of elites. For liberals, the intolerableness of the situation has not resulted in a full comprehension of the problem; the ‘this can’t be happening’ attitude is perhaps demonstrative of many who vehemently oppose the direction of the country, but either disregard or misunderstand the previous eras that have produced similar results, leading one to conclude that the emerging crisis is without cause or explanation.

Many on the left continue to ignore the above economic explanation of events, opting instead for more simplistic answers. The current fad is to blame the state of affairs on so-called ‘neo-conservatives’. This group is often portrayed as a small band of fanatical ultra-rightists who— through conspiracy and wit— have weaseled their way into the highest echelons of power. This story, like the charisma of Hitler, or the hypnosis of Rasputin, seems all too mystical of an explanation. A more reasonable answer involves revealing what aspects of ‘neo-conservative’ policy found reception and sponsorship from the upper-strata of American business and politics—and why.

In an effort to explain this, it will be useful to examine the now infamous document many consider to be the manifesto of the neo-con movement: the ‘statement of principles’ from the Washington think tank Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The numerous contributors to this document consist of high-ranking Bush appointees, governors, high-ranking military officials, Ivy-league intellectuals and media tycoons, i.e., representatives from a powerful section of the ruling class.

The PNAC made its debut as an organization primarily concerned with critiquing the policies of President Clinton, and in the process, promoting their own political agenda; official letters were published with the purpose of explaining to the upper classes— as opposed to the general public— why the Democrats foreign policy was bad for business. These letters often focused on the Presidents non-aggressive foreign policy, particularly where ‘American interests’ were concerned (Iraq being always the most mentioned issue). Clinton was criticized because he was not forceful enough, leaving the expansion of US interests in stagnation. In fact, the PNAC perspective clearly expressed the interests of Americas leading financial institutions; corporations are forever in need of expansion, since investments and profit demand it—the PNAC, and now the Republicans in general, are simply the mouthpiece of this desire.

This is the first and most important connection between the Republican and Nazi parties— their relationship to the economy is the same: both are champions of corporate interests. The PNAC critique of Clinton is thus reminiscent of Hitler’s ‘open letter’ to Papen as mentioned above, since it was meant to sway the corporate oligarchs to abandon the ‘ineffective’ policies of a political party in order to adopt a more reactionary course. The following excerpts from the PNAC Statement of Principles are particularly revealing:
…We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
And, in the ‘open letter’ to Clinton:
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk. (8)
Although the latter paragraph successfully blurs the meaning of ‘U.S interests’ to include national security, the words ‘vital interests’ make the actual intention clear. The main point in the first quote is to ignore UN unanimity, i.e. international democracy, in order to insure the expansionist business interests of the United States. This was the same argument Hitler gave to Papen on why Germany should ignore the legality of the Versailles treaty in favor of an expansionist policy.

The reception by the elites to these ideas of the Republicans has been clear, and is best displayed by a shamelessly submissive media and a totally discredited ‘opposition party’. The abovementioned ailments of the economy have produced a largely bipartisan agreement among the ruling classes in favor of a more aggressive imperialist strategy. The Democrats, who have been unable to criticize the President in any meaningful way, since they agree with the basic tenets of his program, have been reduced to lamenting about how Bush ‘mismanaged’ or ‘bungled’ both the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq— as if either endeavor had a legitimate basis. Such a weak appraisal to such inexcusable and widely unpopular policies helps to illustrate how wide the chasm is between the interests of a population and those that decide its fate. The ‘unity’ that has been sought by politicians since the trade center attacks is simply the shared perspective of various factions of business in regards to militarism and aggression.

As mentioned above, fascism is often explained as an ideology of renewal, a resurrection of declining culture, with military expansion offered as the cure to the social ailment. The neo-con philosophers have clung tightly to this important precept that is uniquely compatible with the need of corporations for new markets, raw-materials and the crushing of competition. Much of the language used by the PNAC is eerily similar to that of Mussolini in his quote above concerning fascist rejuvenation — the PNAC saw Clinton’s reduction in military spending and not-aggressive-enough foreign policy as a sign of economic, national and cultural deterioration, allowing America’s position in the world to languish, the ‘statement of principles’ says:

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations

As the ideological basis of Conservative thought has a fascist element, so too does its methods of attracting support and maintaining allegiance. One of the basic tenets of fascism that applies to the current administration is nationalism. The trend of both the media and politicians to exploit and cultivate this emotion has been increasingly vulgar since the Trade Center attacks. Nationalism is invaluable during times of war, when public opinion is needed to support aggression and quell protest. The trade center catastrophe has been used to conjure a patriotism unknown since WWII, creating a means to push through the aggressive foreign policy long desired by the Republicans.

Although questioning the government’s role in the September 11th attack is entirely reasonable, given the suppression of any legitimate investigation, a simple mention of the similarities between the Bush administrations response to the attacks and the reaction of Hitler to the Reichstag fire is in itself daunting. Like the Reichstag fire, the immediate reaction to the Trade Center attack was an assault on civil liberties; the Enabling Act of Germany and the Patriot Act of America have both resulted in an immense increase of Federal powers, especially the executive branch. Like Hitler, Bush has been given emergency powers to deal with a formless, external threat. These powers have been repeatedly abused to ignore new laws passed by congress (the McCain Torture Act), and used also to justify the obviously illegal NSA spaying program.

The Patriot Act remains in clear violation of the 4th amendment, as it destroys much of the legal barriers that existed to protect a citizen’s right from illegal search and seizure. A wide variety of private information about any citizen can now be obtained with little, if any oversight. In addition, new breeds of judges are being produced that willingly submit to this new executive power, carrying with them a new judicial philosophy known as the ‘unitary executive’— a perspective shared by all those who seek placements in federal courts. Although the ‘unitary executive’ philosophy was first debated in the Federalist Papers 200 years ago, its current usage is the most horrific of misrepresentations. The idea was originally meant for times of emergency, when the President would need to maneuver quickly in case a ‘real’ army was invading. This idea is now being expanded upon to include instances our founding fathers never dreamed of. One example of the accommodating spirit of the unitary executive philosophy is its apologetic approach to what are known as ‘presidential signing statements’. When signing approval to a new law, Bush has used the signing statement to clarify his personal interpretation of the act. Often, Bush’s signing statement blatantly contradicts the intention of the law, the dual result being a severe weakening of the legislative branch and the increasing subservience of federal judges.

The function of Congress is becoming strangely similar to that under Hitler’s reign. The Nazi party dominated the legislative branch, using it as a smokescreen to hide what was eventually a dictatorship; the trends mentioned above cannot be ignored as being dissimilar. Congress is quickly becoming an empty vehicle used to achieve the aims of the Bush administration, responding jovially to any shameless request made by the executive branch. When important legislative decisions need to be made, commissions dominated by Republicans (or subservient Democrats) are created to support or suppress them. The fact that even a long-time member of the establishment such as Al Gore has arrived at many of the same conclusions as mentioned here, though phrased more delicately, is crucial to accepting the criticalness of the situation. Gore says:
“… the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances” (9)
Hitler’s justification for a more concentrated executive power, a war against the Jewish Communist conspiracy, was as obscure and unimaginative as Bush’s asinine ‘war on terror’. Although there are groups who wish to harm to the U.S. government, avoiding a real discussion as to ‘why’, and solving the problem by a continuous global war against various sovereign nations has created a public debate limited to ignorance and hysteria. In not reporting the demands that groups like Al-quaida have issued, and instead creating false and irrational motives, the media and politicians have lead us to horrible conclusions; by claiming that the attackers “hate our freedom”, or whatever absurd slogan is used, one can only conclude that these groups are fanatical and incapable of reason. Both political parties have been aided by the media in cleverly extending these false conclusions to having a basis in religion, giving the impression that Islam attracts and breeds hate-filled ‘extremists’.

The newly cultivated racism in America is very much comparable to the hatred of Judaism that prevailed in Germany during Hitler’s era. In newspapers and magazines across the US, the dehumanization of Middle Easterners is unmistakable. These racist symbols range from the subtle—magazines showing Muslims praying while discussing violence and terrorism, to the more obvious—consistently printing degrading cartoons in publications around the country.

Caught in the xenophobic crossfire of the politicians are immigrants, who are suddenly viewed with suspicion and hate. The boarder issue is being resuscitated as illegal aliens become the targets of intensified discrimination. In juxtaposing the fear of terrorism with the popular anger over the economy, and channeling them both into the unrelated issue of ‘boarder protection’, the media has created yet another scapegoat for the many problems faced by the government.

This low-point of culture is inevitable once the objective of nationalism is sought. In order for a country to be ‘united’, an identity must be created that excludes certain groups, enabling a cohesive community to take shape. The ‘identity’ of the United States, as given to us by our representatives, consists of such key terms as “freedom loving”, “democratic”, and the super-ironic “peaceful”; because these terms are intended to separate us from our enemy, we are to assume that all Middle Easterners are warmongering and autocratic. Anti-Arab rhetoric is becoming so accepted that high-ranking government officials regularly appear and speak at functions where the speaker-list includes the likes of Ann Coulter, and other notorious racists. This systematic defamation allows for the same, underlying message of a “clash of cultures” that Hitler used so efficiently to foment war. The clash of cultures idea is now being used by politicians in the form of silly maxims like ‘protecting our way of life’ — something that requires an aggressively waged ‘on-going war’ to achieve. Especially receptive to these ideas of nationalism have been the Christian fundamentalists, who remain the most cherished of constituents for the Republicans. The power this group has gained is further evidence of the fascist-orientated direction of the country, seeing as religion has played an important role in nearly every previous fascist government.

Perhaps the most tragic of similarities between the Nazis and the current United States government is the twin usage of barbaric tactics to achieve political goals. The systematic use of torture in US prison facilities has been shown to be equally gruesome to any crime committed by the Nazis, the only difference thus far being the number of victims. In fact, Bush is unique in that he is the first modern leader to openly argue in favor of torture, where as the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pinochet attempted to keep the embarrassing issue stowed away. Bush has made it clear through yet another ‘signing statement’ that despite the new Anti-Torture Law, torture will continue unabated. This torture has taken place exclusively inside US Concentration camps— undoubtedly an appropriate term to describe the phenomenon that is occurring throughout the world as tens of thousands of political prisoners have been held without legal recourse in various countries.

Like the Nazis, the Bush administration has worked strenuously in preventing any basic due-process for the thousands of ‘detainees’ held in different facilities. To retain the appearance of legality, the use of military tribunals are being employed that— similar to the Nazis— are the most lawfully farcical displays imaginable. One maneuver that is proving to be especially successful in continuing the judicial charade is the government’s insistence that the release of detainee’s names, as well as evidence supporting allegations against them, is impossible due to national security concerns. In an effort to manipulate the outcome of these trials the Bush Administration has issued guidelines for federal courts to accept regarding secret witnesses and evidence; because of this, many suspects are often denied the most basic of rights, including the name of their accuser, competent legal representation, and sometimes even the ‘alleged’ key evidence against them. By labeling anyone an ‘enemy combatant’, including US citizens like Jose Padilla, the Bush administration has reserved the right to detain a person indefinitely while ignoring all internationally recognized laws. The recent supreme court decision denouncing these tactics will shed further light on the direction that the executive branch is heading; if the courts decision is pandered to, but ignored, yet another step towards dictatorship will be made. As stated above, Hitler was able to imprison anyone he labeled a ‘communist conspirator’; the only difference in the present situation appears to be the label of the accused.

The domestic agency responsible for combating the ominous terrorist threat, as well as enforcing the anti-terror legislation is the newly created Department of Homeland Security. This organization marks the largest consolidation of power in United States history, with 22 previously independent agencies within five separate department’s now under one roof. The new department consists of over 170,000 employees, and now controls FEMA, the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Services, Transportation Security Agency, among many others. As a pretext for the establishment of the 40 billion dollar a year monstrosity, politicians have claimed that ‘information sharing’ between agencies was largely responsible for the Trade Center attacks, while ignoring the more plausible though potentially incriminating evidence. Now the FBI, CIA, and NSA can work together in handling domestic threats, and use technology and personal that were before reserved for complicated foreign surveillance and spying operations. Bush has called the effort “the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940’s”, something that should cause alarm bells considering that the same tired premise of a terrorist threat is being offered to justify the apparatus. This agency, with its all encompassing powers and its enforcing of repressive laws like the Patriot Act, has earned a characterization along the lines of the Nazi RSHA, or any other fascist government where incredible federal powers were needed to pacify an unruly populace. The Nazi police force had unimaginable authority in controlling German citizens; Bush’s new agency has the potential to be equally powerful, and reported abuses are already trickling in. It is becoming evident that the increase in Federal powers that was justified by a dubious war is being used to control the growing social problems mentioned above. It has been revealed that the Patriot Act has been used to monitor a variety of opposition groups; in 2005, The ACLU initiated a lawsuit claiming that the FBI was engaged in a systematic intimidation of antiwar and environmental groups. In addition, the word ‘extremist’ is now being gradually extended to include not only terrorists, but also protest organizations; just as Hitler linked communism to anti-Semitism, politicians and the media are now making connections between political dissidents and terrorism. This leap is perhaps the most revealing aspect as to the actual intentions of the ‘war on terror’. Activist and political groups like Green Peace, Independent Media, the Communist Party, and Food not Bombs are all peaceful organizations that have been declared by various FBI localities to be on the terror watch list. In addition, Protestors around the country are facing longer prison terms and steeper fines in order to deter and destroy any organized opposition. To add to the ridiculousness of the situation, environmentalists are now referred to broadly as ‘Eco-terrorists’, while drug traffickers are ‘Narco-terrorists’, making the whole concept of a ‘war on terror’ ever more trivial.

As the United States makes threats of further aggression, the likeness of political tactics used to justify the expansionist policies of the United States and Nazi Germany have become indisputable. William Shirer, in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, describes in detail the ways in which Hitler carefully invented justifications for military aggression; his explanations for attacking sovereign countries always involved protecting German citizens and interests. These tactics later became a crucial aspect of the Nuremburg Trial. The ways in which Germany’s foreign policy served as a pretext for aggressive wars was a main theme of the trial, and the high ranking German officials who helped initiate the lies that justified the aggressive wars were found guilty of war crimes. This later became the foundation for the Nuremburg principle against “preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”
Three years after the Iraq war it has been proven that all the reasons for invasion were fallacious, as well as deliberately and methodically constructed. The same pattern of accusatory platitudes is now being given to prepare the public for a new attack on Iran. This illegal pattern of aggression is now firmly established as political doctrine, and is explained in full in the 2005 National Security Strategy documents, where a policy of preemptive strikes is patently reserved by the US military in obvious disregard of the above Nuremburg Principle.
It is unknowable how long the various countries of the international community will tolerate the invasion into their spheres of influence. It must be remembered that historians now claim that the countries united against Hitler’s advancements used the method of ‘appeasement’ to deal with his intrusion. Such is the current situation in the world. There are currently no countries capable of challenging the US military in any pursuit it chooses; the international community remains on high-alert in response to America’s recent expansion and can give only cries of protest while later groveling for imperialistic breadcrumbs — a process undoubtedly to be later known as ‘appeasement’.
To those who dismiss the conclusions made in this essay out of hand, there is likely no amount of evidence that could influence them on the matter. To many, the sacred reverence of the Holocaust disables one from making common-sense historical conclusions and instead, breeds the dogmatic acceptance of fascist ‘irrationality’ as the answer to a question too holy to investigate. To their credit, an across the board comparison of Nazi Germany and America would be incorrect. Just as the similarities mentioned here are largely irrefutable, so too are the differences; separate eras in history have at their core a variety of actors and processes that cannot be easily transferred across time, especially in regards to the exaggerated fascism of the Nazis. Sometimes, however, a definite likeness is ignored merely because of a conflicting label. Without using too much imagination, a worsening of the political situation in the United States can be envisioned, perhaps to the point where a more explicit Nazi analogy becomes acceptable— as of now a legal framework for a police state is all but complete.
The ‘Nazi analogy’ used in this essay will undoubtedly be accused of sensationalism, an allegation impossible to fully refute; if this is to be admitted, so too should the comparison’s usefulness for reasons of practicality and correctness. Because of the abundance of details regarding the government of Nazi Germany, a large base has been created from which to recognize patterns that transcend historical epochs, the above information being a testament to this fact. The biggest such example of history repeating itself is the United States’ recent evolution towards dictatorship; presently, there are no signs that this course will change. While the transnational profit crisis continues, Bush’s circle has made it clear that further aggression toward a still-invisible enemy is to be expected. In addition to this, we can expect the public response of outrage to be continually ignored, as well as further stimulated by the economies inevitable adjustment to reality. In response, the now gargantuan federal power, in the name of maintaining stability and defeating terrorism, can only be more repressive. Although the usage of the word ‘dictator’ or ‘police-state’ may now be immature, such phrases will become appropriate if the corporate-directed path of government continues unchecked. The forms this repression will take may or may not assume the same repulsive traits of Nazism, though the underlying processes, as well as their causes and general outcomes most certainly will.

Notes
1) Daniel Guerin, Fascism and Big Business
2) Winston Churchill, Speaking in Rome on 20 January, 1927 (from the essay, The Menace of Fascism, by Ted Grant)
3) Trotsky Leon
4) Adolf Hitler, Mein Kamp
5) Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932
6) Leon Trotsky, Hitler’s Program, 1934,
7) Shirer William, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
8) Paul Craig Roberts, Nuking the economy, counterpunch MBG Information Services
9) PNAC, Statement of Principels
10) PNAC, Statement of Principles
11) January 16 speech delivered by Al Gore, New York University
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


How much you wanna bet...

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:37 AM

Here's the really honest-to-God distinction: the Nazis were German; the Fascisti were Italian; the Franco-istas were Spanish; and the present-day "Neocon" brand of American fascists are, out of all proportion to American demographics, zionist Jews. As is their pattern, they just don't want you measuring them by the same yardstick you would apply to anyone else and will pre-emptively fill your head with any amount of outrageous garbage to keep you from doing so.

The parallels between the Neocons and previous generations of fascists are very real*, and I would bet you my testicles that this was written for the zionist propaganda machine. That's why the poster (almost certainly one of the zionist bullhorns around here) didn't reveal the author's name or the publisher. Then you would know, you see. I know this pattern very well because they used to do the exact same shit on Indybay all the time.

*Zionism's most virulent hardcore has always been fascist. It was founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky,
one of the first wave of fascist leaders right after the Bolshevik revolution. All-out bloodthirsty anti-Communist reactionism has always been fascism's true essence; most commentators haven't figured this out.

Jabotinsky was one of Mussolini's biggest political fans, and established a fascist youth indoctrination program (Betar) in Lithuania the same year Hitler began a similar program that led to the infamous Hitler Youth (1923). Check it out. All the anti-Bolshevik reactionists / fascists seem to have been following a prescribed formula that originated from parts unknown (almost certainly Western capitalist oligarchs). Their subsequent phenomenonal political success was a product of the massive financial backing poured into them by the same party

What is commonly thought of as modern Jewish zionism (a distinctive variant) should really be called 'Jabotinskyism.' Israel's top political leadership has, throughout its history, always been dominated by Jabotinskyites, blatantly so. Ariel Sharon was a textbook example.

Zionist fascism didn't get going good and strong in the US until the '67 war, in which Russian sponsorship of the UAR triggered an explosion of virulent anti-Soviet sentiment among US Jews. Wolfowitz et al, for example, were all far-left Trotskyists prior to this conflict, wherupon they schizophrenically jumped over to being perhaps the most extreme anti-Soviet ideologues ever seen, matched only by the likes of Henry Kissinger.

The most prominent leader of the post-'67 US resurgence of Jabotinskyism was Meir Kahane, who initiated the second most outrageous campaign of US terrorism ever seen on US soil, exceeded only by the CIA's proxy anti-Castro maniacs (also definitive fascists). Kahane had 1) literally bopped on Jabotinsky's knee as a little kid and 2) worshipped him as a God among men for the rest of his life. Kahane was also, and much like the Cubans, a covert operative for the Israeli government of infamous Lehi terrorist Yitzhak Shamir.

Since Kahane, zionist extremism in the US has never subsided, only gained steadily in its position at the monarchal roundtable as the wealth (ergo clout) of Jewish oligarchs has mounted geometrically. This runs parallel to monarchal sponsorship of European fascism by the Western oligarchy circa 1920 to 1975.

Fair warning to the zionist moonbats around here: I can document every bit of this
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Society is fundamentally a legal fiction

by Debord Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 11:19 AM

“Society is fundamentally a legal fiction,” says Debord; however, according to Humphrey , it is not so much society that is fundamentally a legal fiction, but rather the paradigm, and thus the absurdity, of society. Many situationisms concerning a self-fulfilling totality exist. In a sense, Derrida suggests the use of prepatriarchialist deconstruction to analyse and deconstruct class.
A number of narratives concerning the dialectic paradigm of consensus may be revealed. Thus, Bataille promotes the use of postpatriarchialist feminism to attack hierarchy.

An abundance of materialisms concerning the bridge between culture and class exist. But Derrida’s model of prepatriarchialist deconstruction implies that the raison d’etre of the observer is deconstruction.

Baudrillard uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote not, in fact, theory, but neotheory. However, the main theme of Drucker’s essay on prepatriarchialist deconstruction is the role of the artist as observer.

Lacan suggests the use of postpatriarchialist feminism to read sexuality. But many theories concerning neocapitalist rationalism may be discovered.

“Society is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Debord; however, according to Finnis , it is not so much society that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the failure, and some would say the stasis, of society. The primary theme of the works of Tarantino is a textual paradox. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a predialectic narrative that includes language as a whole.

The characteristic theme of la Fournier’s model of presemantic situationism is the common ground between class and truth. An abundance of theories concerning a self-sufficient reality exist. Thus, the primary theme of the works of Tarantino is not discourse, as predialectic narrative suggests, but postdiscourse.

If one examines prepatriarchialist deconstruction, one is faced with a choice: either accept textual rationalism or conclude that consciousness is capable of significant form, but only if language is interchangeable with sexuality. Many dematerialisms concerning prepatriarchialist deconstruction may be found. It could be said that Derrida uses the term ‘neocapitalist rationalism’ to denote a mythopoetical whole.

McElwaine[5] holds that we have to choose between the subconceptualist paradigm of expression and capitalist theory. In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘prepatriarchialist deconstruction’ to denote the difference between society and sexual identity.

The characteristic theme of von Ludwig’s[6] essay on neocapitalist rationalism is the role of the artist as reader. Therefore, a number of narratives concerning not theory, but subtheory exist.

If postcapitalist Marxism holds, we have to choose between prepatriarchialist deconstruction and cultural narrative. It could be said that predialectic narrative suggests that government is used in the service of sexism.

The subject is contextualised into a prepatriarchialist deconstruction that includes reality as a paradox. Thus, Sontag’s critique of neocapitalist rationalism holds that sexuality may be used to entrench class divisions.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"Neocons"

by Lord Locksley Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 12:31 PM

...actually the primary and singular difference is that the Fascists in Germany, Italy, and Spain did not leave office after 2 pre-determined terms of running the government....so to refer to Neocons as fascists or nazis is simply to ignore or misunderstand history...or to simply engage in gratuitous ad hominens.....but that is usually lost on the ignorati left......how serene I am knowing that as a 'paleocon' they arent talking about me..heh
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


More tripe puked by the crypto Nazi

by Scapegoated Jew Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 12:36 PM

"What is commonly thought of as modern Jewish zionism (a distinctive variant) should really be called 'Jabotinskyism.' Israel's top political leadership has, throughout its history, always been dominated by Jabotinskyites, blatantly so. Ariel Sharon was a textbook example. "

Truth Warper is basically rehasing the same argle bargle balderdash he was puking in Indybay.
Jabotinsky founded Revisionist Zionism in the 1920's -- four decades after the Zionism's advent in the form of the BILU movement in 1881. The Revisionists were inimical to and fiercely opposed by MAPAI, Labor's precursor. Sharon was reared by Socialist parents, proceeded to entering the ranks of MAPAI and only switched to Likud in the 1970's. He was never a genuine disciple or follower of Jabotinsky. If memory serves, he entered Likud through its Liberal wing rather than Herut.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Random survey

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 1:37 PM

CT: "...[Sharon] entered Likud through its Liberal wing..."

Uh-huh, just like Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. entered neoconservatism through its "liberal wing." Another canard, zowee. You got anything REAL to offer?

Is it not apparent that Critical Thinker (a.k.a. "scapegoated Jew") is quite deranged?

"...the primary and singular difference is that the Fascists in Germany, Italy, and Spain did not leave office after 2 pre-determined terms..."

Taking an awful lot for granted, aren't we?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Argumentum ad populum

by Scapegoated Jew Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 2:36 PM

-[Sharon] entered Likud through its Liberal wing...

Truth Warper:
"Uh-huh, just like Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. entered neoconservatism through its "liberal wing." Another canard, zowee. You got anything REAL to offer? Yap yap puke? "

1. An ad hominem isn't a rebuttal.
2. The silly juxtaposition you're trying to make between Sharon and those Jewish neo-cons is, well, futile. Sharon was NEVER a Jabotinskyite. He was always a MAPAInik at heart. I've told it like it is. You're pulling stunts. Not for nothing are you dubbed a warper. Your nature is to warp whatever isn't so convenient to your stance to be more aligned with it.

Truth Warper:
"Jewish Oligarchs' clout "

You'll never be able to pull a successful malarky session on someone like me. You remain the crypto Nazi antisemite in progressive-wannabe garb.

Truth Warper:
"Kahana was an operative for Yithak Shamir's govt."

You've lied too many times for me to take this at face value. Don't forget -- if you even know! -- that Shamir was only PM 1986 through mid 1992.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Uh-huh

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 2:53 PM

So you mean he wasn't following precisely in the footsteps of Jabotinsky and his disciples when he personally butchered the residents of Qibya in 1953?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,433318,00.html

How 'bout Sabra and Shatila?

(get ready for an epic spew of apologetics, folks)
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Tink buckles on the jackboots

by gehrig Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 3:16 PM

Tink: "Jewish oligarchs"

Holy shit, you're right. He really is talking about "Jewish oligarchs" as if it were typical progressive discourse.

@%<
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yeh, and I'm right too

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 3:25 PM

Here's the breakdown for NYC, the true capital of US global empire. Read it and weep

http://www.gawker.com/topic/nyc-jewish-billionaires-011424.php

Verify it here:

http://www.forbes.com/static/bill2005/state_New+York.html
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A side of Truth, beauty and Justice

by to go with your spam Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 5:46 PM

“Truth is intrinsically meaningless,” says Lyotard. Drucker states that the works of Smith are not postmodern. However, many theories concerning a semantic reality exist.

The main theme of the works of Stone is not desituationism as such, but predesituationism. The premise of the postmodernist paradigm of reality suggests that academe is capable of truth, given that objectivism is valid. But if postcultural sublimation holds, we have to choose between neopatriarchial theory and dialectic nationalism.

Sartre uses the term ‘objectivism’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox. Therefore, Hubbard[] states that we have to choose between pretextual deconstruction and materialist Marxism.

The primary theme of Hubbard’s] model of the postmodernist paradigm of reality is the role of the observer as writer. Thus, several discourses concerning subdialectic situationism may be found.

The subject is contextualised into a postmodernist paradigm of reality that includes culture as a reality. But the genre of neopatriarchial theory intrinsic to Joyce’s Dubliners is also evident in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man.

A number of narratives concerning the meaninglessness, and subsequent failure, of modern truth exist. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a postmodernist paradigm of reality that includes narrativity as a whole.
3. Neopatriarchial theory and neocapitalist rationalism

In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of textual art. If the postmodernist paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between neocapitalist rationalism and Marxist class. Therefore, an abundance of theories concerning postsemioticist textual theory may be revealed.

The characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is the role of the artist as reader. Bataille’s critique of neocapitalist rationalism suggests that culture is elitist. But Derrida promotes the use of the postmodernist paradigm of reality to challenge sexism.

The primary theme of Buxton’s[7] analysis of neocapitalist rationalism is the defining characteristic, and eventually the meaninglessness, of subdialectic class. In a sense, la Tournier[8] states that the works of Joyce are postmodern.

Derrida suggests the use of objectivism to modify and read society. But if the modern paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between the postmodernist paradigm of reality and precultural feminism.

The example of neocapitalist rationalism prevalent in Gibson’s Virtual Light emerges again in Neuromancer, although in a more self-supporting sense. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a capitalist paradigm of narrative that includes sexuality as a reality.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The Kahane connection

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 8:31 PM

The Nation magazine published an article in its October 31 1988 issue titled "The Kahane connection: how Shamir used J.D.L. terrorism"

It begins thus:
"If it were not for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir and Tehiya Party leader Geula Cohen, Rabbi Meir Kahane might still be just another obscure Orthodox rabbi giving Hebrew lessons in Flatbush, Brooklyn. Despite their recent vehement denunciations of Kahane, the two were part of a covert cabal that helped make the militant leader of the Jewish Defense League an international figure and a force to be reckoned with in Israel. Shamir and Cohen were at the center of a group that masterminded the league's often violent campaign against Soviet targets during its heyday in the ..."

This was during Shamir's term as Mossad chief.

Unfortunately the online rights to the Nation article have been bought by Highbeam Research, so the entire article is available online only via subscription. I would have done their free trial, but they wanted my credit card info (jackasses). You're welcome to indulge

http://tinyurl.com/qzt6q

once upon a time, the Wikipedia article on Kahane also discussed his covert relationship with Shamir

"Meanwhile the JDL in the U.S. continued to branch
out into terrorist activities, including the bombing of
several buildings; the harassment, stalking and
sometimes murder of prominent members of the JDL
political and intellectual opposition; and the
coordination of JDL activities with the Israeli Mossad
(headed in the early '70's by Yitzhak Shamir)."

That last juicy bit was edited out three months ago by this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Haham_hanuka

Huh, imagine that.

Wiki's become a regular rat's nest of these types. I picture them running Stalin's Information Ministry.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Why do I need a title?

by How about Princess? Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 8:49 PM

And yet, Kahane's Kach party is the only political party that has been barred in Israel as being racist.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Girls behaving Badly

by Cm and Tia Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:03 PM

Well, we've talked about it and have decided that there is no point in attempting to engage you in meaningful dialog, so we are simply going to torment you, and we expect you to take it like a big boy.
Whacha think?

Well, I know I'm up for it. TW...you're just so easy. We can't help ourselves...

Do you remember his amazon.com post? That was a classic.

Of course, it's a personal favorite of mine in the collection. What about" icepick to the head?" Nice guy.

Or last nights vile disgusting sexual reference, that was so vile and disgusting even I didn't know what it meant, and then I looked it up and it was even more vile and disgusting than I imagined.

Well come on, what would you expect of a man who hasn't touched a woman in years? If ever? Oh right, now I remember...mister classism is so horrible sold out and married a rich woman.

But he didn't know she was rich so it doesn't count.

And now that he is able to comfortably live even as a linoleum salesman, he still goes on and on about middle class/rich people...THAT counts.

Cm, don't we have better things to do with our time than make fun of TW?

Yeah, today was fun...but it's midnight. Pride and Prejudice?

Pride and Prejudice, popsicles, or making fun of TW. Damn- that s close.

Don't forget vodka and bomb shelters.

Only for Target #1. We have special plans for the others.

Don't you worry your pretty little head, TW. You too, Nessie.

We only think about you when we're really, really bored.



Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Live! Rude Girls!

by CM and Tia Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:17 PM

We're bored, you're bored and Jane Austen isn't holding our interest. Wanna play with us?

To be fair, we haven't given Jane a shot yet. I mean, one would think that one of the most renowned writers of her time would be more interesting than a midwest linoleum salesman.

My theory about TW is that he holds a low level clerical job in a university somewhere- he takes a variety of courses through tuition remission, but dapples and doesn't explore anything in depth.

That explains why he has limited knowledge about a variety of subjects, and constantly utilizes...dare I say...talking points?

Limited knowledge of a variety of subjects, yet mastery of none. A veritable Rennaisence man.

But, TW, it's up to you to solve the mystery! Don't worry, we won't pass the information on to Amazon.com


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Props to "Haham_hanuka"

by Scapegoated Jew Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:17 PM

It should be clarified right off the bat that Shamir had long quit the Mossad by 1970. You're cherry picking regarding Wikipedia couldn't be more evident. The edited out chunk of anti-Zionist tripe was transplanted there by one of your ideological kins. For the chronological truth about Shamir's Mossad career, see http://www.zionism-israel.com/bio/Itzhak_Shamir_biography.htm. Shamir had left the Mossad by the time the JDL was founded. However, the is no concrete evidence proving any
coordination of JDL activities with the Israeli Mossad.

Secondly, there's nothing in the excerpt you lifted from the Nation to substatiate that Shamir used Kahane during his terms as PM. You're doing weakly as per your norm. He may have helped give Kahane much prominence prior to 1986 though. I'm well aware that Shamir and Cohen were involved in the campaigns to help Soviet Jewry emigrate to Israel throughout the 1970s and 1st half of the subsequent decade.

Bottom line, you've been taken in yet again like a novice with an IQ lower than room temperature. This is one of the main reasons I so enjoy debunking your horse s**t.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Live! Rude Girls!

by Cm and Tia Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:24 PM

Well, Jane Austen wasn't holding my interest, so I'm game for tormenting TW. He thrives on attention, you know. it makes his coat glossy and shiny.

To be fair, we haven't really given Jane a shot...it wouldn't surprise me if one of the most renowned writers of her time is more interesting than a midwest linoleum salesman.

Is that your theory, Megafauna? My theory was that he held a low level clerical job in a university somewhere- he was able to take a wide variety of courses through tuition remission. A wide variety, mastery of none. That's our boy. Man. troll. I forget.

Sure would explain the overuse of...dare I say...talking points. But, only you can solve the mystery! We promise, we won't tell amazon.com on you.

And I assure you, no alcohol was involved in the crafting of this post.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


SJ - our apologies.

by Cm and Tia Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:29 PM

We didn't realize this thread was still being used for serious discussion. Would you like to join us in tormenting TW? Its good for him- it builds character.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Did i mention no alcohol was involved?

by Tia Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:34 PM

Why won't you tell us where you got this mind-bending screed from, hhhmmmmmmmmmm??

What screed? Amazon? Icepicks? Victorian novelists?
Cm came over-- we had butternut squash and chard over penne pasta.

By the way, it was delicious, thanks. I think the cheese helped a lot.

It works better with pecorino romano than parmasean, but I didn't have any. Ya gotta work with what you have. Have I mentioned we aren't drinking?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yeah, Haham Hanukah's just your type isn't he, eel-boy

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:37 PM

My contempt for you deepens by the day, you know it?

If you follow the link to the Highbeam Research page, you'll see that the passage is only the preamble of an article you have to pay to see. Or you can dig the 10/31/1988 Nation article out of a library. I just might do that. That ENTIRE article would be the real test of whether there's good evidence against Shamir

Oh gee, he was only a "former" Mossad chief. Just like how Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles were "former" CIA assets during their most psycho years as terrorists

RRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT

There's no such thing as "former" or "retired" in the intel world, dummy. It's exactly like the Mob. You retire when you die. EVERYBODY who breaks ranks says this

I'm doing 'weakly?' You're the one running around with your ass on fire answering potent citations with nothing but limp, lame-ass, desperate denials
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


So Tia

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:38 PM

Why won't you tell us where you got this mind-bending screed from, hhhmmmmmmmmmm??
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


oops

by charismatic megafauna Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:38 PM

I, charismatic megafauna, deserve proper journalistic credit in the last article.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I mean the screed at the top, of course

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:40 PM

Title: "Nazis and Neo-Cons: compare and contrast"

Are you saying you posted it CM? So where did it come from?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


No fair!

by I want equal credit! Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:42 PM

How come meg gets a 2 on the muckometer!
I want equal recognition!

What screed, TW? I'm not following you
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Really, we aren't drinking

by Tia and Megafauna Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:47 PM

No, I was referring to the article published below, titled "Live, Rude Girls"

Uh, I think its above, Meg....

Obviously, I'm not referring to anything about the opening article...

To tell you the truth, I don't come here for the articles- I go straight for the comments. They are much more interesting.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hmm, looks like the Katzenjammer twins

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:47 PM

...have something stuck in their craws
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Queen will work, too

by Cm and Tia Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:52 PM

Better the Katzenjammer twins than heidi and Mitsuki, right?

I thought we were "Girls behaving badly"

I thought we were "live! Rude Girls!"

Crap, now we're sounding more schizophrenic than TW himself

Oh, no! Existential crisis! What to do? At times like this, I turn to the men in my life that bring me the most solace- Ben & Jerry.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yup, when every other cheap stunt fails...

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 9:57 PM

...just distract! Distract! You couldn't stop being calculating political animals if you got trapped by yourselves in an elevator

I'll be seeing you around
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Good night, sweet prince

by the twins Tuesday, Jul. 04, 2006 at 10:02 PM

We'll be on amazon...waiting....watching...

Meg- do you have cafe press duty this week?


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Don't you realize you had fallen prey to a.-Zionist black ops?

by Scapegoated Jew Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006 at 6:53 AM

Yo! I'm trying to tell you your underwear is still down and only residues exist now after it was consumed by fire! While you believed that Hanuka had pulled a pro-Likud netops on you, your kindred soul had tricked you in the very same sinister fashion!
You deserve every last bit of torment showered on you this night. You're irredeemably stoopid.


Truth Warper:
" There's no such thing as "former" or "retired" in the intel world, dummy. It's exactly like the Mob. You retire when you die. EVERYBODY who breaks ranks says this "

You expect me to believe Shamir had been privy to every detail of every Mossad operation relating to Soviet Jewry before he became PM? For 17 years? The burden of proof is on your stoopid ass.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Sorry about last night, SJ

by Tia Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006 at 7:33 AM

We had a very bad day... A large group of jihadis had gathered in front of the Israel consulate here. We ran interference again. (They screamed "It bacht yehudi" at us- chanted "from the river to the sea....")Not a reasonable group. Whole lotta hating going on.

We needed to decompress and reboot, and Jane Austen just wasn't doing it for us.

We'll be better today. Probably. ; - )
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And Tink....

by Tia Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006 at 7:47 AM

"...just distract! Distract! You couldn't stop being calculating political animals if you got trapped by yourselves in an elevator"

Do you really think last nights discussion was "political" in nature? Or calculating at all? Sometimes a salami is just a salami, sweetheart.
If you do believe it, you've got more problems that we thought.

Nessie should be pleased that you got the brunt of our attention last night . Megafauna wanted to go "visit" him again.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A light went on

by Scapegoated Jew Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006 at 8:03 AM

If shouting back death threats isn't your thing, how about an idea I'm culling from an Israeli more than a decade ago -- he decided to shroud himself with a talit in response to Shulamit Aloni draping herself in a Palestinian flag. Or a shofar may be used to heckle the barbarics' death threats. This is a win-win situation -- you don't end up imitating the Kahanists but also spite the Juif Antagonistes to no end.

If you even care, happy July Fourth. (I know Yid at least considers himself also 100% American.)
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Great minds think alike?

by Tia Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006 at 9:11 AM

"If shouting back death threats isn't your thing, how about an idea I'm culling from an Israeli more than a decade ago -- he decided to shroud himself with a talit in response to Shulamit Aloni draping herself in a Palestinian flag."

We broke into a prayer circle, our backs to the jihadis. We recited the 121st psalm in tifilah for Gilad, and then the S'hemi. And today, I'm getting grief from my commades about how alienating it is to bring religion into this. Just can't win....I fear that in our effort to build a broad base of support, we are losing track of our purpose. 2 Jews, 3 opinions. 50 Jews, 100 opinions.


"Or a shofar may be used to heckle the barbarics' death threats."

We've got a beautiful Yemenite style shofar we've been using- ibex, I believe. It sounds for over a city block- it resonates beautifully. And its stops people dead in their tracks. A wave of silence follows the blowing of the shofar...even the jihadis half expect the earth to open up and swallow them. It is such a visceral sound- it stirs the soul.


This is a win-win situation -- you don't end up imitating the Kahanists but also spite the Juif Antagonistes to no end.

I'm not feeling good about things today. The amount of hate out there- in America, even, is so palatable. And on Indybay, they are bragging about stealing our flags again. It wears me down, again and again. This was the 3rd event this month. And of course, its nothing compared to what you and yours are going through every day of your lives, so it feels weak and ineffectual to even complain.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


to SJ

by charismatic megafauna Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2006 at 3:11 PM

It seems that acting would only escalate the violence. I'd rather stop the cycle...but I understand that it may make us look like weak victims...it's a thin line, a hard decision...I myself will keep on playing nice, but it would be hard to condemn those who act differently.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And BTW,

by what exactly is wrong Thursday, Jul. 06, 2006 at 6:06 AM

with the original article?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


CT: "If shouting back death threats isn't your thing"

by TW Thursday, Jul. 06, 2006 at 7:39 AM

The only people I sincerely want to kill are the supreme class criminals and their knowing collaborators. You should wish to be so lucid. Killing Satans among men is a sacred duty, the quintessence of heroism, THE act essential to keeping human society whole and wholesome. There IS such a thing as people who need to die. Quite logically, they are the very ones who contrive to rule this out by surrounding themselves with armies of mercenary anti-heroes. These Satans are your mortal enemies too, even if your spirit is too enslaved to know it. Killing one's mortal enemies is NOT wrong, but rather eminently sane. This is a moral conclusion inevitable to those who know the primal Code of Men (doesn't include women with dicks).

As for you idiots, I don't want to kill you, nor do I believe I have literally threatened to do so. You're just misguided fools pulling neurotic Jedi mind-tricks on yourselves. To be pitied, really. What I HAVE done is use violent metaphors when referring to the decisiveness with which I've blasted your bullshit down to bedrock. I did so in this thread, reducing you to running around aimlessly spewing red herrings, and I did it in the other thread too. This is obvious to anyone who understands forensic debate. You got pinned down on points you couldn't rebut, so you resorted -- as always -- to your distractive moron dance.

It's easy enough to do. It's just a matter of digging down into the guts of your most cherished goo-goo-gah-gah fantasies about everything under the sun, most especially yourselves (the true deities of your goo-goo-gah-gah metaphysics). Again, you can't help this. It's inherent to being end products of 300 generations of urban culture. Of all the things that extinguish the capacity for *honor* and put in its place the abomination that is adult infant-hood, this is the most organically destructive.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


scared duties

by Tia Thursday, Jul. 06, 2006 at 8:21 AM

Killing Satans among men is a sacred duty, the quintessence of heroism,

The reason I am against the death penalty is the same reason I am against your, er, "reasoning". Who determines who these "Satans" are? Is it a jury of their peers? Is it you or I? Is it the powers that be?
What if you are wrong?

THE act essential to keeping human society whole and wholesome.

Did you fight in Vietnam? Do you know people who did? Do you think the real, honest, gentle people ever get over killing, state sanctioned or overwise?


There IS such a thing as people who need to die.

There might be. But who determines this? And who questions the motives of those making this detremination? Ddin't Pol Pot kill all folk with glasses because they were deemed to be "intellectuals"?

.Killing one's mortal enemies is NOT wrong, but rather eminently sane.

This is the logic that Israel uses in targeted assassinations. The Torah permits "pre-emptive strikes". But who makes the determination?

This is a moral conclusion inevitable to those who know the primal Code of Men (doesn't include women with dicks).

Is this an anti- transsexual comment? Or an attempt at humor?

As for you idiots, I don't want to kill you, nor do I believe I have literally threatened to do so.

I don't believe you do, either, but I believe you have threatened. I don't believe the Jihadis Monday wanted to kill me- I think it was stupid testosterone driven macho posturing. I think they were middle class kids playing tough guys for the day, and they all hopped in their SUVs and went home to dinner and mom and dad and their gameboys after the rally.

What I HAVE done is use violent metaphors when referring to the decisiveness with which I've blasted your bullshit down to bedrock.

Completely inappropriately violent and sexual metaphors and really distract from your message.

I did so in this thread, reducing you to running around aimlessly spewing red herrings, and I did it in the other thread too.

I knew precisely what you were doing, and thats why I didn't want to play with you.

This is obvious to anyone who understands forensic debate. You got pinned down on points you couldn't rebut, so you resorted -- as always -- to your distractive moron dance.

But in a debate there would be an impartial judge, yes? And the impartial judge would determine who made the better case. A participant can't just slap himself on the back and declare victory. And that is what you did.

Again, you can't help this. It's inherent to being end products of 300 generations of urban culture.

Tonight, will you tell me a bedtime story? I'd like to hear about Iroquois dreamland.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


to our prince

by charismatic megafauna Thursday, Jul. 06, 2006 at 9:45 AM

"...yourselves (the true deities..."

That's quite a thing to say for someone who believes he can decide who lives and who dies.

Oooh, and I second the request for a bedtime story!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


answers

by TW Thursday, Jul. 06, 2006 at 10:37 AM

Who determines who these "Satans" are?

The Darwinian process inherent to the Code of Men, which exists for an emphatic evolutionary reason, even if Tia the cultural mysandrist doesn't approve. Men without honor (real self-respect) are an abomination. The same standard doesn't apply to woman. That's why they've always universally been exempted from the Code.

Tia: "Do you think the real, honest, gentle people ever get over killing"

I think this is a function of whether they know in their hearts it was righteous. Sun Tzu: "An army must have the moral law." In the case of Americans who went to Vietnam or are going to Iraq, the wise animal part of them knows they're forfeiting honor. This is what drives them nuts afterward. I suspect the Vietnamese were not so plagued by this. It's the difference between KNOWING, on level of morality beyond self, that one is a hero versus a scoundrel.

You can go ahead and not sanction this. I don't give a damn. You're a chick, you don't need to.

"Didn't Pol Pot kill all folk with glasses"

I don't know, did he? How do YOU know? Maybe you just sopped up more Jabotinskyite anti-communist propaganda horseshit. How 'bout the way your guy Kissin(ass)ger was ultimately responsible for Pol Pot's reign anyway? Yeah he was. Read Blum's 'Killing Hope."

"This is the logic that Israel uses in targeted assassinations"

How interesting to see you (sorta) criticizing Israel's policies when it serves your argument!

"Is this an anti- transsexual comment? Or an attempt at humor?"

Neither. It's a solemn commentary on the "men" of this society

"But in a debate there would be an impartial judge, yes?"

So bring one of your ringer "judges" in, I don't give a shit. I can see reality in front of my face

"I'd like to hear about Iroquois dreamland."

I just shared their wisdom with you. Men are men. Women are women. They're as different psychologically as they are physically. They're meant to live in semi-segregated cultures of their own. Lifelong matrimony is a prison for both. To pretend other than this is one of the thousand degenerate follies of civilized lunacy. The Western institution of lifelong patriocentric monogamy is the root source of all the modern animosity between the genders
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


HAHAHA!! Yeah, here we go with the canned political line. UV CORSSE

by TW Thursday, Jul. 06, 2006 at 3:29 PM

"Do I sense a problem with strong women here?"

Amazing!! Do you have ANY ability to not be political? To just be forthright and transparent and not leap onto some PC holier-than-thou received line of bullshit? It really seems like you don't. What I said is that men and women are D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T, that they're not built to spend the totality of their lives joined at the hip. Why would a cultural ball-chopper like you have a problem with this logic? It falls right into "We are famileee, I got all my sistahs..." etc.

The heterosexual bond is not an intelligent basis for a whole society. It's TRANSIENT. Even east Indians acknowledge this openly in their marriage traditions, which are overtly a bond between *families.* This totally makes sense. This is what marriage in the West ends up being anyway, but we're not honest about it. We obscure it behind this mythology of 'lifelong romance.' I don't think there's been a married couple in history that's been hot to grunt and grind in the sack throughout, say, 60 years of marriage. If "romantic love" fails to evolve into steadfast friendship, the marriage ends (or gets real ugly).

Men get sexually disinterested because what they really want is to go off chasing the next luscious horny 16-year-old piece of ass. Women are WAAAY better off relying on a communal society of women for "supportiveness" and all the rest of that gooshy girly stuff. Men suck at fulfilling that contract; women are perfect for it.

A culture of men and a culture of women living alongside each other, swapping genetic material in a pretty casual way, this is the completely natural order of gender relations. That's why we did it that way throughout most of our species' history. The present tradition is a formula for misery for everybody.

Do you know what purpose this stupid institution, patriocentric monogamy, really serves? For the children raised in such a family, It's the big setup for patriarchal monotheism, which in turn is the big setup for patriarchal authoritarian regimes, the 'divine right' of kings, etc. It's slave culture!!

Do you know the word 'dimorphic?' look it up. Men and women are emotionally & cognitively dimorphic, strikingly so. Feminism has pitched the idea that this is untrue, that except for genital anatomy they're interchangeable. This is PREPOSTEROUS! Feminists have also pushed the idea that men should be more feminine, share their feelings, blah, blah. Fuck that! It's a program to destroy male identity put forth either by mysandrists or by elitist social engineers out to disintegrate and disempower society as a whole (You know Gloria Steinem was a CIA asset, right?). It's like saying women should drive 18-wheelers and scratch their balls in public more. You'd cop a fuckin attitude about THAT too!

Who are you to criticize "my problem [if any] with strong women?"
YOU GOTTA PROBLEM WITH STRONG MEN!!
You want to tear our minds down and make us into mental eunuchs
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I would explain finer points of my theory, CM,...

by TW Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 7:46 AM

...that would address many of your objections, but why bother? I think you're too hooked on attacking my credibility to stop reacting and start thinking freely. After all, you're very attached to your identity issues. That's why you cling to the illusory racialism of "your People's" separateness despite being born integrated into the most amenable goy society "your People" have ever seen. You started out here with a blank sheet. You had a fresh start. But ya just can't resist your 'only Jews matter' intrigues, so you (the neocons and YOUR *implicit* zio-crazed complicity with them. Oh yes) are fucking it up all over again. Americans may be glacial in their comprehension of such things, but they WILL figure it out, and then you're gonna reap the shitstorm all over again.

Don't play the 'blame the victim' gambit

YOU'RE NOT VICTIMS!!

American Jews have the least reason to want to flee this place that diaspora Jews have seen in at least a thousand years. For one thing, you're the most privileged per-median "downtrodden minority" in history. Oh yes you are. And yet you're probably the most rabid "we have to have a refuge" ideologues in history, too. Why is that? Are US zionist Jews paranoid fuckin wackos or what? History seems to indicate you've done this to yourselves before. Maybe the root problem here isn't really "anti-Semites"

"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world...the root cause is their use of enemies they create in order to keep solidarity"

Albert Einstein
Collier's Magazine
26 November 1938 issue

Yeah, I know you've seen this before. When I see your bark-bark squad ADDRESS it instead of jump around it, maybe I'll stop throwing it in your face
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Another choice quote

by TW Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 7:52 AM

(from http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/threat/index.cfm ):

"Far from being the saviors of the Jewish People, the Zionists are the true self-hating Jews who have had nothing but contempt and outright hatred for the Jewish People and Judaism. Anti-Semitism has been the oxygen and lifeblood of the Zionists throughout the ages to the present day.

By contrast, we anti-Zionist Jews having been doing all we can to reduce hatred of Jews by proclaiming the true nature of the Jewish religion in contrast to the heresy and idolatry of Zionism. We hope this will help Jews awaken from the brainwashing of the Zionists."

Yeah, I know, they're 'self-haters,' mhm
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A Day late, A dollar short

by More re: women and men Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 9:05 AM

"What I said is that men and women are D-I-F-F-E-R-E-N-T, that they're not built to spend the totality of their lives joined at the hip."
At one point in my life I believed when the baby-boomers began raising children, that gender differences would disappear. They haven't. Clearly much of human behavior and gender behavior is hard-wired.

"The heterosexual bond is not an intelligent basis for a whole society. It's TRANSIENT. Even east Indians acknowledge this openly in their marriage traditions, which are overtly a bond between *families.* This totally makes sense. This is what marriage in the West ends up being anyway, but we're not honest about it."
I think this is why people make a big deal about partnering within their religion, or within their socio-economic group- I think its an acknowledgment that the arrangement involves more than 2 people.

"We obscure it behind this mythology of 'lifelong romance.'"
No one beyond the age of Disney believes in lifelong romance.

"I don't think there's been a married couple in history that's been hot to grunt and grind in the sack throughout, say, 60 years of marriage. If "romantic love" fails to evolve into steadfast friendship, the marriage ends (or gets real ugly).
Men get sexually disinterested because what they really want is to go off chasing the next luscious horny 16-year-old piece of ass."

But what would motivate a luscious 16 year old to interact with someone like...you, as opposed to, lets say...a hunky 17 year old? I've seen no evidence that men improve as they age.

"Women are WAAAY better off relying on a communal society of women for "supportiveness" and all the rest of that gooshy girly stuff. Men suck at fulfilling that contract; women are perfect for it."
No. "Some women are ....some men suck at....". Its your generalizations that are offensive. Its all about choice. Its about not being restricted to pre-determined gender roles. Its about allowing sensitive men to be sensitive men. There is a high price you pay repressing by your true nature, and what I hope the women's movement has shown us is that all options are ok, as long as they are self-defined, and not societally defined. There are sensitive men- they are treasures. They are few and far between.

"A culture of men and a culture of women living alongside each other, swapping genetic material in a pretty casual way, this is the completely natural order of gender relations. That's why we did it that way throughout most of our species' history. The present tradition is a formula for misery for everybody. "
Having swapped genetic material with people I hardly knew, people I knew, and people I loved, I have to say, the latter is preferable. Vastly. It transforms sex from mere physical release to communication, sharing and bonding. I have conflicting feelings regarding monogamy. I've always like Margaret Mead's view- that women need 3 different husbands, for each stage of their adult life. The first, the one that you explore passion and hot physicality with...The second, a combination of temperament the good genetic stock to raise children with. And thirdly, a best friend- someone you truly enjoy, to spend the rest of your days with. Its very very unusual to find one person who can fulfill all these needs. That's why so many people are miserable.
Many of my women friends who experimented with alternate lifestyles in the years gone by inevitably were left with children they raised alone, with tremendous economic stresses as a result. There are economic pressures at play in our society that push women towards monogamy.

"Do you know what purpose this stupid institution, patriocentric monogamy, really serves? For the children raised in such a family, It's the big setup for patriarchal monotheism, which in turn is the big setup for patriarchal authoritarian regimes, the 'divine right' of kings, etc. It's slave culture!!
When I lived abroad, family structure was unrecognizable. Fathers were not responsible for the upkeep of their children- the mothers' brothers were. I don't think it was an improvement- it just meant different stresses to different people. There was also a tradition of swapping children- of passing them around for others to raise...There was less of a possessiveness regarding children- they certainly weren't paraded like the latest designer accessory, as they are in America.
What is missing in America is that sense of community...that sense of belonging to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. I think that is why people are drawn into communal living experiments, into cults, into organized religions and book clubs, and anti- Israel rallies....I am not sure what you propose would provide a sense of community, or further weaken it.

"Do you know the word 'dimorphic?' look it up. Men and women are emotionally & cognitively dimorphic, strikingly so. Feminism has pitched the idea that this is untrue, that except for genital anatomy they're interchangeable. This is PREPOSTEROUS! "
For me, its about choice. I don't want anyone- my parents, my husband, my government, telling me what I can or can't do. I want all options available to me, and if I want to drive a hog or an 18 wheeler, I am going to.

"Feminists have also pushed the idea that men should be more feminine, share their feelings, blah, blah. Fuck that."
Its not a bad thing. Really. Saying what you want. Saying what you need. Taking off the mask every once in a while. Its ok. It really is.

" It's a program to destroy male identity put forth either by mysandrists or by elitist social engineers out to disintegrate and disempower society as a whole"
Its not always a conspiracy. Sometimes the best way to get what you want or what you need is to ask for it. Its not a sign of weakness.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


More Einstein on

by zionism Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 10:00 AM

"In so far as a particular community is attacked as such," he said, "it is bound to defend itself as such, so that its individual members may be able to maintain their material and spiritual interests... In present circumstances the rebuilding of Palestine is the only object that has a sufficiently strong appeal to stimulate the Jews to effective corporate action."
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


from swapping genetic material to small government

by charismatic megafauna Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 10:30 AM

"...that would address many of your objections, but why bother? I think you're too hooked on attacking my credibility"
to stop reacting and start thinking freely.

No, not really. I think that what you have said applies to many, especially in societies where independence is not as easy, often due to resources available. There, it is essential that the family and community are strong. And it is quite possible that due to years of evolution, we overall lean that way. Believe me, I'm far too young and inexperienced to be closeminded about love (amorous or other) and sex. However, there is one thing that I believe strongly: individuals should have the freedom to choose their own paths. The main thing that I objected to was you saying that we should live in segregated societies. Hell no. We should be first treated as individuals, and then have the right to choose to live as we wish.

After all, you're very attached to your identity issues. That's why you cling to the illusory racialism of "your People's" separateness despite being born integrated into the most amenable goy society "your People" have ever seen. You started out here with a blank sheet. You had a fresh start. But ya just can't resist your 'only Jews matter' intrigues, so you (the neocons and YOUR *implicit* zio-crazed complicity with them.

Yeah, I identify as a Jew, and love being part of the jewish community. Is that a problem for you? I like breaking things into smaller governments...I think one part of why the US has gotten to be so corrupt is it's size. When you have a country that large, mobs can rule...but they can easily be small, minority mobs. In this country, it seems to be corporations. When the representatives don't directly see that people are unhappy (this is why mass protests can help), and the people don't directly see where their dollars are going, what's happening, etc...apathy grows and small groups are able to take control. This is why I strongly support decentralization, and why I fight for more state and local rights. It's part of why I'm a Green, we're one of the only parties doing so (things are working great for the dems and the republicans, why would they change?) It is also why I support a two state solution ...each side has a government that they are more likely to feel represented by, rather than the majority group making decisions for a large minority that will be very upset.

Wow, that should've been two separate comments.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Here we go again

by TW Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 1:27 PM

Tia: "No one beyond the age of Disney believes in lifelong romance."

I disagree. Pop culture brainwashes people way more deeply than this

Tia: "what would motivate a luscious 16 year old to interact with someone like...you, as opposed to, lets say...a hunky 17 year old?"

1) Hierarchical status, wealth, prestige, i.e. dominant social position. Women seem to find these things very sexy, and they tend to accrue with age.

2) Besides, I don't mean the men GET what they want, I just said they WANT it. They'll settle for a hot 30-year-old piece of ass too.

3) Most men didn't live to my age. They lived too dangerously for that. If a man did, he was a truly remarkable specimen, mentally AND physically, automatically of high status, which goes back to point one

Tia: "Its your generalizations that are offensive. Its all about choice. Its about not being restricted blap blap..."

Uh-huh, here we go with the opportunistic canned political posturing again. You're just not going to understand how cheap and shallow this is, are you?

Your human supremacist assumptions aside, people are ANIMALS in every sense. We have very elaborate instincts, the satisfaction of which are essential to our mental well-being. Specific social and physical environments are appropriate to those instincts, others are not. You don't see dolphins wearing suits trying to get a job on Wall Street. This model I've only superficially shared with you (the organic argument for which you're not beginning to grasp) are my convictions as to what fits. What your convictions are have no bearing on mine, and I seriously doubt your anthropological understanding is of equal depth anyway. I've spent my life (easily twice your years) immersed in evolutionary theory as it applies to humans and as it has borne out across the past dozen or two millenia.

Tia: "Its about allowing sensitive men to be sensitive men."

"Sensitive men" as you nut-loppers call them are in fact psychologically feminized "men." In the context of permanent monogamy (what committed couples generally imagine they're heading into) you want your men to be more like women, i.e. feminized. It just underscores once again what I said about gender incompatibility.

Here are some factors that have contributed to male feminization:
1) (thuh Biggy) The selection regime inherent to slave cultures, which strenuously selects for feminized men. The stone age kind of men I'm talking about have been driven extinct in most European populations. They didn't take well to enslavement, so the overseers tended to kill them. Allowed to proceed for 100 to 300 generations, this sort of thing has a drastic effect.

This eugenic program is still going strong today. It's one of the purposes prisons now serve -- by design, I believe. This is how they're being used against blacks, for example. Social Darwinism and negative eugenics never went away, they just went underground, especially after the Nazis.

2) The large quantities of estrogen-loaded dairy products men consume now, especially in childhood and adolescence. If you don't think this powerfully influences every sex characteristic there is, you simply don't know what you're talking about

3) The "modern sensitive man" brainwashing of the past 40 years, including the truly scary effectiveness of television in this respect.

And you think modern society victimizes YOU! HAHAHA! Honey, compared to your gender men have been DEMOLISHED! Civilization actually suits your innate preferences pretty well; women have always sought safe, stable, secure environments. Again, this is evolution speaking: it's the best environment for raising kids, which was once an exclusively female, communal undertaking. As long as the weather was good, the guys were off a-huntin' and a-fishin' and were dangerous to have around kids in any case. This communal motherhood instinct is a thing that remains obvious to the present day. How many men do you see working in daycare? Of the tiny number that do, how many aren't gay (ultra-feminized)?

The feminization of men is very real, and it's very much what you keep muddling, though your biological educations are insufficient to know it.

BTW CM, concerning your claim that feminists never pressured men to de-masculinize themselves: you're dead wrong. I witnessed the 1970s feminist heyday first-hand. I wasn't just a glint in the eye of an unripe ovum then.

"I've always like Margaret Mead's view- that women need 3 different husbands..."

Yeah, I agree with her. In the kind of social scheme I'm talking about, this is no big deal. Western "civilization" on the other hand forcibly discourages it. By the way, if you go back and look, you'll see I never said men and women never bonded AT ALL. I said those affinities were transient (remember my dropping that word?) i.e. of limited duration. A multiple number of years is still transient. Now you've said essentially the same thing, but you get to be right so then I'll be wrong. It's your scummy double-standards game again, and a standard mysandrist stunt to boot.

"There was also a tradition of swapping children- of passing them around for others to raise..."

Yes, communal parenthood, exactly!

"Taking off the mask every once in a while."

No, you're twisting my meaning to fit standard mysandrist dogma again. You're just not going to understand how cheap and shallow this is, are you?

Women tend to socialize with each other, cry on each other, etc. That's fine, go ahead. Men are also interested in exchanging meaning with each other, but their interests and modes are innately of a different nature. For one thing they don't have the same tendency to verbalize all the time. Actions also communicate. Out and about in their hunting/fishing/warring experience, sign language was often more useful anyway. Consistent with all this, our brains have been demonstrated to be less verbally oriented and more visual, even in childhood.

"Sometimes the best way to get what you want or what you need is to ask for it."

Sometimes the best way to get what you want or what you need is to JUST TAKE IT. You want me to sing you songs about Iroquois wisdom? I can document that this was the creed of their men and of Indian men in general. In their proper setting, mens' natural proclivities were not inappropriate, but adaptive. It's the conditions of the slave cultures called "civilizations," technology in particular, that have made them dysfunctional.

Your whole hang-up is you just don't like mens' natural proclivities

Before you jump back up on your moral soap-boxes over "just taking things," consider this: the idea of _personal_property_ is most of what causes problems here. It's also an aberration peculiar to "civilized" cultures

You think you're grasping this stuff on a plane equal to mine, but you don't. You're not even interested, really. It's not politics.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


re: More Einstein on...

by TW Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 1:29 PM

Where is this quote from? I gave citations for mine
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Okay

by TW Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 2:18 PM

"We shouldn't restrict individuals from acting as they choose"

Look, what I'm talking about is a very libertarian kind of society. I don't believe men and women were restrained from long-term bonding with each other. This was a personal prerogative, their business alone, and personal prerogative was sacrosanct ("primitive" societies are what anarchists are actually longing for). But neither were they legalistically chained together. "Divorce" was a pretty casual thing, not a disaster for either of them (this I can document also). They both had their own steadfast social fabric of peers to turn to. This is the ideal meaning of 'community.'

"If these gender roles are as hardwired into every individual as you seem to suggest, wouldn't it be a turnoff?"

Not if you're an end-product of 300 generations of assimilation to it. This changes the hard-wiring in both genders

"These sorts of things should just come naturally."

Agreed
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


assimilation and evolution

by charismatic megafauna Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 2:45 PM

"Not if you're an end-product of 300 generations of assimilation to it. This changes the hard-wiring in both genders"

My beliefs that it has a bit more individualism involved aside...what's so wrong with the hard wiring being changed? It's evolution. The same reason that men and women had the roles that you described before is the reason that they have adopted the roles present now. They are best for survival in these conditions. In cultures where conditions haven't changed the same way that European cultures have, like the one that Tia spent time in, they have evolved differently. Cultural practices reflect this evolution. This evolution comes naturally, why should we stop it?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


assimilation and evolution

by charismatic megafauna Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 2:46 PM

"Not if you're an end-product of 300 generations of assimilation to it. This changes the hard-wiring in both genders"

My beliefs that it has a bit more individualism involved aside...what's so wrong with the hard wiring being changed? It's evolution. The same reason that men and women had the roles that you described before is the reason that they have adopted the roles present now. They are best for survival in these conditions. In cultures where conditions haven't changed the same way that European cultures have, like the one that Tia spent time in, they have evolved differently. Cultural practices reflect this evolution. This evolution comes naturally, why should we stop it?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


re: evolution

by TW Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 3:53 PM

"This evolution comes naturally, why should we stop it?"

Evolution isn't inherently teleological or positive. Look around you. Do you not see that this sacred planet has cancer? Guess what the cancer's name is?

"Civilization."

Look at the people of this society. Do you think they're happy relative to the people of that older world? I'm very certain they're quite the opposite -- on the edge of madness, half of them. What is the name of the thing eroding their spirit?

"Civilization."

Those "primitive" people could have lived on the earth for a million years and still left it beautiful. Hell, they DID! I'll be surprised if we make it through another hundred without witnessing the most unbearable tragedies humans have ever faced.

If there were a rainbow at the end of all this destruction -- a redeeming destiny of any sort -- maybe a case could be made for it, but I see no reason to believe this. The very best outcome I can foresee is that we suck the planet dry of the ability to support civilization and then wind up right back where we started from, except on a devastated planet instead of a beautiful one. This is decisive for me.

I agree that the emergence of civilization is a classic example of evolution, but it's also proof that evolution can lead to the unspeakable, so don't kid yourself it's good just because it's evolution. This is really a corollary of human supremacism: "evolution led to US, The Only Beings Who Matter, so therefore it's an absolute good, right?"

Your position is also a cop-out on issues of human moral culpability. It avoids seeing that this is not just some dumb blind natural process doing this, it's US doing it. You know: the Ultimate Pinnacle of Evolution that's supposed to be so marvelously brainy and perfect. No we're not. We're as stupid as bacteria in a fucking petri dish. We're proving it! In the sense of understanding our responsibilities in this sense, of understanding truth, honor, justice, criminality, of being morally functional overall, I think our species is actually evolving in a retrograde direction.

You should look into a too-neglected evolutionary phenomenon:

neoteny

It explains SOOO much

Did you know this word? Did you arrive at these insights before I did (15 years ago)? Have you built on them since? If not, maybe you shouldn't scoff when I say you're not thinking on the same level
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


from the youngin

by charismatic megafauna Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 7:12 PM

TW, due to circumstances that I can't control, 15 years ago my idea of science was playing with circuits and static electricity. I told you, I'm young.

But, I now study conservation biology, so I'm starting to get my grounding in evolutionary biology.

I think you have a point about neoteny. Due to things like hormones in milk, puberty is happening earlier. I don't think that means that gender roles aren't universally applied because of it. That's an issue of once again, individuality, inherint not just in humans (before you give me that human supremacy crap). It sure as hell isn't helping with teen pregnancy and STD's, though.

Civilization...I see that just as I would see a colony or hive. This is why I think that cities are good, our population has gotten too high...if we have high concentrations of people in certain places, we can leave the rest alone. Urban sprawl needs to stop, we need to start building up and in. The biggest enemy, though, is overpopulation. We're past carrying capacity, and of course overshoot is building. Humans in western societies of course...waste waste waste. Also a huge problem. One of the best things that can be done is to be conscious of overpopulation and not reproduce, or at least have one...but lets face the facts, not many women are willing to do that. The maternal urge is strong.

In the end, overpopulation will take care of itself. I'm sure some sort of plague will spread, and even if that doesn't happen, global warming, at this rate, certainly will...its the way of the world. For now, let us ensure social justice and freedom for all.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Cheap, shallow

by and mysandrist, too Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 7:42 PM

" I've spent my life (easily twice your years) immersed in evolutionary theory"

You'd be dead. I'm not a child. You're mistaking illiteracy for youth.

Re: Feminized men(your words) or, the new improved model (my words) Perhaps this is the direct result of evolution- perhaps this is the ultimate male- females seek them out for breeding purposes, after all.


"And you think modern society victimizes YOU! HAHAHA! Honey, compared to your gender men have been DEMOLISHED! "

1 in 7 women are the victims of sexual abuse or assault before they reach adulthood. When men need to worry about roving gangs of women on the street, when men need to worry about rape and molestation, then maybe I'll believe you. Until then, I don't think so.


"You think you're grasping this stuff on a plane equal to mine, but you don't. You're not even interested, really."


Another Einstein quote I like- "Any scientist that can't explain what he does to an 8 year old, isn't worth his salt as a scientist". Maybe I'm not grasping it because you aren't explaining it well. Or maybe I'm just a dumb Jew.

During the period of time I lived in this speck on the map, just north of the equator, slightly east of nowhere in particular, was during a transitional time in their culture. Electricity had come. Televisons were for sale. They were talking about getting cable . And when the Americans tried to talk them out of it- we were laughed at- they said "You want to keep us in a zoo so you can visit the primatives"

Have you ever really lived in an undeveloped culture? Have you ever collected rainwater to drink? Have you ever eaten food with visible bugs in it because, well, it was all you had, and all the food had visible bugs in it anyway?

My point is, there are reasons people move out of the wilderness...it really sucks to watch your children die of dseases 1 dollars worth of antibiotics could cure. It sucks to be cold or wet or hungry.

I go through stages where I long for a return to a more simple life...but I wonder how many of us could actually do it.
In spite of our claims, we pretty much are all fat and spoiled and lazy. You too, I bet.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Bedtime stories

by Tia Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 8:31 PM

In the great green room
there was a red baloon
And a picture of the cow jumping over the moon
There were three little bears sitting in chairs
Two little kittens, and a pair of mittens.
A comb and a brush, and a bowl filled with much.
And a quiet old lady whispering "hush."

Goodnight room
Goodnight moon
Goodnight cow jumping over the moon.
And goodnight, charasmatic Megafauna.

I don't think you'll get a story from TW tonight
You'll have to settle for one from me.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


i appreciate the sentiment, tia

by you know who Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 8:39 PM

But I really really want one from TW! You know you want one, too.

TW, come out, come out, wherever you are...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


What does TW have that I don't?

by wait, wait, don't answer that! Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 9:00 PM

On the faraway island of sala-mon-san
Yertle the turtle was king of the pond
It was a nice little pond
it was clean
It was neat.
The water was warm
There was plenty to eat.
The turtles had everything turtles might need.
And they were all happy, quite happy indeed.

Then one day, Yertle, the King of them all
Decided the kindgom he ruled was too small.
I am the ruler of all that I see.
But i don't see enough, thats the trouble with me.....

No! Stop me before I do all of Dr. Suess!



Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


no offense or anything

by but TW's my fave Friday, Jul. 07, 2006 at 9:08 PM

It's not that I don't like you, it's just...well...I feel like TW must tell great bedtime stories. And he's just so fun to torment!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And there it is

by TW Saturday, Jul. 08, 2006 at 5:38 AM

"...I think that cities are good..."

"...there are reasons people move out of the wilderness..."

That's what it really really comes right down to then, isn't it? You just totally dig civilization and will always come down petitioning for it no matter how you go up. This fondness of cities is the surest sign. I always knew this was the heart of your condition. Your ancestors have lived in them for hundreds of generations and now you're wired for them, won't ever look steadfastly at their manifold foulnesses, at the way they symbolize the fast-approaching death of all things sacred, both in the living world and in yourselves.

You know what that really is, this bias of yours?

The FEAR, GREED, and EGO of infants

Civilization is a nice big warm boob and cities are its deepest cushiest bassinets. THAT is what I mean by neoteny. You'll claw and bite to avoid understanding them any other way. Specifically, you'll cherry-pick from history, a natural favorite being odd moments of the engineered despair of the present-day colonized (Tia's pose). Or you willfully ignore that cities are the true spawning grounds of the only-people-matter / fuck-the-planet determinative psychology (CM's pose), and therefore the executive force behind the world's destruction. Cities are the tumors of the cancer, the very soul of the neoplasm. This goes beyond analogy. The comparison is too perfect for mere analogy.

By the way, Tia hun', I HAVE lived off the land. I'm expert at it. I've eaten, among many many other things, lichen picked from exposed bedrock. Lot's of it. It's actually pretty tasty. Civilization could totally collapse tomorrow and I could go on living anywhere. You'd be dead of despair and uncontained mass criminality inside a week, along with all your soulmates. I wouldn't even need a gun. I'd hide like Ishi for a few years and they'd NEVER find me. I know how to be truly alone. Knowing the company of the world of life, I don't have to have the company of humans. This is another lost art. By the time I came out of hiding, the criminals of your deity would have exterminated each other, dead from their own self-consuming malignancy.

The natural world is more of a cornucopia than you understand, and the purity and healthfulness of its nourishments (including the spiritual ones) is of an order that exposes "organic produce" as the preposterous civilizationist LIE that it is.

You congenital urbanites worship such lies. They're your entire metaphysic. You're that divorced from bedrock realities, and it's city life that has made this possible. This is definitive insanity, and only in cities can it become so rampant. They are the booby hatches of the criminally berserk and terminally corrupt, of whom Westerners are the absolute worst ever. The tumors of the cancer of your full faith have always been this.

CM: The difference between the "savage" life (or any other) being fulsome or desperate is TOTALLY a function of where populations are relative to the carrying capacity of a given place in the context of their survival strategy. The REAL issue here is whether humans have the discipline to keep their society within the limits of that strategy, and "primitives" understood this better than you do. Your willful refusal (yes it is) to understand it is a symptom of your human supremacist theology, and you'll never penetrate what I mean by 'human supremacism.' Why? Because you don't want to, just as with your other bigotry. This explains your mind entirely. It's another display of neoteny: the impenetrable delusion of the infant that "reality" is whatever it chooses to believe. Even academics (certified "geniuses") have succumbed to this

Truth can be an unbearable thing. And yet it's still Truth -- it's still bigger than you -- so it MUST be faced with steadfast eyes. This takes epic courage, an acquired liberation from fear. This liberation in turn is a triumph of cognition over emotionalism and instinct never glimpsed by mental infants. It's a pinnacle of maturation, a zenith of cognition TRULY unique to us, our most sacred attribute. It has faded away.* Mental neoteny strikes again.

*want examples?

No infant wants to know what I know. I know it because I know I must. This transcendance began when I was still a kid. I'm a throwback, you see, to a still-wild and -courageous strain.

You don't even care about all that -- this is absolutely clear now. You just want to be entertained with dreamy words, understood in the shallowest terms. The babyishness of the "civilized" speaks once again.

I am not the first to see these things. Diogenes of Sinope beat me to it 2300 years ago. He too was a product of a still-wild strain. Cynics* have turned out to be the most lucid prophets (*don't imagine you know what I mean with this word. I refer to its original meaning, the ideal of truth it represented before civilizationist liars slandered it to exclude it from acceptable discourse)

Civilization has not liberated you from the THERMODYNAMIC REALITY that is the necessity of population control. You're defying entropy with a criminality that CAN NOT continue. Your present survival strategy has only tricked you into imagining you can cheat physics, tricked you by laying in your lap a few hundred years of surreal bounty. The necessity of restraining your numbers, however, lies beyond your willful perceptions. It has never ended. Your train is flying off a cliff at a thousand miles an hour. Your fellow riders all have their eyes filled with baby fantasies, as do you, so none of you see what's outside the windows. None of you notice your sudden weightlessness.

This says it clearly:

"This is why I think that cities are good... if we have high concentrations of people in certain places..."

You're dreaming CM, okay? You're acknowledging in passing the importance of halting population growth, but you're not really facing the mindless bacteria psychology behind it. It will not be stopped. The petri dish analogy is also perfect. Two hundred years from now, 500 on the outside, your kook-ball vision of a sustainable world will be lying in smashed ruins, and good riddance. Cancer always goes this way. It's already past the point of no return, chewing through hundreds of millions of years of geologic deposition in order to remain alive totally on borrowed time, paying its debts with rubber checks. But again, and just like a petulant kid, you won't see it

You don't want to.

Your main regard for Truth is contempt. This is a feature of the "civilized" mind
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


This city desert makes you feel so cold

by so many people but its got no soul Saturday, Jul. 08, 2006 at 6:36 AM

Once again, you really don't know either of us. Megafauna herds goats for crying out loud (well, she does *something* involving goats....) Classic urban pursuit...yeah, right. I've been dragging children through the wilderness for years now, teaching them to light fires with one match, showing them the edible plants of the region. I can make a better meal in a dutch oven over glowing embers than most of my friends can make in their $50,000 dollar kitchens....yeah, its a few days at a time, its not lifestyle....but at least I've been instilling values in these kids that I know they aren't getting elsewhere. Yosemite became a national park when John Muir dragged Teddy Roosevelt out there for a week of camping.....exposure is the first step to appreciation, and value.

But the wilderness can't sustain us all. Megafauna and I were talking a few days ago about the movement to drain Hetch Hetchy. (It 's the valley north of Yosemite that was damed to provide San Francisco with its drinking water). No one goes to Hetch Hetchy because there are no "services" available. Yosemite Valley on the other hand is being loved to death. John Muir would be more comfortable in Hetch Hetchy than the valley.....no cars, no people, no frozen lemonade stands. Once the wilderness is full of people, its not wild any more. When I started backpacking, you could still drink from mountain streams. Not any more.

You are trying to pigeonhole both of us. Megafauna lives in an agricultural region. I'm urban, but its taken a toll on my soul for many years now. I think about escape often.

"By the way, Tia hun', I HAVE lived off the land. I'm expert at it. I've eaten, among many many other things, lichen picked from exposed bedrock. Lot's of it. It's actually pretty tasty. "

Locally we have Cat tail. Miner's lettuce. Thimbleberry. I'm not a young urban professional, as much as you want to believe that I am.

" I know how to be truly alone. Knowing the company of the world of life, I don't have to have the company of humans. "

You've alienated all your friends and acquaintences, haven't you?
You are so quick to jump to conclusions, aren't you?


"No infant wants to know what I know."

Maybe you'd be taken more seriously if you took your audience more seriously. We've expressed an interest in what you have to say- and you turn it into an opportunity for personal attack. And you don't know either of us!

"You don't even care about all that -- this is absolutely clear now. You just want to be entertained with dreamy words, understood in the shallowest terms. "

We are trying to understand. And you are trying to alienate us further.

Robert Service:
I want to go back to my lean, ashen plains;
My rivers that flash into foam;
My ultimate valleys where solitude reigns;
My trail from Fort Churchill to Nome.
My forests packed full of mysterious gloom,
My ice-fields agrind and aglare:
The city is deadfalled with danger and doom --
I know that I'm safer up there
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


I know this pattern

by TW Saturday, Jul. 08, 2006 at 1:12 PM

Okay, you probably understand my perspective better than I'm allowing. I'm sorry I've been rude. I think you're struggling, however, with a dilemma that for me is completely resolved: your attachment to civilization versus your appreciation of realities that dwarf it.

This is how this is revealed to me:

"But the wilderness can't sustain us all."

"This is why I feel that cities should be built in and up..."

I can see your points and I appreciate the sincere thought behind them, but what you're really doing is banking on the hope that this citified industrialized civilization thingy can somehow be rescued from itself, and I'm telling you it is DOOMED. In terms of consequences that are already inevitable, it's already a flaming wreck, it's just that these haven't hit the fan yet.

This planet absolutely cannot support even the present numbers of people in a truly sustainable way. The liquid magic called petroleum is what's made this possible to date, and it's already pushed our collective survival strategy WAAAY out on a limb that IS GOING to snap off. I don't just mean energy. I also mean fertilizer and the fantastic crop yields made possible by it upon which we're already crucially dependent. At present levels of production, there is no viable substitute for fossil fuels (natural gas, specifically) in sight.

Petroleum depletion is JUST ONE of the vectors of doom headed toward us. An even more deadly one is the irrevocable depletion of mineral nutrients from soils. When I say we're mining the earth bare of millions of years of accumulated wealth, this is the main thing I mean. The only way we could decisively fix this is by taking all our piss and shit and redepositing them in the places our food comes from. Otherwise that mineral load takes a one-way trip from soils into the ocean. That's forever, or might as well be.

Recycling our waste in such a manner is also non-viable at present. Metals, including heavy metals, naturally bioaccumulate in organic matter, and if we did this we would poison ourselves. It MIGHT be possible to fix this by overhauling every municipal water and sewer system everywhere using metal-free materials, but we better hurry up. There's no time to waste. Are we tackling this? Is anyone even thinking of it?

At this point I picture you saying "well then YOU should advocate it." Why would I do that? I think this whole civilization thing was an unqualified tragic-ass mistake to begin with. The sooner it goes up in flames, the milder the final consequences will be for everything, INCLUDING US. If you really follow this logic, you'll see that it actually leads to the most humane final consequences for everything on a large time-scale. Your wishful plan for somehow fixing civilization so that the hammer never falls just can't work. It's already too late. This conclusion grows more logically inevitable each day.

Optimists and techno-utopians keep banking that we'll come up with magic fixes for these doomsday problems and many others. To this end and out of scientific ignorance they unwittingly float lots of canards. Permaculture, for example. There is no way in sight at present that permaculture could produce the same yields we're already dependent on, and even if it could we'd still have the nutrient-cycle problem. It would slow down, but still it would be ultimately catastrophic. The same technical canard critique can be leveled at photovaltaics, hydrogen fuel, ethanol, bio-diesel, water conservation, on and on

If we had hundreds of years to implement solutions, maybe there'd be a rainbow somewhere, but it seems pretty certain we don't. Population is doubling too rapidly.

The scientific community is not being forthright about all this, maybe because this knowledge by itself might cause a destructive stampede.

By the time this shit DOES hit the fan, human numbers will have climbed even higher, making the inevitable collapse that much more cataclysmic. Similarly, every half-measure that postpones it will also make the denouement worse, since we'll max THAT out too. This is a very serious flaw in pop-"sustainability" group-think. Most of those ideas actually just increase carrying capacity while skirting the population issue entirely. This is in fact the worst scenario for ultimate collapse.

I don't think ANYBODY, including the Peak Oil crowd (well, except maybe these guys: http://dieoff.org ), is comprehending how mind-boggling the impending implosion is going to be, and I have serious doubts about technological civilization making it through. For one thing I think it's very likely somebody will lose it and start popping off nukes, in which case forget it.

Even without nuclear fallout, the environmental fallout will be wildly destructive. Every forest on earth will disappear. National parks? Ha! Those are created by LAWS. This apocalypse will torch the laws just like everything else. You think we have global warming NOW...

In short, there is absolutely no substitute for biting the population-reduction bullet, and I can't see this happening either. It would result in an apocalypse of global mass rebellion all by itself.

Back to my original point: what you're really doing is banking on the hope that this citified industrialized civilization thingy can somehow be rescued from itself, and as I hope I've demonstrated, this is AT BEST far from certain. Dubious is more like it. You insist you understand this stuff as clearly as I do, and yet I see you being torn between my logic and a kind of religious faith in the immortality of civilization. I can't see why else you would say these things:

"But the wilderness can't sustain us all [so we have to pursue civilized/industrial survival strategies]."

"This is why I feel that cities should be built in and up..."

Why? What's the point? It's all doomed! Quit believing in it. If we (as a species) could only stop deluding ourselves with these various kinds of weak wishful thinking and grapple with the apparent realities of it all, maybe we could actually turn it all around (i.e. IMMEDIATELY reverse population growth. It's the ONLY thing that can really work). I see no reason to have faith that humans in aggregate are sapient enough to do any such thing.

It may be that the only viable thing to do is for people at the grassroots level to just monkey-wrench the whole machine left and right and force it into retreat, in this way forcing a soft collapse and someday arriving at a Deep Ecology model for civilization. It would seem psychotic to people and is improbable in any case, but this would lead to the best end-result in sight. I'm not the only one thinking along these lines:

http://www.derrickjensen.org/published.html

This is what I mean when I talk about facing grisly truths, and I honestly don't think you're as committed to doing so as myself. This is of paramount importance, intellectually

Oh, and Yidiot: if you can't utter a single intelligent syllable (as usual, Mr. hack-and-paste), just please shut the fuck up
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


This goes straight to the heart of it

by TW Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 5:26 AM

Derrick Jensen sheds critical light on the destructive resignment to futility hidden in the emotion called "hope":

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/06-3om/Jensen.html
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


impending doom (how uplifting)

by charismatic megafauna Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 5:33 AM

I agree with you on quite a bit.

I guess I've just completely and utterly lost faith in humanity. There's a reason that I'm studying wildlife conservation biology, not anything human...I just want to make sure that we don't fuck up the planet too much on our way out.

You say that a quick death is most humane...wouldn't that happen in the cities, where plagues can easily rapidly spread?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Impeding doom before coffee

by Tia Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 5:43 AM

“I know this pattern”
Yep. We are like oil and water. Well, I was attempting to draft a response, but since you are both around, maybe I’ll jump right in

“I can see your points and I appreciate the sincere thought behind them, but what you're really doing is banking on the hope that this citified industrialized civilization thingy can somehow be rescued from itself, and I'm telling you it is DOOMED.”

It does seem bleak. And I do hold on to “hope”- hope that there is a way out, hope that civilization itself will find as solution, or that the process is happening slowly enough to allow nature to adapt, as it always has.

Then I read this on one of the websites you referenced:
Despite the madness of war, we lived for a world that would be different. For a better world to come when all this is over. And perhaps even our being here is a step towards that world. Do you really think that, without the hope that such a world is possible, that the rights of man will be restored again, we could stand the concentration camp even for one day? It is that very hope that makes people go without a murmur to the gas chambers, keeps them from risking a revolt, paralyses them into numb inactivity. It is hope that breaks down family ties, makes mothers renounce their children, or wives sell their bodies for bread, or husbands kill. It is hope that compels man to hold on to one more day of life, because that day may be the day of liberation. Ah, and not even the hope for a different, better world, but simply for life, a life of peace and rest. Never before in the history of mankind has hope been stronger than man, but never also has it done so much harm as it has in this war, in this concentration camp. We were never taught how to give up hope, and this is why today we perish in gas chambers.

Hope as dysfunctional adaptation. That flies in the face of everything I’ve always believed.

“This is what I mean when I talk about facing grisly truths, and I honestly don't think you're as committed to doing so as myself. This is of paramount importance, intellectually”

I am reminded of the AA serenity prayer. Its so overused its nearly a cliche now, but still it has value;

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

If this is the end of the world as we know it, and there is nothing we can do as individuals, or collectively to drag our heels to slow the cataclysmic process down.......what is there left to do? Just enjoy our remaining time?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


slightly more positive, still before coffee

by charismatic megafauna Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 5:59 AM

"If this is the end of the world as we know it, and there is nothing we can do as individuals, or collectively to drag our heels to slow the cataclysmic process down.......what is there left to do? Just enjoy our remaining time?"

Sure you can slow it down...even simple things...cut back on driving, recycle, pick up your own trash...blah blah blah. More importantly, do what you've been doing for years: bringing people into the wilderness, especially kids, so that they develop an appreciation for the environment. Truth be told, some of the places we love the most aren't all that important, compared to other regions, in the grand scheme of things...but its similar to the concept of...oooh I get to say it...charismatic megafauna. One species that is appealing to people and it's protection can protect others under its umbrella. Going to Yosemite sparks protection of, just to start with, our forrests...and our mountains...and many who care turn to environmentalism.

And...I'm not so sure that the entire species will be wiped out. Teach your kids survivalism to pass on till the generation that needs it.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"what is there left to do? Just enjoy our remaining time?"

by TW Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 6:38 AM

I think Jensen consciously wrote his essay 'Beyond Hope' to address exactly this feeling you're having. If you didn't read it already I urge you to do so.

http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/06-3om/Jensen.html
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


all the post coffee hope i've got

by charismatic megafauna Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 9:41 AM

"shy librarian type"

Haha, yeah right. They don't even know what we said about a certain vegetable shortening product...

I have hope for a lot of things, but this species has just gotten too large. My studies of population and evolutionary biology have led me to a link between our species and certain parasites that followed a similar curve...and of course after a peak, sharply declined to extinction. Maybe we've got hope for surviving as a species (not likely, but it's hope), but certainly not without some extremely large drop. There's just no way to sustain a species above carrying capacity for too long.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


We've now gone full cycle

by TW Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Your insistence on hope only drives home what I said to begin with, CM. If you want to do that, fine, no problem, but it has a larger significance:

What Jensen's really talking about is a differential impulse of men, whose instinctive culture and program was once to grapple fearlessly with all comers and thus to defend the tribe tooth and claw. To paraphrase Lucas' mythic warrior Yoda: "DO. or DO not. There is no 'hope.' "

The instinctive culture and program of women OTOH was to be terrified by violent conflict, to prevent it if possible, when this failed to flee with the children into the deepest refuge available, and once in place there to HOPE patiently that the men would succeed in repelling the threat.

All this makes absolutely perfect evolutionary sense, and it's still the scheme our minds are wired for. Actual authentic Men (as opposed to "men") will not relate to the female reaction, and vice versa. In saner bygone cultures, everyone understood and accepted this stuff without discord. In a culture that delusionally denies gender-based differential impulses (that even denies in toto the idea that our behavior is instinctive) and instead belittles and suppresses same, this stuff translates into nasty dissonances and social disintegration. And yet we're still wired for them. We can't get rid of this.

This is a catch-22 for humans as a whole. It also pits the genders against each other, diminishing their ability to face common enemies. Divide and conquer...

The real problem here isn't the mental dimorphism inherent to our species, but the loss of a culture fitted to it, and for what? To distort ourselves instead to fit the specifications of a tiny, morbidly greedy minority of pathological criminals (civilization's only real beneficiaries)

Also, CM, I remembered that what's going on with us humans now doesn't strictly fall under evolution, which after all is driven by SURVIVAL PRESSURE. That's been all but eliminated. What's really going on with us is our genetics have been freed to break up into all sorts of incoherent variations, but also into neoteny, which is ALWAYS a consequence of slackening survival pressure, as seen in the Dodos (in the abscence of predators they had no environmental imperative to emerge from the altricial stage and so lost the ability).
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


hope

by charismatic megafauna Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 12:20 PM

I see no point in losing hope. We've got nothing to lose.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Losing hope, Losing faith

by Thinking about margueritas Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 2:08 PM

So you are offended by agressive female behavior, finding it unnatural? That explains your hostility, which has always been particuarly vehemently expressed against women posters.

Many men are, preferring to marry into cultures where women are traditionally submissive and weak. I suspect you took that route, as well.

Yet there have always been tales of warrior women, women who defied traditions. Many cultures have stories of these women- Boudiccia , Joan of Arc , the Amazons, Deborah, Fa Mulan.....

The legends of women warriors and the reality of woman warriors have merged in modern times. I recently heard Dr. Ruth speak- she is 4 foot 7- she comes up to my navel. She said she was once a sniper in the Haganah. In the Warsaw ghettos, the women fought along with the men. In times of grave danger, the traditional roles fell away. It's not that difficult to short circuit the wiring.

I refuse to be prey. I refuse to run and hide. It does not feel natural to me.









Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Reverting to the mysandrist harridan thing, eh?

by TW Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 2:33 PM

Wow, we really HAVE gone full circle

I would lay down big money, Tia, that men have accounted for >99.9% percent of the actual combatants in every war that's ever been fought

"...the Amazons..."

Jeezuss, you're summoning an example from MYTHOLOGY?!? The rest of these are I believe not female warrior cultures but isolated individuals. This doesn't amount to much of a case, ya know.

You're not even going to mention the female Palestinian "terrorists" or the Viet Cong's female troops (yeah, commies, I know)?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Example of a female warrior society

by Scapegoated Jew Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Several years ago I watched a documentary about an African tribe where the females were reared during the 19th century as warriors. They received intensive combat as well as physical fitness training. They were the terror of men who tried to molest or rape any one of them. I've got no reason to doubt what I learned.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


full circle?

by Back to trading insults? Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 3:01 PM

Reverting to the mysandrist harridan thing, eh?

Nope. You really can't go a full day without insulting me.

I would lay down big money, Tia, that men have accounted for >99.9% percent of the actual combatants in every war that's ever been fought

I don't disagree.

You're not even going to mention the female Palestinian "terrorists"

Blowing yourself up in lieu of being subject to an "honor killing" is not the way of the warrior.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


individual rights

by charismatic megafauna Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 3:25 PM

It is not misandryst for a woman to demand the right to act she, as an individual, chooses. It is misogynist to not allow a woman to practice this right, discriminating on the basis of gender.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


You're too young for this one, CM

by Peggy Seegar Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 4:21 PM

When I was a little girl I wished I was a boy
I tagged along behind the gang and wore my corduroys.
Everybody said I only did it to annoy
But I was gonna be an engineer

Mamma said, "Why can't you be a lady?
Your duty is to make me the mother of a pearl
Wait until you're older, dear
And maybe you'll be glad that you're a girl.


Dainty as a Dresden statue, gentle as a Jersey cow,

Smooth as silk, gives cream and milk

Learn to coo, learn to moo

That's what you do to be a lady, now.

When I went to school I learned to write and how to read
History, geography and home economy
And typing is a skill that every girl is sure to need
To while away the extra time until the time to breed
And then they had the nerve to ask, what would I like to be?
I says, "I'm gonna be an engineer!"

"No, you only need to learn to be a lady
The duty isn't yours, for to try to run the world
An engineer could never have a baby
Remember, dear, that you're a girl"


She's smart --- for a woman.

I wonder how she got that way?

You get no choice, you get no voice

Just stay mum, pretend you're dumb.

That's how you come to be a lady, today.

Well, I started as a typist but I studied on the sly
Working out the day and night so I could qualify
And every time the boss came in, he pinched me on the thigh
Said, "I've never had an engineer!"
"You owe it to the job to be a lady
The duty of the staff is to give the boss a whirl
The wages that you get are crummy, maybe
But it's all you get, 'cause you're a girl"

Then Jimmy came along and we set up a conjugation
We were busy every night with loving recreation
I spent my days at work so he could get an education
And now he's an engineer!

He said: "I know you'll always be a lady
The duty of my darling is to love me all her life
Could an engineer look after or obey me?
Remember, dear, that you're my wife!"

As soon a Jimmy got a job, I studied hard again
Then busy at me turret-lathe a year or two, and then
The morning that the twins were born, Jimmy says to them
"Your mother was an engineer!"
"You owe it to the kids to be a lady
Dainty as a dish-rag, faithful as a chow
Stay at home, you got to mind the baby
Remember you're a mother now!"

Every time I turn around there's something else to do
Cook a meal or mend a sock or sweep a floor or two
Listening to Jimmy Young - it makes me want to spew
I was gonna be an engineer.

I only wish that I could be a lady
I'd do the lovely things that a lady's s'posed to do
I wouldn't even mind if only they would pay me
Then I could be a person too.


What price for a woman?

You can buy her for a ring of gold,

To love and obey, without any pay,

You get a cook and a nurse for better or worse

You don't need a purse when a lady is sold.

Oh, but now the times are harder and me Jimmy's got the sack;
I went down to Vicker's, they were glad o have me back.
But I'm a third-class citizen, my wages tell me that
But I'm a first-class engineer!

The boss he says "We pay you as a lady,
You only got the job because I can't afford a man,
With you I keep the profits high as may be,
You're just a cheaper pair of hands."


You got one fault, you're a woman;

You're not worth the equal pay.

A bitch or a tart, you're nothing but heart,

Shallow and vain, you've got no brain,



Well, I listened to my mother and I joined a typing pool
Listened to my lover and I put him through his school
If I listen to the boss, I'm just a bloody fool
And an underpaid engineer
I been a sucker ever since I was a baby
As a daughter, as a mother, as a lover, as a dear
But I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady
I'll fight them as an engineer!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


wtf

by charismatic megafauna Sunday, Jul. 09, 2006 at 9:43 PM

TW, you're taking this way too far. Tia doesn't hate men. All she was doing was claiming her right to be just as aggressive in debate as you, and you snapped. Individuals have the right to do whatever the fuck they choose, without having to be restricted by gender. Regardless of whether or not their are general trends, the fact of the matter is, you should allow women the right to act however they damned well please. And you shouldn't freak out with someone debating just because they are female. Treat people, at the very least in these conditions, on the merits of what they're saying, not their gender.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


*I* freaked out?

by TW Monday, Jul. 10, 2006 at 12:10 AM

Please explain CM how this

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/166993_comment.php#167575

is a calm reasonable "impartial" reaction to the comment it's replying to (two comments back)

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/166993_comment.php#167563

My asking you to explain this has no tactical motive. I am truly stumped as to how the first represents a calm reasonable "impartial" reaction to the second

"you should allow women the right to act however they damned well please"

I think this is YOU overreacting to what I've said here. If you're talking about my recent treatment of Tia, I'm pretty sure I'm not the one who initiated personal attacks this time. You decide, but please do me the justice of explaining your verdict.

If you mean my social theory, I think the women of these old societies were far more free of oppression than EITHER women or men today. I think they DID do pretty much whatever they damn well pleased, within practical limits less restrictive than those we now "enjoy." This society in no way denied women equal status by default, but it also didn't compel them to seek *identical* status. Different is just ... different.

People in present society have this compulsive competitive tendency to evaluate everybody's relative status all the time. This habit doesn't just percieve rank as reality, it actually CREATES that reality. It fuels the urge to jostle for position. I'm pretty certain this is an ailment of civilizations, which are all about desperate competion (vs cooperation).

It doesn't have to be this way. Different is just ... different. It doesn't have to mean 'superior' or 'inferior.'

Also I think the men pretty much left the women alone most of the time, and vice versa. Because their roles didn't overlap so much and they didn't have to spend so much time in the same cage together, there was less pressure to agree on so many things, which is good, because men and women aren't very inclined to do so. On balance, I think there's more disagreement between the genders than within them. I don't think it's sexist to say this, I think it's observant.

I'm trying to share with you a social scheme that would liberate EVERYONE. It could be adapted to modern society

Looking back over this thread, I realize that this passage...

"A culture of men and a culture of women living
alongside each other, swapping genetic material in a
pretty casual way, this is the completely natural order
of gender relations."

didn't read exactly as I intended. "swapping genetic material in a pretty casual way" should be "swapping genetic material according to a minimum of rules." That's what I really meant. Swear to God.

Most of what I've gone on about has been an attempt to share my conviction that most of the social ills we see and the alienation we feel are not stand-alone problems, but rather a huge array of SYMPTOMS of the true ailment, which is the absence of a total environment that really truly fits the animals we still are. The structure of present society is a horrid fit, we're in agony from being distorted into it.

Because we're social and not solitary, there is a need for a shared environment and social organization, a common enclosure, which in itself imposes a sort of dictatorship, but I don't see a way to avoid some such envelope if we're to live in societies. The best we can do is create an envelope that is the best fit for the largest percentage of people. Some schemes are clearly more oppressive than others, and I believe the scheme I've described is the most liberated (the best fit) humans have ever seen. That it's also the scheme our species has lived in for 99% of its history is not a coincidence. We're evolved to it

It's not men being Stanley Kowalskis that truly gets under your skin, It's that the one man you're stuck with, if that's your thing, is a Stanley Kowalski with whom you have to struggle to get along with every frikkin day. What I'm describing would liberate everybody from that trap, which sucks just as much for Stanley Kowalski
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Agesit, misandrist, psycho, cheap and shallow

by I should just go back to bed. Monday, Jul. 10, 2006 at 3:03 AM


If you mean my social theory, I think the women of these old societies were far more free of oppression than EITHER women or men today

Free of "opression"- also free of choice. And I'm not so sure they were "free from opression"- I suspect a lot of compromises were made because of the female dependence on the men to ensure an adequate food supply.

. I think they DID do pretty much whatever they damn well pleased, within practical limits less restrictive than those we now "enjoy."

I'd guess the physical aspects of gender difference (menstruation, pregnancy) created a unescapeable dependence- women could not ensure access to their own food supply, and were the mercy of the men.

People in present society have this compulsive competitive tendency to evaluate everybody's relative status all the time.

And it was different when?:

Your list: "Hierarchical status, wealth, prestige, i.e. dominant social position. Women seem to find these things very sexy, and they tend to accrue with age." Even in "primative" society, there was a social heirarchy. Often it was inherited, not based on inherent ability.

I'm pretty certain this is an ailment of civilizations, which are all about desperate competion (vs cooperation).

The modern, single sex environments work on a limited scale because many of the outside pressures have been removed. Women only colleges- a self imposed single sex environment. They are effective because they eliminate a lot of the distractions of a mixed environment in a segment of society that is particuarly hormone driven. Nursing homes and retirement villages- also overwhelming female, because of the realities of the demographics of aging. In these environments, there is no need to jostle each other to ensure an adequate food supply, or to eliminate competiton for the best breeding male.

It's not men being Stanley Kowalskis that truly gets under your skin, It's that the one man you're stuck with, if that's your thing, is a Stanley Kowalski with whom you have to struggle to get along with every frikkin day. What I'm describing would liberate everybody from that trap, which sucks just as much for Stanley Kowalski

No one disagrees with this.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


re: ageist, mysandrist, etc.

by TW Monday, Jul. 10, 2006 at 2:12 PM

"women could not ensure access to their own food supply, and were the mercy of the men."

Look, Tia, you really do have a problem. You just insist on seeing victimization of women by men everywhere you look.

Have you ever heard of 'hunting & gathering'? Who do you think did most of that 'gathering' part? You think all anybody ever ate was mammoth steak? I believe it's pretty universally understood that women procured most of their own food, including doing virtually all of the crop cultivation. Yeah, women DID do most of the work while the men were "irresponsible bums" running around playing with their fishing buddies. You wanna rail on something, rail on that, I won't argue. But during times of crisis (common enough occurrences) they made themselves absolutely indispensable.

Men's crucial nutritional contribution was animal protein, and I don't think there's any evidence this was used as a lever to malnourish the women into submission. For one thing it wouldn't have worked: many gathered staples, e.g. acorns, were pretty good protein sources. Ever heard of 'vegetarianism?' The men would have had way more to lose by playing this shit you're assuming. This conjecture is just a hateful.

If you look into male-female relations among the natives of the Americas (before all their cultures were destroyed) you'll discover they were nothing like what you're imagining. Even your jumping jackass buddy Critical Thinker affirmed this (see http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/06/166360_comment.php#166646 ).

You didn't jump all over his shit. How come?

If you want to find nasty woman-beating troglodytes, look to your own kind, i.e. Europeans. They're far and away the worst ever. There are many many stories of white settlers raiding Indian villages and committing atrocities that were anathema to Indian men. The most famous involves British colonists attacking a stockaded Pequot village in, I believe, Connecticutt. They brought along allies of another tribe who were also hostile to the Pequots (sadly, such alliances were common). When the 'romp in gore' commenced, the brits set fire to the village, instructing their Indian cohorts to kill EVERYBODY (both genders, all ages) who tried to flee. The Indians refused. They had no problem killing the men and did so, but they would not kill women and children and looked on with disgust as the British did this. Mind you, these weren't even their own women, but women of an enemy culture!

What these Indians were displaying, I'm quite sure, was *honor* (much of what I mean by Code of Men). There are some things a man must not do if he's to be respected among men, including himself, and one of these is preying upon defenseless women and children. The evidence of this ethic among men everywhere, even in the West, is huge. Even if a given man doesn't have any compunction about such things, the contempt of other men will seal his veritable death warrant. To forfeit honor is to forfeit the right to live.

"Civilized" European men have been abominations in this respect for thousands of years. They have no honor. They're the world's consummate thieves -- this is why they've managed to steal a whole planet -- and there is no honor among thieves.

The "civilized" just love to imagine that civilization diminishes certain of our ugliest tendencies (e.g. racism, domestic violence, intra-societal predation). This is just civilizationists doing what they do best: being narcissist bigot assholes preening in front of mirrors, telling themselves they're the only Perfect People. The historical evidence that civilization in fact exacerbates these tendencies is massive.

You also implied that the competitive mentality *within* societies has been more or less constant since prehistoric times

"And it was different when?"

What you're really doing here Tia is confirming my suspicion that you have scant interest in Anthropology and such. I don't think anybody who knows this stuff seriously questions the proposition that "civilized" societies are about a thousand times more competitive and less cooperative than "primitive" ones. Back in the late 1800s, when Anthropologists first began racing to collect information on vanishing Indian societies, they revealed that many of them (e.g. the Yanas, the Yukis, many other California tribes) had no internal concept of hierarchy AT ALL. No chiefs, no holy men, nuthin. They were totally egalitarian. It's virtually impossible for us to imagine what this must have been like.

The only concession you made to my point about competition was by twisting it into men preying on women again. Jeez, just what did your father or your ex- do to you, anyway?

I don't think you appreciate how much civilization has changed EVERYTHING and rewired everybody's brain to fit. It's a slippery thing to appreciate, no doubt. For Joe and Jane Average most of the changes it's wrought have been emphatically for the worse.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


On the "Code of Men"

by Tia Tuesday, Jul. 11, 2006 at 8:18 AM

" The Indians refused. They had no problem killing the men and did so, but they would not kill women and children and looked on with disgust as the British did this. Mind you, these weren't even their own women, but women of an enemy culture!

What these Indians were displaying, I'm quite sure, was *honor* (much of what I mean by Code of Men). There are some things a man must not do if he's to be respected among men, including himself, and one of these is preying upon defenseless women and children."

And now we've come full circle. Look at the lists of Palestinian casualties- look at the lists of Israeli casualties; (Most have been deleted- can't have the truth rearing its nasty little head). Over 90 % of the Palestinian casualties have been male.

Of the over 3,000 Palestinian casualties, 140 have been female. Of the 1,000 Israeli casualties, 316 were female.

Who in this conflict is abiding by the code of honor?

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Please elaborate

by TW Tuesday, Jul. 11, 2006 at 10:43 AM

Where are your figures coming from? Cite the source. I cannot take your word for this. If I have ever seen a party that would cook such statistics both ways, it's the fanatic lying zionist state entity. In light of the number of women who've died in childbirth while being withheld at checkpoints (are these even counted?), the number who've been randomly shot at checkpoints, the number who've been killed in Israel's incursions into Lebanon (Sabra and Shatila alone would have to exceed this number), the numbers of children killed at random (girls aren't technically "women"; this is the most vile crime of all), and so forth, this number seems too low by a large factor. It is not just the present intifada that is pertinent here, but the entire history of zionism going back to around 1880 and particularly to the mass mania Jabotinsky induced, which has continued ever since.

Also, because of Israel's near-absolute military superiority over the Palestinians, it's able to fight much more surgically. When you can fire laser-guided missiles from an attack helicopter using the latest target imaging systems, they're much more discriminating than, say, Kassem rockets. This also is pertinent to the numbers. I will not relinquish this point
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


ddfr

by ad Sunday, Jul. 16, 2006 at 5:24 PM
sdod@yahoo.com

sharon was in the palestine workers party not the revisionist he did not support jabotinsky. The palestine workers party is the forerunner to the labor party
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Scuze pliss

by TW Sunday, Jul. 16, 2006 at 6:28 PM

"sharon ... did not support jabotinsky"

Uh, maybe that's cuz HE WAS 12 YEARS OLD WHEN JABOTINSKY DIED, ya moron!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Adolph and Sharon were to peas in a pod-now Sharon is just a pod..LMFAO!

by Danus Monday, Jul. 17, 2006 at 2:55 PM



Why would anyone side with the Zionist Israeli war pigs on this? It's a mystery to me.

Israel is a terrorist regime. What would you do if your neighbors were terrorists and wanted to kill you?

C'mon. I mean we're talking state sponsored zionist terrorist pigs (they seem to have superior firepower and the welfare backing of the most powerful terrorist state, the U.S.). These are both confirmed terrorist organizations.

What would I do if I was in charge of an arab state? Well let's see now. I think I'd rev up some helicopter gunships and go after the leaders of Israel. Cut the head off the smake(s). Sounds like a plan to me.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


"The Nazis were Socialists -- Left wing extremists."

by TW Monday, Jul. 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM

This has been a favorite line of right-wing batshits for several years now. Every "parallel" they point to in claiming this is a historically ignorant canard.

In fact communism and fascism are polar opposites. The violent posture of fascists as a whole toward communists as a whole was breath-taking. Communist civilians were thrown into Hitler's concentration camps as a matter of course. This has no small bearing on the internment of Jews, who were far and away more involved in communism than any other ethnicity in Europe. Blitzkrieging its way across Russia and killing every last communist in it was one of the Axis' highest priorities. They almost succeeded, racking up 30 million dead Russians. Odd how you never hear about this... Virtually all of the underground resistance movements against the Axis (e.g. Tito, the Greek partisans) consisted of communists whose incredible courage was a by-product of their certain knowledge that they were literally fighting for their lives. The ruthless anti-communist nature of fascism continued to make itself known on the Iberian peninsula (Franco, Salazar) long after WWII ended, as it did also in Greece under Papadopoulos and in Argentina under Videla, whose henchmen were some of the Nazis' most ardent admirers ever. Their determination to murder communists everywhere was unparalleled and their operations to this end ranged across this entire hemisphere, even into the US

Anytime you want me to back this stuff up with citations, punk, just say the word
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Original Post

by johnk Monday, Jul. 17, 2006 at 10:38 PM

The original post, for context, is:

-----------
The Nazis were left wing extremists
by Adult Supervisor • Sunday, Jul. 16, 2006 at 5:41 PM

The Nazis were Socialists -- Left wing extremists. They called themselves National Socialists. They nationalized everything. Private enterprise didn't have a chance.

They spouted nonsensical rhetoric as if it was factual. Sort of reminds me of Amy Goodman and Pacifica Radio. Amy employs the same exact approach. It's pure disinformation and propaganda with a strident tone. Adolph and Amy are two peas on a pod.
-----------------

Actually, the Nazis granted preferences to specific companies. It's reminiscent of the special preference that Haliburton has with the Bush administration.

Here's what Wikipedia says:

"The government then expanded the money supply through massive deficit spending. However at the same time the government imposed a 4.5% interest rate ceiling, creating a massive shortage in borrowable funds. This was resolved by setting up a series of dummy companies that would pay for goods with bonds."

Hey, that sounds like BUSH: deficit spending, and low interest rates.... and the bonds... sounds like our Governor! More generally, the flow of money into diverse fiscal products of dubious value (junk bonds, mu-funds), and credit card debt, have substituted for printing more money.

"Most industry was not nationalized, and businesses were still motivated by pursuing profits. However, industry was closely regulated with quotas and requirements to use domestic resources. These regulations were set by administrative committees composed of government and business officials. Competition was limited as major companies were organized into cartels through these administrative committees. Selective nationalization was used against businesses that failed to agree to these arrangements. The banks, which had been nationalized by Weimar, were returned to their owners and each administrative committee had a bank as member to finance the schemes."

So there you have it -- the Nazis didn't nationalize. In fact, they de-nationalized the banks, which is what capitallists want, and real bad too. (The money market is a way to de-nationalize banks.)

"While the strict state intervention into the economy and the massive rearmament policy led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938 [3]. Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike[4]. The right to quit also disappeared: Labor books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [5]"

Hmmm... doesn't sound like liberals to me. Doesn't this, like, sound like a industrialist fantasy? No unions, and nobody can quit work!

"In the years following the Nazi rise to power, many Jews fled the country and were encouraged to do so. By the Nuremberg Laws passed in 1935, Jews were stripped of their German citizenship and denied government employment. Most Jews employed by Germans lost their jobs at this time, which were being taken by unemployed Germans. Notably, the Nazi government attempted to send 17,000 German Jews of Polish descent back to Poland, a decision which led to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German Jew living in France."

How about that? Sounds a little like how some so-called Americans feel about people from Mexico.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Good point john k

by noodles Tuesday, Jul. 18, 2006 at 5:08 PM

I think that settled the misinformed fantasy that the Nazis were anything resembling socialists.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy