“Protest Song,” by Alpha Unit

The public image of Woody Guthrie captivates me.

It’s quite a romantic image, even though there wasn’t anything romantic about much of his life. He is known mainly for being a songwriter – particularly for This Land is Your Land – and for being a Communist sympathizer, the worst badge you could wear in this country next to “Communist.” Some of you may have seen photographs of him on stage, his guitar sporting a label that read, “This Machine Kills Fascists.”

He began his career performing traditional music on the radio in Los Angeles. The way he ended up in California was the same way many of his fellow Oklahomans had – escaping the Dust Bowl. These “Okie” migrants were the object of a lot of resentment and sometimes abuse from California locals.

Woody Guthrie’s music found a ready audience among California Okies. It was during his time in radio that he began writing protest songs, one of which got the attention of a newscaster named Ed Robbin. He brought Guthrie into contact with some of the socialists and communists in Southern California.

Although never a member of the Communist Party, Guthrie wrote a column for The Daily Worker, ensuring his status as a fellow traveler. Success found him, but his lifelong fondness for being on the road and his discomfort with the entertainment business kept his life unstable. But his legacy is intact: the outsider giving a voice to all the other outsiders looking in on the American dream.

The Woody Guthrie song I love the most is a protest song not against injustice or fascism but against grown-up seriousness. It’s about one of my favorite things to do as a child and even now – going for a ride in the car.


What Good Is the FARC?

In the comments section, James Schipper asks pointedly:

The FARC may not be near defeat, but it isn’t anywhere near victory either. The FARC has been active for decades now. Has it accomplished anything positive for the Columbian masses?

That is a good question.

Considering the murderous nature of the Colombian state, why should the FARC lay down its arms? Recall that it was the murderous nature of the Colombian state that started this whole mess by forcing the Left to take up arms in the first place, since they were getting massacred while they were unarmed.

The History of the Colombian Civil War

A little background. This conflict actually started in 1928 with the Banana Massacre in the Far North. There was a banana workers strike and the state sent the army in there to break it up. They massacred something like 60-70 workers to break up the strike.

Then in 1948, Gaitan, a very progressive Liberal, was elected President on a platform of land reform and other reforms. He was quickly murdered by the Conservatives. The people rose up in rage and rebellion all over Colombia. This degenerated into general conflict between the Liberals and the Conservatives, basically over the issue of land reform and the fact that the Liberals had many progressives with them.

This led to the decade of violence called La Violencia, in which 200,000 Colombians were slaughtered. La Violencia was caused by an attempt by the Conservatives and the oligarchy to wipe out the Left. La Violencia continued into the 1960’s.

Some Communists were so sick and tired of all the fighting that they lay down their arms and formed a commune on some land called La Marquetalia. They all moved there and set up farms and whatnot. The Colombian oligarchy started agitating about “Communism in Colombia.” The CIA and the US military went down there to advise the Colombians.

As it turned out, the Colombian military waged a huge armed attack on La Marquetalia, including the use of chemical weapons, in an attempt to exterminate them. The people of Marquetalia tried to fight back, but they had few weapons. They were effectively slaughtered, but a few survived. The survivors of La Marquetalia went on the become the FARC! So that is how the FARC got its start in 1964.

What Good is the FARC?

Actually the FARC does defend the people a lot. When the death squads and army come out to murder and abduct the people, rampaging through the communities, the FARC often wages an offensive to clear them out. The FARC plays a role in defending the people from the murderous state. If the FARC gave up their guns, the people would be defenseless. I’m opposed to that.

Also, look what happened the last time the FARC laid down their guns They were slaughtered like flies. Why should they do it again?

The FARC should only disarm if they can negotiate a solution with the state such as the FMLN did in El Salvador. The FMLN negotiated an integration of the two militaries, getting rid of some notorious security forces, major changes in the corrupt judicial process, and a huge land reform. Via these changes, many of the reasons for the armed struggle went away and the FMLN was able to compete peacefully.

As is, the death squads are tremendously reduced, but still active. They kill about 6 Salvadorans a year. But the FMLN opened up enough space to compete peacefully, and they just won the Presidency. And the land reform produced lasting changes in the countryside. The FARC is only going to give up its guns if it can negotiate some major changes in the system and defang the state enough so that they can compete peacefully in elections.

If you study Latin America, you will see that rightwing death squads rampage through the region, killing progressives. Often the conflict is over land and the death squads are often run by large landowners. Also the police and military operate in the interests of the wealthy, killing progressive people. They kill peasants to steal their land or they kill peasants involved in land disputes and land takeovers.

200 have been killed in Venezuela.

1 person every day is being killed in Honduras.

About 6 a year are killed in El Salvador.

Death squads operate regularly in Guatemala, even after the war.

In Brazil, death squads in the countryside have killed 2-3,000 people in recent years.

As you can see, the Right in Latin America is murderous, whether the people are armed or not. Even if you’re not armed, they come out and kill you anyway. If you arm yourself, at least you get to fight back.

For the record, the Democratic Pole favors a negotiated solution to the war.

Is The FARC Near Defeat?

There is a lot of propaganda in the media that the FARC is near defeat in Colombia. True, Death Squad Leader President Uribe has led a huge offensive against the FARC, the biggest in the history of Latin America, and the FARC has been hit hard. But the figures of 9,000 rebels and loss of 5

The truth is that the Colombian state is a Terror State. Anyone and anyone protesting against the state or the military in any way from the Left is denounced as a “FARC member” or FARC supporter.” Typically, there is no evidence for any association with the armed group, it’s just that FARC association is a way to denounce anyone on the Left or pursuing any kind of popular projects.

Often, death squads or the military then threaten, arrest, abduct, torture, and most commonly just murder the civilians that get denounced. People who are denounced this way are peasant, rural, women’s, human rights, small farmers, anti-mining, Afro-Colombian rights, union members, Indian, and community activists of any shape and form.

All are seen as “terrorists,” though as a general rule, they have nothing to do with the armed FARC, since the FARC is an armed group and doesn’t have much to do with the civilian Left, keeping a strong wall between them.

Much of the war involves clearing peasants, Indians and Afro-Caribbeans off their land and just flat out stealing it. Then the land is given to large landowners or foreign corporations to be exploited. The military and death squads are used to clear the poor off the land under the charge that all the poor getting their land stolen are “FARC members.” Probably none of them are.

The entire Colombian state has always been run by a small group of rich people who have long used terror and mass murder to stay in power. This is the reality of the “War Against the FARC,” and this is why the FARC took up weapons in the first place in 1964.

At the moment, a Left party, the Democratic Pole, has formed, consisting of moderate liberals all the way to Communists. This party polls about 2

Previously, a section of the FARC broke off, laid down their weapons and decided to compete for power peacefully in elections as the Patriotic Union. They quickly started getting killed like flies. The FARC saw the danger and pulled all their people out of the UP, but the killings went on, though the new UP had nothing to do with the FARC anymore. After several years, 5,000 UP members had been slowly slaughtered by the government, and the UP was decimated.

So there is no peaceful route to power for the Left in Colombia. The government is likely to kill you one way or the other if you oppose them, either peacefully or with a gun. I guess you can either wait for the state to come out and kill you, or you can take up arms to try to defend yourself when they come out to kill you, which is essentially what the FARC has done.

FARC Branches in Other Parts of Latin America

FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), a very powerful guerrilla group, also has branches in other nations.

FARE (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Ecuador) operates in Ecuador, mostly in Sucumbios. See my other post for more on them.

FARB (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Brazil) operates in the Dog’s Head of Brazil on the Colombian border. They don’t do much there militarily as it is just a rear base. Mostly they resupply there from Brazilian merchants. The area is sparsely populated jungle. FARC also ranges across the northern part of Brazil all the way to the border of Brazil and Guyana, where they tax the gold mining businesses.

FARV (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Venezuela) is just the FARC in Venezuela. They have about 2,000-3,000 people under arms. It’s hard to say what they do there. It seems Venezuela is mostly a rear guard base, and Hugo Chavez definitely supports the FARC and leaves them alone in Venezuela.

Colombian paramilitaries are now starting to operate in the border area too, and things are getting messy. Also, about 200 peasants have been murdered by Venezuelan death squads in the past decade. The death squads are run by wealthy landowners, usually cattle ranchers, and opposition politicians. It’s really the Opposition who are the killers in Venezuela, not Chavez.

The killings stem from land conflicts, as most of the land in that part of Venezuela is owned by a tiny group of big landowners and most of the population are rural peasants. Peasants stage land takeovers in the typical Latin American style. Chavez has started to buy out some landowners and give land to peasant and Indian communities, but the process is slow.

FARV are mostly Venezuelans, a militia that is armed and pro-Chavez. They do little, but are mostly there in case of a rightwing coup or anti-Chavez invasion, in which case they will take up arms to defend Chavez.

FARP (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Peru): This is the FARC in Peru. They have been active down there for a few years now, mostly in the north around Loreto Province, but they have been active all the way down to Pucallpa in Ucayali. They use it as a rearguard base, but are also forming deep relations with the peasants. They buy stuff from peasants and give them things that the peasants need. They are quite popular in the area, whereas Sendero Luminoso were widely hated for their brutality against the poor.

In addition, FARP has recruited 1,200 new members all across Peru in the last few years. Many of these people are former Shining Path members who quit the group or were released from prison. They’ve soured on Sendero due to the brutal tactics and have taken up with FARP instead. FARP carries out no armed activities in Peru, though they are said to be very well equipped and supplied. They are also taxing coca crops being grown in the part of Peru right across the border from Colombia. This area is a wild jungle.

FARC in Panama: FARC has long used the Darien Gap region of Panama as a rear base. There are occasional shootouts with Panamanian security forces. There are now death squads in Panama murdering Indians for “cooperating with the FARC.” The FARC just stay in Indian villages and buy stuff from the Indians, that’s all. It’s just an R & R area.

FARC in Bolivia: There are rumors that the FARC has been in Bolivia training militias aligned with President Evo Morales, but there is no hard evidence that this is true.

FARC in Paraguay: There are allegations that FARC has helped train the EPP, a new Paraguayan guerrilla group, though there is no hard evidence.

FARC in Nicaragua: The FARC has a long relationship with the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. Large stashes of FARC money and guns have been seized there, but the FARC carries out no armed activities. Nicaragua is just used as a place to buy guns and amass funds.

2 FARC Guerrillas Killed In Ecuador

Details on this incident are sketchy, but it looks like 2 FARC guerrillas were killed in a shootout with the Ecuadorian military in Sucumbios Province in Ecuador. There has long been a heavy FARC presence in this area, and they have a lot of support from the locals too. There are probably also Colombian paramilitaries in the area.

FARC in Ecuador is actually known as FARE (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Ecuador). They’ve had a presence there for a while now, but they don’t do much, especially with Leftist President Correa in office. I don’t know why Correa’s army is attacking the FARC, but he’s probably under pressure from Colombia. Colombia claims he supports and harbors the FARC, but that’s dubious. He’s just neutral.

Colombia, probably with US assistance, bombed a FARC camp in Ecuador in 2008, killing Raul Reyes, FARC’s leader, and some other top commanders. A laptop was seized, through which a tremendous amount of dubious information has been obtained, implicating everyone the Colombian Terror State hates with the FARC. But Interpol looked at the computer and said that Colombian security forces had tampered with it, so any information coming out of it is dubious.

Lots of New Sick and Evil Videos Up on the Old Site

We have pretty much removed the sicko flicks from here because WordPress doesn’t want them, but we are continuing to post them over at the old site.

Traffic really plunged there. At the peak, it was up to 68,000 hits/day. Now it’s down to 3,500/day over there and 4,000/day here, for a combined total of 7,500/day for both sites. Traffic collapsed when the South Korean government banned my website! Everyone in South Korea has to go through some government server to get on the Net, so the government is able to ban sites pretty easily.

Anyway, for your twisted freaks on here:

Eating a Cooked Fish While Alive: The sickos in China think it’s cool to keep a fish alive until you cook it, then cook it in some weird way so it’s still alive, then consume the poor thing while it’s still alive! To be eaten alive! Good God, what a horrible punishment.

You know, the tribes of the SE US, from around Louisiana and the coast of Texas such as the extinct Karankawa, used to do this, . They would capture enemy warriors, tie them to a pole, then surround them with braves who would charge up to the poor sod with knives and slice off bits of his flesh, then eat them in front of him, just to freak him out even more. I assume at some point, they’ve eaten so much of the poor guy that he expires, but it’s sure a Helluva way to go. Gimme a heart attack any day. Hell, gimme cancer. Just not that.

Nick Berg Beheading Video: The original Iraqi Al Qaeda beheading video, released in 2003, with the poor, innocent but foolish Nick Berg meeting his end. The first time I watched this, I was shaking for hours afterward, and I was seriously freaked for a week or two. I watched it again and it was a little better, but not much. I’ve never watched it again – twice was enough! But it’s a classic as far as this shit goes. Includes a thorough writeup on the whole sad story behind the crime.

Man Electrocuted on Train in India: At a crowded train station in India, some idiot somehow finds himself on top of a train. He tries to get down several times, and people reach up to try to help him. Then he walks away and starts strolling down the roof of the train. Like a dumbass, at one point, he reaches up and touches a live electric wire. He is instantly electrocuted and killed. His body quickly catches fire, and he’s gone in a ball of flames in an instant. Electricity is a powerful motherfucker all right. I didn’t feel much sympathy while watching this because the guy’s such an idiot.

12 Year Old Pakistani Boy Beheads a Man: This has got to be about as evil is it gets. The Taliban bastards in North Waziristan capture a US spy, probably an ISI agent in the area, tie him up, and give the knife to a young kid so he can kill him. There are some other kids watching and holding the poor guy down, and maybe some girls watching too. It’s hard to tell. He takes forever to saw the guy’s head off, and reminds you of a butcher carving up an animal carcass. This is child abuse in its worst form. Don’t do this to kids.

Woman Electrocuted in China: Another idiot video. A middle aged woman, apparently mentally disturbed, climbs a utility pole in the middle of some seriously crowded Chinese city and won’t come down. The sheer mass of humanity below is breathtaking in itself. Rescuers are trying to get to her, but she’s just up there crying and won’t come down on the ladders.

There are power lines near her, and a few times, like a dumbass, she reaches up and grabs them, and of course gets electrocuted each time. But for some reason, possibly poor grounding, she gets off pretty easy. I’m told that she survived the ordeal with minimal injuries.

Worst Ankle Twist Ever: A soccer game is being performed, possibly somewhere in the Mediterranean or in the Southern Cone of South America – the players look like Med Whites of some sort. Anyway, soon some poor guy sustains a horrible injury to his ankle. People rush out, put him on a stretcher, and as he is being carried off, you see, incredibly, that his ankle appears to be twisted a full 90 degrees! I don’t know how that’s possible, or if there’s any way to fix it.

Arab Woman Stabs Guard at Israeli Checkpoint: A 21 year old Palestinian woman is getting ready to be searched before going through the Kalandia Checkpoint in Jerusalem. I do not understand the layout of this checkpoint, why it’s necessary, or where it goes to or from. Anyhow, the guards turn away from her, she reaches into her belt, pulls out a huge knife, rushes one of the male Israeli guards, and stabs him! Damn! He goes down, and other guards quickly pile on her and disarm her. The guard sustained minor injuries in the attack and survived.

Convicted Killer Tries to Grab Cop’s Gun in Court: A Black guy is on trial for the murder of his White wife and their son. Her family is in court. At some point, he rushes the bailiff and tries to grab his gun. Other cops, attorneys, all sorts of people, pile on the guy and handcuff him. Then they lead him out of court while the family of the dead woman he killed scream at him.

John Graziano Head Wound: Hulk Hogan’s son, age 17, borrows his Dad’s car and goes for a ride with his friend, Graziano. Possibly he’s drunk. At some point, he totals the car and nearly kills Graziano. Hogan’s son survives. The video shows this poor guy, Graziano, in the hospital afterwards. He seems to have lost a good part of the front of his forehead, that is, his brain! Somehow he’s still alive, but he’s a total vegetable. A lot of people were mad at the Hogans about this incident, and it’s apparently the source of a major lawsuit now. Really disturbing.

Photo of James Vance, Failed Shotgun Suicide: One of the really bad things about trying to kill yourself is that you might fail and actually survive afterward, but be so fucked up you wish you were dead. This is what happened to James Vance, a teenage boy from the US who was depressed and using drugs when he went to a playground and shot himself in the head. That night, he had been using drugs and listening to Judas Priest.

The case resulted in a lawsuit against the band for supposedly making this idiot try to kill himself, but the suit failed. There is a photo of Vance, plus a video interview with him. Even after much reconstructive surgery, he has one of the most fucked up faces on Earth. A few years after, he could not take it anymore, got some pills, and killed himself for good. I don’t blame him; I would have done the same if I looked like that.

Idiot Jumps Off Roof and Breaks His Leg: Stupid American teenagers are engaging in some weird sport called roof jumping, where you jump off a roof onto the lawn below. Something goes wrong, the kid lands wrong, and he breaks his leg. You can actually hear the bone snap on the video. Stupidity can be painful!

Nighttime Mobs Attack Cars in Oakland: This is the latest fad in some US Black ghettos. Crowds of young people gather on major street late at night, around 10 or 11 PM, on a weekend nite. Then they start attacking random cars as they drive by. Sometimes they try to pull the doors open to rob or assault drivers. Drivers fight back, hit them, try to run them over, etc. A good time is had by all, or many, or at least the attackers.

Mostly young Oakland Blacks here, but strangely, there are some young White girls there hanging out with the Blacks and attacking cars themselves.

If these fuckers did that to my car, I might try to hit them with my vehicle! I’ve already done so in a similar situation, and the dude went flying after I nailed him with my accelerating car! Don’t ever try this with me, punks!

Man Assaulted in New York Deli: A older White guy is ordering a meal in a New York deli with some young Black guy standing next him. Suddenly, at one point, the Black turns around and cold cocks the White guy, knocking him to the floor! Then he runs out of the building. No further info on where or why this happened, details on the crime, fate of the victim or results of the investigation.

Also lots of older stuff in foreign languages, but most of you won’t be interested in that.

Have fun, sickos!

Anti-Racist Idiot Goes to Haiti, Gets Raped, Is Thankful for the Experience

The White nationalists just love this stuff. They can’t get enough of it.

But it does seem to show the sheer idiocy of some White anti-racists.

Amanda Kijera, a White liberal anti-racist (Facebook page here), went to Haiti to volunteer to help the Haitian people. After a few months there, she was raped one night by a Black Haitian man on a rooftop. After the rape, she says she feels grateful for having had this experience (Huh?!) and blames Whites for so screwing up Black guys all over the world that they do fucked up stuff like raping women. It’s all Whitey’s fault. You know, we’re forcing all these Black guys to rape women by oppressing them and all.

As she was being raped on the rooftop, she pleaded with her “brother” to stop and told him she was a Malcolm X scholar. I doubt if the illiterate punk even knows who Malcolm X was. As you might expect, this had no effect on the rapist.

If this woman goes back to Haiti without an armed guard, I say she’s an idiot.

Amanda Kijera, silly White woman from the Tim Wise School of Anti-racism, goes to Haiti, gets raped by a Black guy, then blames Whites, like a good anti-racist should.

Haiti’s rape rate is off the charts. I recently heard on the radio that 7

After the earthquake, there were widespread reports of Haitian men raping Haitian women and girls, even in the temporary camps set up to house them. That Haitian men have about a

This reminds me of the Amy Biehl case in South Africa during apartheid. This young liberal White woman went to South Africa to show her solidarity with the oppressed Blacks. At some point in her visit, she was surrounded by a mob of South Africans, including females, and stabbed to death. A radical group, the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, claimed responsibility for the murder. Apparently their revolutionary style was to murder any Whites in South Africa at random. They were responsible for a number of terrorist attacks on innocent South African Whites.

There was another fairly famous case of a young leftwing White woman who moved alone to a US ghetto to work with the oppressed. She was not there long when one night she was murdered by a crowd of young Black men by being set on fire in an apparent hate crime.

I’m not trying to make a case here that young Black males are so dangerous that all White females should avoid them. But there are some places a young White woman should not go to alone, like Haiti, a US ghetto at night and a South African Black township.

A lot of White liberals are actually secret race realists who are cynical about Blacks. They are non-racist to anti-racist in their views and politics, but nevertheless, they are frightened of Blacks and generally try to avoid them.

They live in White towns and send their kids to White schools. I admit I’ve been afraid of Blacks most of my life. That certainly doesn’t apply to all Black people, but it’s a general feeling. No doubt the standard anti-racist view is that this fear of mine makes me a racist. Well, fine, perhaps it does. OK, I’m a racist then. I’m comfortable with that, and I’m also still alive at 52.

New Guerrilla Group in Paraguay – EPP (Paraguayan People’s Army)

Fascinating news.

A new guerrilla group has popped up in Paraguay in the past couple of years, and it’s now starting to make news in the worldwide media after ambushing and killing 4 people in the Concepcion Region of the Northeast on April 20, 2010. Reports are confused. First reports said that 1 cop and three workers were killed, but later reports say that 4 cops were killed in an ambush.

The group has deep roots in the landless peasants in the severely impoverished northeast, where there are frequent conflicts between landless peasants and large landowners, with the landowners regularly hiring death squads to kill peasants.

The same thing goes on in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia (most notoriously) and Honduras. Other death squads continue to operate in Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Bolivia and Peru. In Ecuador, they exist, but mostly just issue threats. As you can see, rightwing death squads that target the Left are a fixture of Latin American society.

In Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Brazil, Venezuela, Honduras and Bolivia, the Left is more or less unarmed. In Peru and Colombia, the Left is armed and fights back. There are also very small guerrilla movements in Mexico. There is an armed Left in Ecuador, but they don’t seem to do much. I assume that if they repression continues as it is in Honduras, the Left is going to take up arms again. As it is, there is about one killing a day occurring since the US-sponsored coup.

Usually the killing continues for a while until the Left has enough, gets tired of waiting around for the government to come out and kill you, and decides to take up arms so the next time the state comes out to kill you, you can at least fight back. This is generally how what the US calls “Leftist terrorist groups” get their start – in self-defense.

In late December 2008, the EPP raided a military post in Concepcion Province, stole some weapons and set the post on fire.

Around 10 people were arrested early this year in Concepcion on charges of kidnapping a wealthy rancher and holding him for 94 days until he was released on $550,000 ransom.

The area of Concepcion where the guerrillas are operating is mostly thick jungle on the border with Brazil. The group wears camouflage uniforms, carries modern weapons and includes female fighters. The group is said to have about 60 members, meaning they are very small. The Paraguayan government says that they were trained by the Colombian FARC, which I find plausible.

This appears to be the same group that broke off from the leftwing Free Motherland Party (PPL). They were involved in the kidnapping and death of Ceclia Cubas, the daughter of a the daughter of a former Paraguayan president (1998/1999).

The group actually seems to have emerged in the past couple of years, though it’s been around for about 18 years. The group emerged in 1992 when some trainee priests were thrown out of the seminary for their radical views. They formed a group called the declared a state of emergency in Concepcion, San Pedro and three other northern provinces after the latest attack and has sworn to wipe them out. We will see what happens next.

Too Sick For Words


You know, something is seriously wrong with the men in this part of the world.

Everybody and their brother in the US was cheering on the glorious mujaheddin in Afghanistan. I did myself for a while, as my politics was not well-formed yet. In the early 1990’s, I learned that our glorious mujaheddin were blowing up girls schools and forcing the girls out of school at gunpoint. That was one of the things that got them fired up about the Communists in the first place.

The Communists banned the buying and selling of women and sent the girls to school. For that sin, they were as good as dead in reactionary Afghanistan. That the US egged this charade on with mountains of guns and money is beyond sickening. The Communists were pretty bad, but the reactionary warlords and religious idiots who have replaced them are no better, and are arguably worse.

Two Top White Nationalists, Richard Barrett and Curtis Maynard, Killed

Maynard by his own hand, Barrett by the hand of another.

Probably better to call both of these guys White Supremacists than White Nationalists, because they really were more the Stormfront type than the American Renaissance type.

The first case, the death of Richard Barrett, a famous White Supremacist from Mississippi, is being widely reported in the press. Barrett, age 66 when he was killed, was quite a character. Originally from New York, his family supposed moved out of there when a lot of Puerto Ricans moved into the neighborhood. They relocated down to Mississippi. Barrett got a BA, served in the military where he rose to officer, then came home and got law degree, passed the bar and became an attorney.

Richard Barrett, aging White Supremacist queen, couldn't seem to reconcile his racist politics with his jungle fever, an itch that finally left him dead, full of knife holes in a house of flames. This is as weird as it gets!

In subsequent years, he formed his own White Supremacist grouplet called the Nationalist Movement. He was also a leader of the skinhead movement. His skinhead site is here, and his Nationalist site is here. If you look closely at both sites, you get a homoerotic feel from them. That’s no accident, but we will get to that later.

He organized a booth at the Mississippi State Fair for the public to shake hands with Edgar Ray Killen, on trial for the famous 1964 murder of three civil rights activists.

On Thursday, April 22, 2010, Barrett was found dead in his home, stabbed to death. He appeared to have tried to escape his assailant. His home had been set on fire after he was killed. Police soon arrested Vincent McGee (Facebook page here), a Black man who had just been released from state prison after serving a 5-year term. Later, Vickie and Michael Dent and McGee’s stepfather, Alfred T. Lewis, were also arrested and charged with being accessories. At least one of them set the fire in Barrett’s home.

At first police said that the motive for the killing was a wage dispute, similar to the case of Eugene Terreblanche, also murdered by Blacks he had hired to work. Barrett had driven an hour to pick up McGee and bring him back to Barrett’s place to mow the lawn and do some yardwork. McGee thought he was going to get paid $60-70 for the work, but he only received $26.

Mississippi and four other Deep South states are the only US states that have no minimum wage. Isn’t Southern conservatism cool?

The story did not seem to make sense. Why would arch-segregationist Barrett hire a Black man, especially one as shady-looking as McGee, to work on his yard? Soon other motives started to crop up. Neighbors said McGee and Barrett had had a relationship, whatever that means. This morning, McGee said that Barrett made a sexual pass at him, sending McGee into a homicidal rage that ended with Barrett’s death. But McGee, in addition to looking like a gangster, also looks queer as a 3 dollar bill.

Vincent McGee, after five years of being punked out by Black toughs in prison, looks about ready to star in a gay porn flick. Let's call it "Behind Gay Bars." The strange love story of hot gay prison sex followed by the bizarre love affair between an aging White Supremacist queen and his Black prison bitch boy toy. Sure to be a bestseller.

Which is something he would have in common with Barrett.

On the WN scene, Barrett had long been regarded as a flake and a nut. His website appeared homoerotic. He meet young, confused White teens, turned them into skinheads and then invited them to stay at his home. He also made them shave their eyebrows! Images of shirtless skinhead males copied from gay porn magazines adorned his site.

Most people on the scene described Barrett as “an old queen.” So it appears that this strange White Supremacist was also a queer who was having sex with young Black punks. Weirder than weird!

Barrett was also hated on the scene for being part-Jewish on his father’s side. Barrett always tried to hide this part of himself, but it’s true he was not big on anti-Semitism. He required his skinhead followers to not wear Nazi tattoos.

Barrett fought with everyone on the scene, and he could not get along with anyone. He was constantly either suing or being sued. A real crank. His WN views were also beyond weird. Only Hellene-Aryans were the real Whites with a right to the US. Everyone else needed to take off. Like Hitler, he hated Slavs. He also worked as an FBI informant and ratted out various people on the scene.

He will not be missed either on the scene or outside of it. I shouldn’t say these folks should be killed, though. We can’t generally say people should be killed for their politics. A lot of folks find my politics infuriatingly repugnant, and I wouldn’t want them saying I should be killed.

The other White Supremacist death is that of Curtis Maynard, another WN nutcase, just like Barrett. I had read Maynard’s blog a few times, and it was really over the top! Ranting, raving, screaming, yelling and racist as all get out. He struck me more as a raving nut as opposed to your often cool-headed White racist. It turns out, incredibly, that Maynard, like Barrett, was also sampling some interracial sexual forbidden fruit (What is it with these guys, anyway?)

His ex-wife was Hispanic. They had a big messy divorce and breakup, and the other day Maynard went over to her house with a shotgun and chased her around the yard. She hid, terrified, with her young child, in the bushes.

Maynard found her and shot her dead.

Then he ran to his truck and drove away. A neighbor came out with his rifle but decided it was too dangerous to engage Maynard. The police quickly caught up with him and pulled him over.

Maynard pulled out his shotgun and blasted a round in his skull.

The strange saga of Curt Maynard was over.

I must say I don’t understand these guys. If they hate non-Whites so much, why can’t they stop fucking them? Fucking’s about as intimate as you can get. If you as a White person want to screw non-Whites of your own, the opposite, or both sexes, by all means help yourself, but why be a White Separatist at the same time? Something tells me a lot of these WN types are just not right in the head.

It’s a common line these days, mostly promoted by anti-racist Jews after the Holocaust, that racism is some sort of a mental disorder, and racists are all mentally disturbed, if not stark raving nuts. They’re all portrayed as dysfunctional fuckups and societal outcasts. I doubt if this is true. It’s understandable the Jews want to get back at their enemies for what was done to them, but there’s no reason to lie. A lot of this stuff is coming out of the Frankfurt School in Germany, where Jewish sociologists recast anti-Semitism and racism as a mental illness.

The Old South was extremely racist, and much of the rest of the US was too. Racism against Indians, Blacks and others was simply normal. Even in most of this century, casual White racism was the norm. In Germany, an entire nation went over to wild racism during World War 2. The Arab and Muslim World is furiously anti-Semitic.

I seriously doubt that the majority of Southerners, Germans, Arabs or Muslims are mentally ill, dysfunctional societal fuckups and losers. Racism isn’t all that healthy, but a society seething with racism is not a society of the mentally ill losers, outcasts and fuckups. Forget it. Many people can be well-adjusted in spite of their virulent racism.

The reason so many WN”s are whacked-out mentally disturbed loons nowadays is that White Supremacism is proscribed, thanks to decades of hard work by us anti-racists. As a condemned and disparaged philosophy, most normal Whites will shy away from it, whether they have tendencies that way or not. A society of outcasts will tend to attract a lot of flaky people who are already on the margins of society in addition to more normal folks.

This is the reason there are so many kooks and whackjobs on the WN scene.

This Is So Wrong

First Yemen, now Saudi Arabia. There is something really fucked up about the men in this part of the world.

Childbirth under the age of 15 probably ought to be regarded as a hazard. The maternal mortality rate is quite high in this age group. I would advise any girl under the age of 15 who is pregnant to have an abortion. She’s probably not a fit mother either, not for a couple of years at least anyway. Sex under the age of 12, especially with an adult male, ought to be regarded as physically dangerous for females.

“The Indian Independence Movement,” by Kumar Sarkar

A nice, short analysis of the Indian independence movement, written by Kumar Sarkar, the nom de guerre of an Indian Maoist revolutionary. Most Indian and Nepalese revolutionaries use noms de guerre due to state repression in their homelands. This is a good piece, nice and short, well-written by a smart guy, from a Marxist perspective, that you might enjoy if you are interested in the subject.

I believe that India was deindustrialized in the 18th – early 19th centuries. Following that, colonialism succeeded in preventing the growth of a national bourgeoisie capable of leading a democratic revolution and industrialization. Emerging bourgeois forces were not independent, and they compromised with Brahminic ‘feudalism’ instead of smashing it, as it happened in Europe during the ‘classical’ bourgeois democratic revolution.

The product was a predominantly comprador bourgeoisie, often still with feudal roots and a strange mixture of bourgeois-Brahminic feudal ideology. The non-comprador elements never gained any real strength.

Thus, the democratic revolution failed to take place, probably nipped in the bud that was once about to show itself, in Bengal. Casteism, discrimination against Muslims, which is an extension of casteism, Brahminic land relations and social order remained virtually intact.

The so-called nationalist movement that started in 1905 in Bengal against its partition was a deformed phenomenon from the beginning, without the support of the Muslims, and in fact often directed against them. This was repeated all over the sub-continent till 1947 with its abortive end and partition of India.

The role of Nehru, Krishna Menon, Subhas Chandra Bose, etc. cannot be understood with the European model of Marxism. The political philosophy of Bose and that of the so-called ‘socialist group’ within the Congress have not been researched yet. Nehru’s individual pro-Marxist attitude ended after his association with Gandhi. The class base of these people remains to be investigated and can only be understood in the background described above.

Interview With Communist Party of India (Maoist) Spokesperson Azad

This is an interview with Azad, a spokesperson for the Indian Maoists who are waging war against the Indian state. It’s wide-ranging and covers a wide variety of topics. This interview is very long – it runs to 80 pages – but I think it’s worth the read if you are interested in the subject.

In an exclusive interview with The Hindu, Azad, spokesperson of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) , answered in writing questions about the party’s proposal for a mutual ceasefire and talks with the Union government, how the party views the necessity of meeting the violence of the State with the revolutionary counter-violence of the masses, the issue of the role of schools in combat zones, and the building of a united front of all revolutionary and democratic forces against the Indian state.

Edited text of 12,262-word response by Azad, Spokesperson, Central Committee, CPI (Maoist)

1. In recent weeks one has seen statements by the Government of India and leaders of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) saying they are in favor of dialogue and talks but each side seems to lack seriousness. There has also been an element of drama or more precisely, theater, with Kishenji and P. Chidambaram exchanging statements through the media.

Our first question is whether Kishenji’s statements can be treated as authoritative pronouncements of the CPI (Maoist) central leadership in pursuance of a national strategy? Or are these tactical announcements by him keeping only the specifics of the Bengal situation in mind.

Azad: It is true our Party leadership has been issuing statements from time to time in response to the government’s dubious offer of talks. But to generalize that there is lack of seriousness on both sides does not correspond to reality. To an observer, exchanging statements through the media does sound a bit theatrical. And it is precisely such theatrical and sensational things the media relishes while more serious things are swept aside.

Now the stark fact is lack of seriousness has been the hallmark of the government, particularly of the Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram. It is Mr. Chidambaram who has been enacting a drama in the past four months, particularly ever since his amusing 72-hour-abjure-violence diktat to the CPI (Maoist) in the course of his interview with Tehelka Magazine some time last November.

As regards Kishenji’s statements, they should be seen with a positive attitude, not with cynicism. Though our Central Committee has not discussed our specific strategy with regard to talks with the government at the current juncture, as a Politbureau member, Comrade Kishenji has taken initiative and made a concrete proposal for a ceasefire.

Whether Comrade Kishenji’s statements are the official pronouncements of our Central Committee is not the point of debate here. What is important is the attitude of the government to such an offer in the first place. Our Central Committee has no objection to his proposal for a ceasefire. But as far as the issue of talks is concerned, our Party will pursue the guidelines given by our Unity Congress-9th Congress held in early 2007.

2. Both the Government and the Maoists are also laying down preconditions. Chidambaram says the Maoists should “abjure violence and say they are prepared for talks…I would like no ifs, no buts and no conditions.” Now ‘to abjure’ can mean to renounce or forswear violence, or even to avoid violence, i.e. a ceasefire. What is your understanding of Mr. Chidambaram’s formulation? What do you think is the implication of what he wants the Maoists to accept?

Azad: It is a very pertinent question as no one knows exactly what Mr. Chidambaram wants to convey by his oft-repeated, yet incomprehensible, abjure-violence statement. Hence I can understand your confusion in interpreting Mr. Chidambaram’s “abjure violence” statement. It is not just you alone but the entire media is left in a state of confusion. His own Party leaders are a confused lot.

Some interpret Mr. Chidambaram’s statement to mean that Maoists should lay down arms. Some say it means unilateral renunciation of violence by Maoists. Yet others say what this could mean is a cessation of hostilities by both sides without any conditions attached.

It is indeed very difficult to understand what Mr. Chidambaram wants to convey.

This seems to be a characteristic trait of Mr. Chidambaram whether it be his pronouncements on Telangana, which are mildly described by the media as “flip-flop” behaviour and interpreted by both pro and anti-Telanganites according to their own convenience; or on Operation Green Hunt which he describes as a “myth invented by the media” even as the entire political and police establishment, and the entire media, give out graphic descriptions of the huge mobilization of the security forces, and the successes achieved by Operation Green Hunt; or on MoUs signed by various MNCs and Indian Corporate houses with the governments of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and others.

The Home Minister himself had displayed his split personality, not knowing what exactly he wants when he says Maoists should “abjure violence.” To a layman what this proposal obviously implies is that the state too would automatically put a stop to its inhuman atrocities on the adivasis, Maoist revolutionaries and their sympathizers. But not so to our Home Minister!

When you ask us what our understanding of Mr. Chidambaram’s formulation is, our answer is: we are very clear that the real intent behind his rhetoric is not a ceasefire between the government and the Maoists, like that with the NSCN, but an absurd demand for a unilateral renunciation of violence by the Maoists. Anyone with a bit of common sense would understand the unreasonableness of the Home Minister’s demand.

It is not that our so-called political analysts and others who appear on TV channels or write articles in the print media lack this common sense. It is their vested interests that come in the way of questioning the Home Minister in a straightforward manner.

Can they not put a simple question why the government cannot stop its brutalities on the people, adhere strictly to the Indian Constitution by putting an end to the police culture of fake encounters, abductions, rapes, tortures, destruction of property, foisting of false cases and such indescribable atrocities on the people and the Maoists?

Chidambaram is cozy in studios and press conferences before English-speaking TV anchors and correspondents but can never answer the questions put by illiterate adivasis. That is the secret behind his skipping the Jan Sunwaayi in Dantewada last December. For drama and real life are entirely different.

The implication of what Mr. Chidambaram wants the Maoists to accept is crystal-clear. He wants the Maoists to surrender. Or else [the state’s] para-military juggernaut would crush the people and the Maoists under its wheels. It is total surrender, pure and simple.

While repeating that he never wanted the Maoists to lay down arms – as if he had generously given a big concession – he comes up with an even more atrocious proposal: Maoists should abjure violence while his lawless forces continue their rampage creating more Gachampallis, Gompads, Singanamadugus, Palachelimas, Dogpadus, Palods, Tetemadugus, Takilodus, Ongaras, and so on.

Not a word does he utter even as scores of inhuman atrocities by his forces are brought to light by magazines like Tehelka, Outlook, a host of websites, and, to an extent, some papers like yours. What is it if not sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Home Minister to ask Maoists to abjure violence while his paramilitary forces indulge in crimes every day, every hour, in gross violation of the very Constitution by which he swears?

3. The Maoists also have their preconditions for talks.

In his recent interview to Jan Myrdal and Gautam Navlakha, Ganapathy made the following formulation on the issue of talks:

“To put concisely the main demands that the party has placed in front of the government [of India] for any kind of talks are:

1. All-out war has to be withdrawn;

2. For any kind of democratic work, the ban on the Party and Mass Organizations have to be lifted;

3. Illegal detention and torture of comrades had to be stopped and they be immediately released. If these demands are met, then the same leaders who are released from jails would lead and represent the Party in the talks.”

My question is whether these are realistic preconditions. For example, the “all out war” can be suspended first before it is “withdrawn,” i.e. a ceasefire, so why insist on its withdrawal at the outset? Are you asking for a ceasefire or something more than that?

Secondly, you want the ban on the Party and its mass organizations lifted and prisoners released. Usually in negotiations of this kind around the world between governments and insurgent groups, the lifting of a ban is one of the objects of talks rather than a precondition and the release of political prisoners an intermediate step.

Is the Maoist party not putting the cart before the horse, making demands that the government may be unlikely to accept as a starting point, rather than positing the same as one of the end points of the proposed dialogue?

Azad: I concur with the logic of your arguments. It is logically a valid argument that such demands could be resolved in the course of actual talks and not as a precondition for talks. But you must also understand the spirit of what Comrade Ganapathi has said in his interview given to Mr. Jan Myrdal and Gautam Navlakha. Some clarification is required here. I will try to clarify what Comrade Ganapathi has said.

Firstly what he meant when he said the government should withdraw its all-out war is nothing but a suspension of its war, or in other words, mutual ceasefire. Let there be no confusion in this regard. What Chidambaram wants is unilateral ceasefire by Maoists while the state continues its brutal campaign of terror. On the contrary, what the CPI (Maoist) wants is a cessation of hostilities by both sides simultaneously. This is the meaning of the first point.

A ceasefire by both sides cannot be called a precondition. It is but an expression of the willingness on the part of both sides engaged in war to create a conducive atmosphere for going to the next step of talks.

Secondly, if peaceful legal work has to be done by Maoists as desired by several organizations and members of civil society, then lifting of the ban becomes a pre­requisite. Without lifting the ban on the Party and mass organizations how can we organize legal struggles, meetings, etc in our name? If we do so, will these not be dubbed as illegal as they are led by a banned Party?

According to us, the ban itself is an authoritarian, undemocratic, and fascist act. Hence the demand for the lifting of the ban is a legitimate demand, and, if fulfilled, will go a long way in promoting open democratic forms of struggles and creating a conducive atmosphere for a dialogue.

Thirdly, what Comrade Ganapathi asked for is that the government should adhere to the Indian Constitution and put an end to the illegal murders in the name of encounters, tortures and arrests. We must include the term ‘murders’ which is missing in the third point. There is nothing wrong or unreasonable in asking the government to stick to its own constitution.

As regards the release of political prisoners, this could be an intermediate step as far as the nature of the demand is concerned. However, to hold talks it is necessary for the government to release some leaders. Or else there would be none to talk to since the entire Party is illegal. We cannot bring any of our leaders overground for the purpose of talks.

4. Would the Maoists be prepared to establish their bona fides on the question of talks by announcing a unilateral ceasefire or, perhaps the non-initiation of combat operations (NICO) after a particular date so as to facilitate the process of dialogue?

Azad: It is quite strange to see intellectuals like you asking the Maoists to declare a unilateral ceasefire when the heavily armed Indian state is carrying out its brutal armed offensive and counterrevolutionary war. How would the unilateral announcement of ceasefire or NICO after a particular date establish the bona-fides of our Party on the question of talks? What purpose would such an act serve?

It is incomprehensible to me why we are asked to “display this generosity” towards an enemy who has not the least concern for the welfare of the people and derives vicarious pleasure in cold-blooded murders, rapes, abductions, tortures and every kind of atrocity one could imagine.

And how would this “generous Gandhian act” on our part facilitate the process of dialogue with the megalomaniacs in the Home Ministry who do not spare even non-violent Gandhian social activists working in Dantewada and other places?

5. What do the Maoists hope to achieve with talks? Are you only looking to buy time and regroup yourselves – which is what the government said the CPI (Maoist) did during the aborted dialogue in Andhra Pradesh?

Or is it part of a more general re-evaluation of the political strategy of the party, one which may see it emerge as an overground political formation, engaged in open, legal activities and struggles, and perhaps even entering the electoral fray directly or indirectly at various levels in the kind of ‘multiparty competition’ that Prachanda says is necessary for the communist movement?

When you say you want the government to lift its ban on the party, are you also undertaking not to indulge in methods of struggle (e.g. armed struggle) which led to the imposition of the ban in the first place? There are other Maoist and revolutionary communist parties across India that are mobilizing workers and peasants through mass politics. They have not been banned.

Why does the CPI (Maoist) not believe those are legitimate forms of struggle? In Kashmir, the Hurriyat conference stands for the self-determination of J&K and seeks to mobilize people for this but the Indian state, which may use violence and repression and excessive force against people who peacefully protest, has not banned the Hurriyat. Does this not indicate that there is some space in the system for the Maoists to press their demands through peaceful political means?

Azad: Your question, or rather, a whole set of questions, requires a detailed answer. I am afraid it will take much space but I will try to be as brief as possible. Before I proceed, let me clarify at the very outset that the proposal of talks is neither a ploy to buy time or regroup ourselves, nor is it a part of the general re­evaluation of the political strategy of the party that could lead to its coming overground, entering the electoral fray, and multi-party competition as in Nepal.

Our CC had already dealt in detail with the question of multi-party competition in our Open Letter to the UCPN(M) and various articles and interviews by our Party leaders. So I will not go into it again here.

Now let me take up each point that you raised.

First, you asked what we want to achieve with talks. My one sentence answer is: We want to achieve whatever is possible for the betterment of people’s lives without compromising our political programme of new democratic revolution and strategy of protracted people’s war.

People have a right to enjoy whatever is guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, however nominal and limited these provisions are. And the government is duty-bound to implement the provisions of the Constitution.

We hope the talks would raise the overall consciousness of the oppressed people about their fundamental rights and rally them to fight for their rights. Talks will also expose government’s hypocrisy, duplicity, and its authoritarian and extra-constitutional rule that violates whatever is guaranteed by the Constitution. So talks would help in exposing the government’s callous attitude to the people and may help in bringing about reforms, however limited they may be.

Another important reason is: talks will give some respite to the people who are oppressed and suppressed under the fascist jack-boots of the Indian state and state-sponsored terrorist organizations like the Salwa Judum, Maa Danteswari Swabhiman Manch, Sendra, Nagarik Suraksha Samiti, Shanti Sena, Harmad Bahini, and so on.

Those who sit in studios and insulated rooms and make their expert analyses about how Maoists want to buy time or utilize the respite to regroup themselves, can never understand the ABC of revolution or the ground situation. This is actually not an argument at all.

If the Maoists try to utilize the situation, so would the police and the government. Why wouldn’t they? They created an extensive network of police informers during the six-month period of ceasefire in Andhra Pradesh in 2004. The intelligence hawks attended every open meeting and activity of the Maoists, took videos of people, and could easily target them after the clamp-down. Maoists definitely increased their recruitment but so did the enemy.

It doesn’t take much common sense to understand that both sides will utilize a situation of ceasefire to strengthen their respective sides. Then could this be called an argument at all? These cynics, or, I would rather call them, war-hungry hawks, itch for a brutal suppression of the Maoists and the people they directly lead, even if it means genocide.

They do not care if in the process thousands of police and paramilitary personnel also perish, for they are nothing but cannon-fodder in the eyes of these gentlemen.

So let me make it crystal clear: the proposal of talks is meant neither to buy time nor to regroup ourselves but to give some respite for the people at large who are living under constant state terror and immense suffering.

How many of our countrymen know that three lakh adivasis were driven away from their homes, that half the adivasi population in our country is already living under conditions of chronic famine and now even the rest of them now being pushed into a famine condition?

And why? Because of the insatiable greed of the corporate sharks that is fueling Chidambram-Raman Singh’s war in Chhattisgarh, Chidambaram­-Naveen Patnaik’s war in Orissa, Chidambaram- Buddhadeb’s war in West Bengal, Chidambaram-Shibu Soren’s war in Jharkhand, and so on.

Whoever has the minimum concern for the well being of the masses, no matter what his/her ideology is, would naturally think of how to save them from being decimated. But those who have nothing but sheer contempt for the poor and helpless people and only think of how to maximize the profits of a tiny parasitic class, put forth weird and cynical arguments deliberately intended to confuse the people.

They depict the Maoists as terrorists, create a fear psychosis in the middle and upper classes that the Maoists will soon come to your cities and disturb your supposedly secure lives; that they will seize power by the middle of this century, and what not.

By such hysteria whipped up by the rulers through the various means at their disposal, they justify the brutal war on the people and make the massive displacement, mayhem, massacres, rapes and atrocities appear like collateral damage in the larger noble objective of achieving peace, progress and prosperity for all.

On the question of the re-evaluation of political strategy of CPI (Maoist), demand for lifting of ban, and the issue of the legitimacy of open, legal forms of struggle:

There are a lot of questions related to the above and I feel this needs some detailed explanation keeping in mind several misconceptions making the rounds. Firstly you are wrong in assuming that it is the forms of struggle (armed struggle) pursued by the CPI (Maoist) that had “led to the imposition of the ban in the first place.”

On the contrary, it is the other way round. It is the imposition of the ban that had led the Party and mass organisations to take up arms in the first place. People are easily misled to believe that it is the violence of the Maoists that had compelled the government to impose the ban.

This is a classic example of how a white lie can be dressed up and presented as the truth by endless repetition. If you have even a cursory glance at the history of the revolutionary movement in our country you will find that the forms of struggle adopted by the Maoist revolutionaries from time to time corresponded to the forms of suppression pursued by the rulers.

A stark example of the transformation of a peaceful mass movement into a violent armed struggle is right in front of our eyes.

Lalgarh’s peaceful mass movement with its simple demands for an apology from the police officials and an end to brutal police repression was  transformed into a revolutionary armed struggle due to the brutal suppression campaign unleashed by the state and state-sponsored terrorists like the Harmad Bahini. Such was the case also in Kashmir and various states of North East.

Even in Naxalbari in 1967, the first shots were fired on unarmed women and children by the police. The people retaliated in their own manner and the party took birth and evolved a correct political line for the Indian Revolution.

In Srikakulam, Koranna and Manganna the first martyrs were killed, and these murders transformed the movement into an armed struggle. Even during the first great armed mass uprising of Telangana during the late 1940s, the spark was first lit when the cruel feudal lords murdered Doddi Komaraiah.

If you take the case of the transformation of the movement led by the erstwhile CPI (ML)[PW] or MCCI or the present CPI (Maoist), you will find the same pattern. The revolutionaries go to the oppressed, make them conscious of their inherent strength and the reasons for their misery, make them aware of their fundamental rights, organize and unite them, mobilize them into peaceful forms of protest and struggle.

Then the state enters with its baton in defence of the class of big landlords, contractors, industrialists, land mafia and other powerful forces that control the state and economy. Everywhere, the peaceful struggles are crushed brutally, entire areas are declared disturbed, fake encounters, abductions, disappearances, rapes, burning down villages, and untold atrocities become the order of the day. The Indian Constitution becomes consigned to the dustbin by the rulers and is not even worth the paper it is written on.

At that point of time any revolutionary party has to quickly switch to non-peaceful and armed forms of struggle if it is really serious about transforming the lives of the people and the oppressive conditions in the country.

The alternative is to surrender their revolutionary aims, make adjustments with the system and sail with other parliamentary parties albeit with some revolutionary rhetoric for a while. This, however, will not work for long as people cannot distinguish between the bourgeois-feudal parties and the ML party that has turned into a new parliamentary party.

When people are fighting a do-or-die battle, you cannot turn your tail but will have to provide them with new appropriate forms of struggle and forms of organization. And this is what our Party had done from the days of Jagtyal Jaitra Yatra.

What shook the rulers at that time and compelled them to declare the Jagtyala and Sircilla tauks in Karimnagar district of North Telangana as disturbed areas in 1978 was not the armed struggle of the Maoists (which had suffered a complete setback in Naxalbari, Srikakulam and elsewhere by 1972) but the powerful anti-feudal militant mass struggle that upset the hitherto established feudal order in the countryside.

And one of the main forms of struggle at that time was social boycott of the feudal lords and their henchmen, which witnessed the unity of over 9

From then on, the undeclared ban has been in vogue in parts of North Telangana until 1985 when it encompassed the entire state. CRPF was deployed for the first time to suppress the peaceful mass struggles that broke out against liquor. I remember how the mainstream media like the Indian Express published stories of policemen selling arrack at the police stations and forcing people to consume liquor in order to foil the anti-liquor agitation of the revolutionaries.

We find the same story in the urban areas too. The Singareni colliery workers organised themselves into a trade union called Singareni Workers’ Federation (SIKASA) in 1981, but it was unofficially banned within three years. An undeclared ban was imposed on the students and youth organisations, women’s organizations, workers’ organizations, cultural organizations and every form of peaceful, democratic protest was brutally suppressed.

One must see the development of armed struggle in the background of the strangulation of even the limited democratic space available in the present semi-colonial, semi-feudal set up, and the brutal suppression of the movement by unleashing the lethal instruments of the state.

To cut a long story short, it is not the forms of struggle and organization adopted by a party that led to imposition of ban but the very ban (whether declared or undeclared) on every type of open, legal activity including peaceful public meetings that compelled the revolutionaries to adopt non-peaceful and armed forms of struggle and underground forms of organization.

Our Party appeals to all independent observers and unbiased media personnel to look at this phenomenon historically and analyze this with an open mind. You will realize that what I said is 10

Revolutionaries never mince words. There is no need to. We believe that ultimately people have to take up armed struggle to seize power. But this does not mean we take up armed struggle at the cost of all other forms of struggle and thereby invite the state to unleash its brute force on the people.

On the contrary, it is only when all other forms of struggle fail to achieve the objective, when these are crushed under the iron heels of the state, that we resort to non-peaceful and armed forms of struggle.

It is very important to understand this, as it has become a common practice for some so-called political analysts and representatives of the ruling classes to charge the Maoists as responsible for all the violence since their very ideology talks of armed struggle. Hence, they conclude, there is no use in talks with the Maoists.

These simpletons resort to the method of reductionism: Maoists believe in violence and armed struggle to overthrow the state; hence they indulge in endless violence; there is no use of talking to people whose very ideology is rooted in violence; and hence there is no other way than to crush the Maoists with all the means at the disposal of the state. So goes their argument. I will deal with this later on.

I didn’t quite understand what you meant when you said referring to other open Maoist and revolutionary communist parties across India that are mobilizing workers and peasants through mass politics: “Why does the CPI (Maoist) not believe those are legitimate forms of struggle?”, you ask. Who has said we do not believe these are legitimate forms of struggle?

We consider all forms of struggle as legitimate, the right of social boycott as we practiced in Jagtyala, the hunger strikes as our comrades in various prisons and the various militant demonstrations. Armed struggle is also a form of struggle and assumes importance depending on the tactical moves by the enemy.

While all forms of struggle are legitimate in our eyes, some so-called revolutionaries, veterans of yesteryear, surprisingly exclude armed struggle from the forms of struggle and lay a one-sided emphasis on peaceful forms of struggle. They can just as well go join the Gandhian organisations and fight for some reforms instead of calling themselves  part of the ML stream or Maoists aiming for the revolutionary transformation of society.

For some of them, the ML ideology or label is only a fashion. They do not wish to bring about the revolutionary transformation of the society and state but instead only want to make a few cosmetic reforms.

The question of imposing or not imposing a ban on a certain party or organization depends on several factors. It would be too simplistic to conclude that just because a party believes in armed struggle and indulges in acts of violence it is being banned, while those who pursue open, legal forms of struggle are allowed to function freely.

During the Emergency, as we all know, both the revolutionary Left as well as the reactionary Right parties were banned. Yet even at the height of sectarian violence indulged in by the Hindu fascist gangs, they are allowed a field day.

They carry arms, display them openly, threaten the religious minorities with genocide, indulge in violence against the Muslims and Christians, and yet are deemed as legitimate organizations since they are part of the ruling classes and their integral culture of violence.

The acts of destruction in the violence that was organized in a planned manner [in Andhra Pradesh] by a faction of the Congress in one day far surpassed the so-called violent acts carried out by Maoists in an entire year! Yet our Union Home Ministry issues advertisements against Maoist violence while keeping mum about the mayhem and arson by his own Congress Party hooligans.

Thus the question of how you look at violence is colored with a class bias. The violence by the ruling class parties is considered legitimate while those by the oppressed masses and their organizations are dangerous and a threat to the security of the rulers. This has been true from the time of Charvakas.

6. If the government believes the Maoists “misused” the Andhra talks, your party believes the dialogue there was abused by the authorities to identify and then target your leaders. How, then, do you hope to deal with the risks of once again entering into a dialogue with the Indian state?

Azad: The talks we held with the Congress regime in AP provided us with important lessons. And these lessons will guide us in any future talks with the governments of the exploiting classes. It would be too simplistic to conclude that the police could identify and target the leaders by utilizing the talks interregnum.

They used it to some extent just as we used it to take our politics widely among the people in the State and outside. The setback we suffered in most parts of AP was not a fall-out of talks but due to several inherent weaknesses of our Party in AP and our failure to adopt appropriate tactics to confront enemy’s tactics. This is an entirely different subject and can be dealt with some other time.

What is of relevance here is that the talks in AP have given us a rich experience and important lessons. If a situation for talks arises once again -which we do not foresee in the near future given the inexorable compulsions on the government from the corporate sharks for total control of the mineral-rich region – we can instruct our leadership in various prisons to take the responsibility.

Our General Secretary explained this in the course of his interview with Mr. Jan Myrdal and Mr. Gautam Navlakha. The mistakes committed in AP during talks with the government will not be repeated.

7. There is a contradiction between the recent offer for talks made by Kishenji and the spate of violence and killing by the Maoists which  followed that. The Home Ministry has compiled a list of such incidents and circulated it to the media (attached as an annex).

No doubt there has been no letup in the government offensive during this period and you could produce your own counter-list, but many of these attacks by the Maoists do not appear to be ‘defensive’ but ‘offensive’. Can the offer of talks go hand in hand with the intensification of offensive Maoist military activities?

Azad: This is not as complicated as it is made out to be. The crux of the matter is: no ceasefire has been declared either by the Maoists or by the government. The Maoists made an offer of talks, which was immediately dismissed by the government as a joke and spurned by Chidambaram himself who wants nothing short of total surrender, whatever the language he uses.

When the government is not serious about a ceasefire and dialogue, and is placing a condition that Maoists should abjure violence without spelling out whether it will reciprocate with a simultaneous declaration of ceasefire, then what is the use of grumbling about acts of violence by Maoists? The acts of violence by both sides will cease on the day a ceasefire is declared.

Now I am not going into the innumerable atrocities by the police forces and the paramilitary gangs sent by [the state]. There has been wide coverage in magazines like Tehelka, Outlook and our own Maoist Information Bulletins. The statements and fact-finding committee reports by various organizations and Gandhians like Himanshu Kumar clearly show how savage the state has become.

Equally atrocious is the list compiled by the Union Home Ministry regarding the violent acts by Maoists to justify its rejection of the Maoist offer. The annex appended to your questionnaire speaks volumes about the duplicity and lies spread by the war-mongering hawks in the Home Ministry as part of their psy­war.

This is meant to lend an element of legitimacy to their rejection of the ceasefire offer by Maoists and also to their war waged for nipping in the bud alternative organs of people’s power and alternative development models, and for grabbing the resources in the mineral-rich region for the benefit of the class of tiny parasitic corporate elite they represent. I will not go into all the incidents listed.

The very first “heinous act of violence” cited by the Union Home Ministry in its annex circulated to the media to manufacture consent for its dirty war goes like this: “In West Bengal (February 22, 2010) – attack on a State Police-CRPF joint patrol party in PS Lalgarh, District West Midnapore. In the ensuing gun battle Lalmoham Tudu, President of the Police-e-Sangharsh Birodhi Janaganer Committee (PSBJC) was killed.”

The above incident was said to have taken place within three hours of the offer of a 72-day ceasefire made by Comrade Kishenji. Chidambaram himself has gone on record several times repeating this fabricated “heinous act” in a desperate bid to justify his rejection of the Maoist offer. Earlier, Chidambaram deliberately hurled an accusation against the CPI (Maoist) of massacring villagers in Khagaria District.

Coming to the so-called attack by Maoists on the joint patrol party, it is a 10

Initially, the SP of Paschim Mednipur asserted that Mr. Tudu died when the CRPF men “bravely” retaliated an attack by the Maoist guerrillas on the fortress-like CRPF camp in Kantapahari. Later, realizing the hollowness of his own story and fearing that it would evaporate like dew drops with the first rays of the sun, they changed the version by [saying] that Tudu and other two were killed when a Maoist guerrilla squad attacked the CRPF’s raiding party.

This lie is being propagated consciously, with a clearly worked out strategy of justifying the gruesome offensive by our own brand of George Bushes and Donald Rumsfelds. Tehelka Magazine, Star Ananda and other media sources have graphically exposed this lie.

As for your question regarding offensive and defensive actions, I wish to clarify to every well-meaning person who desires a reduction of Maoist violence that there is no such thing as defensive and offensive actions once the war has commenced.

However, our revolutionary counter-violence is overall defensive in nature for a considerable period of time. This does not mean we will retaliate only when we are fired at and keep silent the rest of the time when the police, paramilitary and the vigilante gangs unleash terror and engage in preparations for carrying out genocide.

To make this clear, let us suppose the men sent by Chidambaram are combing an area. When we come to know of it, we will carry out an offensive, annihilate as many forces as possible in the given circumstances, and seize arms and ammunition. We will also take prisoners of war where that is possible. This will be part of our overall defensive strategy although it is a tactical counter-offensive.

In the war zone, if you do not take the initiative, the enemy will seize the initiative. Likewise, we may have to attack ordnance depots, trucks carrying explosives, guards at installations such as NMDC, RPF personnel, and even outposts and stations far beyond our areas to seize arms, as in Nayagarh, for instance.

To fight a well-equipped superior enemy force that has no dearth of arms supplies and logistical support, what other option do we have but to equip ourselves with the arms seized from the enemy?

Some of these men are killed when they offer resistance. We feel sorry for their lives but there is no other way. Chidambaram may yell that innocent CISF jawans were targeted even though they were in no way related to the state’s offensive against Maoists. But that is how things are in a war zone.

The war will get dirtier and dirtier, engulf new areas and affect hitherto unaffected regions and sections of society. But this is precisely what [the ruling] coterie want.

We will also destroy the informer network built by the enemy, his supplies, bunkers, communication network and infrastructure.

We have to confiscate money from the banks and other sources for funding the revolution.

There is no use of yelling about the indiscriminate destruction by Maoists. We have to paralyze the administration, immobilize the enemy troops, cut off his supplies and perhaps even target the policemen engaged in removing the dead bodies of the enemy. There was a hue and cry when our guerrillas placed mines under the dead bodies.

But why such a hue and cry? Where are the rules in this war? Who has defined the rules? If there were rules, then why are the peace-chanting pigeons in the Home Ministry completely silent about the beasts in police uniform who chopped off the breasts of 70-year-old Dude Muye before killing her, who murdered in cold blood over 120 adivasis since August 2009 in Dantewada, Bijapur, Kanker and Narayanpur, and yet roam free and continue their atrocities without hindrance?

Chidambaram, Pillai, Raman Singh and their like should first define the rules of engagement and then, and only then, do they have a right to speak of violations of the rules. I am sure they would never dare to discipline their own forces while preaching meaningless sermons about Maoist “atrocities.”

We appeal to all peace-loving, democratic-minded organizations and individuals to ponder this question, pressure the government to adhere to the Geneva Convention, punish those who are creating Gompads, Gachampallis, Singanamadugus, Palachelimas, Tetemadugus, Takilodus, Dogpadus, Palods, and other massacres. If it is to be a war, then let it be, but the state should clearly state whether it will abide by its own Constitution and the International Conventions on the conduct of war.

8. The Maoists are engaging in armed struggle but have not hesitated to use violence against non-combatants. The beheading of a policeman, Francis Induvar, while in Maoist captivity shocked the country and was a blatant violation of civilized norms and of international humanitarian law, which the Maoists, like the Government, are obliged to adhere to.

If civil society condemns the security forces for killing civilians in places like Gompad village in Chhattisgarh and elsewhere and demands that justice be done and the guilty punished, it has an equal right to condemn the Maoists whenever they commit such crimes.

There have been some reports that the Maoist leadership has apologized for the killing of Induvar, but what steps have you taken to punish those who were involved? What steps have you taken to ensure such crimes are not committed by your cadres?

If your answer is that the state has also not punished those among its ranks who have committed crimes, are you then admitting that the political culture and moral universe the Maoists represent is the same as that of the state which you decry as illegitimate?

Azad: I already covered part of your question in my answer to your earlier question. Our attempt will always be to target the enemy who is engaged in war against us. Non-combatants are generally avoided. But what about the intelligence officials and police informers who collect information about the movements of Maoists and cause immense damage to the movement?

It is true most of them do not carry arms openly or are even unarmed. What to do with them? If we just leave them, they would continue to cause damage to the Party and movement. If we punish them there is a furor from the media and civil society. Caught between the devil and the deep blue sea!

Our general practice is to conduct a trial in a People’s Court wherever that is possible and proceed in accordance with the decision of the people. Where it is not possible to hold the People’s Court due to the intensity of repression, we conduct an investigation, weigh the opinion of the people and dole out appropriate punishment.

I agree there is no place for cruelty while giving out punishments. I clarified this in one of my earlier interviews while referring to the case of Francis Induvar. But it is made into a big issue by the media when a thousand beheadings have taken place in the past five years by the police-paramilitary and Salwa Judum goons. You are saying the beheading of Francis Induvar was a blatant violation of civilized norms and of international humanitarian law which both sides in the war are obliged to adhere to.

Do you really think the government is adhering to the law? And has the media ventured to ask Chidambaram why [the state] hasn’t been following international law or at least the Indian Constitution when dealing with the people in the war zone or citizens elsewhere?

Just ten days ago, two of our Party leaders – Comrades Shakhamuri Appa Rao and Kondal Reddy -were abducted from Chennai and Pune respectively by the APSIB and the Central Intelligence officials and were murdered in cold blood. What cruel tortures these comrades were subjected to by the lawless goons of the Indian state no one will ever know. I can give a thousand such examples of killings of our comrades in cold blood while in police captivity in the past five years.

Why is the media silent about these murders but becomes hysterical when one Police Inspector is beheaded? What is civil society doing when such cold-blooded murders are taking place in police custody? Why single out a rare case of the beheading of one Induvar and play it up whenever you need an excuse to bash the Maoists?

When our comrades hear of these cold-blooded murders committed by the APSIB or other officials of the state, it is natural that their blood boils and they will not bat an eyelid to hack any of the perpetrators of these inhuman crimes, say a man from APSIB or Grey Hounds, to pieces if he fell into their hands. In the war zone, the passions run with such intensity which one cannot even imagine in other areas or under normal circumstances.

Could someone who has seen women being raped and murdered, children and old men being murdered by hacking them to pieces in the killing fields of Dantewada and Bijapur, ever give a thought to your so-called non-existent (I say non-existent as none of the combatants know what these are nor would follow these conventions as the history of fake encounters by the Indian state shows) international laws when the perpetrator of such crimes happens to fall into their hands?

The pent-up anger of the masses is so intense that even the Party General Secretary would perhaps fail to control the fury of the adivasi masses when they lay their hands on their tormentors.

Maoists are not for crude and raw justice as some are trying to make it appear. Maoist guerrillas are not thugs and mercenaries like the men who carry out their brutal heinous acts in the name of democracy and the “rule of law.” Maoists have great respect for human life. Democratic values and norms are an integral part of socialist and communist ideology. Yet at the same time we think it is necessary to destroy the few poisonous weeds to save the entire crop.

I once again request you and all others to imagine what you would have done if your mothers, sisters and daughters were raped in front of your eyes, and your fathers, brothers and sons were murdered by being hacked to pieces. And worst of all, when there is no guardian of the “rule of law” to receive your complaints and the complainant himself/herself is abducted.

When we do not understand the feelings of the affected people, it is better to imagine ourselves in their place. This may help us get nearer to the truth.

9. The Supreme Court has asked the petitioners who filed a PIL against Salwa Judum atrocities to draw up a rehabilitation plan for those displaced by the violence perpetrated in Chhattisgarh by Salwa Judum, the regular security forces and the Maoists.

Is the CPI (Maoist) prepared to give an undertaking that it will allow the rebuilding of schools and the establishment of basic government services (primary health care, anganwadi, PDS etc.) as part of a court-backed plan for the welfare of the tribals affected by the conflict? Will you agree not to attack government employees and officials who enter to provide services to the tribal masses?

Azad: Asking us to give an undertaking that we will allow the rebuilding of schools and establishment of basic government services in the areas we control and that we will not attack government employees and officials is quite bizarre, to say the least. The welfare of the masses is the first priority for the Maoist revolutionaries.

You should request Mr. Chidambaram to allow you to visit the areas in Dandakaranya, Jharkhand, Orissa, or the villages of Jangalmahal by keeping his paramilitary forces, SPOs, Salwa Judums, Shanti Senas, Nagarik Suraksha Samitis and Harmads from obstructing you. Then you will see with your own eyes a hitherto hidden story of how the adivasis are prevented from pursuing their normal activity by the state and state-sponsored terrorists.

You will find how the forces occupy school buildings for six months to a year, thereby preventing the children from pursuing their studies. You will find how the adivasis are prevented from buying their daily necessities from the weekly bazaars, most of which were forcibly closed through threats and intimidation by the so-called security forces.

Who is blocking the development of the adivasis, who is preventing them from carrying on their normal activity like cultivating fields, tending animals, collecting minor forest produce, picking tendu leaves, obtaining their daily necessities, and so on will become as clear as daylight once you visit these remote villages. Hence the government, its “security” forces, and vigilante gangs are hell-bent on preventing independent observers and fact-finding teams from visiting these areas.

It is worthwhile to keep in mind that it is not the lack of development that has become the problem in the rural areas, particularly adivasi-inhabited areas. On the contrary, it is its imperialist-dictated anti-people development model that is driving them to displacement and deprivation, death and destitution, and extreme desperation.

There need be hardly any doubt that the poor adivasis were a happier lot before the civilized [corporate] goons set their foot on their soil. The development model pursued by [the rulers] displaced them and made them aliens in their own land.

The so-called development you are referring to is the development that India saw under the British colonialists. The talk of roads in remote areas is not for the benefit of the people, who are without food and drinking water, but only for the speedier movement of the raw materials from the hinterland to the cities, to help the mining sharks transport the mineral wealth and forest produce.

And, of course, for rushing in the state’s troops to quell any militant people’s struggle against the rapacious plunder by the tiny parasitic class of blood-sucking leeches.

The entire world knows that George Bush invaded Iraq for oil even as the media in the US barked about Saddam’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. All India knows that [the rulers] and the vultures they represent are itching to lay their hands on the abundant reserves of iron ore, coal, tin, bauxite, dolomite, limestone and other minerals of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and other states where their Operation Green Hunt has been launched.

Lastly, banding together Maoists with the state and vigilante gangs, and equating their revolutionary counter-violence in defence of the rights of the people with the counterrevolutionary violence of the state and vigilante gangs like the Salwa Judum is a despicable trick played by the rulers and those so-called democratic forces to obfuscate the stark reality of the brutal violence of the state and state-sponsored terrorists.

I can say with full confidence that there was no displacement, whatsoever, of innocent people due to the revolutionary counter-violence by the Maoists. It is only a handful of anti-people exploiters, tribal heads and landed gentry who fled the villages in the course of the class struggle. Many, however, surrendered to the people, mended their ways, and continue to live in the villages like others.

The Supreme Court should know that the displacement of the adivasis was done in accordance with a pre-meditated plan to evacuate the villages and settle them in Vietnam War-type strategic hamlets. And this policy is being continued by the BJP government in Chhattisgarh with full assistance from the Congress-led government at the Centre.

The Supreme Court, if it is serious about the displacement of the adivasis, should direct the central and state governments to immediately halt its brutal armed offensive on adivasi villages in the first place, which is resulting in the massive exodus of people estimated at around three lakhs since the current brutal war began in the name of Operation Green Hunt.

10. Human rights groups have condemned the security forces and the Maoists for not respecting the sanctity of schools. If the security forces take them over and convert them into barracks, the Maoists have also been guilty of destroying school buildings and infrastructure. Even in the absence of a ceasefire or dialogue, don’t you think both sides need to come to an understanding that schools and school children should not become targets of this war?

Azad: It has now become a fashionable thing for some human rights groups and the media personnel to play the role of referees in a sports event. By criticizing both sides equally they imagine they are being impartial or neutral in the war. If someone says that both Indians and the British were responsible for the violence in India during the two centuries of British rule, would you accept it?

Or that both Iraqis and the American occupiers are responsible for the violence in Iraq? Any freedom-loving person would unequivocally say it was the British colonialists that caused the bloodshed in India, and it is the American aggressors that are the cause of the unending violence in Iraq.

By criticizing both the so-called security forces and the Maoists for not respecting the sanctity of schools, these human rights groups imagine they are playing a neutral and impartial role. But they do not see the cause and effect chain of events.

They do not ask themselves the simple question: If the police and paramilitary do not occupy schools, then where is the need for the Maoists to destroy them? Do you know that in many villages it was not the Maoist squads but the people themselves who demolished school buildings since they did not wish to see the security forces create insecurity in their villages?

How can you ask the Maoists and the people to assure you that they will respect the sanctity of schools occupied or likely to be occupied by their tormentors?

My request to media people like you is: please do not be misled by an act or how it happened, but go deeper into why it happened. Only then you will reach the truth.

However, we agree with your proposition that even in the absence of a ceasefire or dialogue, both sides should come to an understanding that schools and school children should not become targets of the war. We take this occasion to convey to the GOI that it should immediately withdraw all its forces from school buildings and stop recruiting school children as SPOs and police informers.

If they withdraw their forces and assure they will not reoccupy school buildings, then our Party will desist from targeting schools. And if the government stops recruitment of school children as SPOs and police informers, then the very basis for punishing these people disappears.

But the larger issue is: can schools function even if the buildings are intact when the parents of the school children are murdered, raped, abducted, tortured, and are forced to flee? What do you have to say of the children of the three lakh people who fled the villages due to Operation Green Hunt I and II? What use are the school buildings and the talk of sanctity of schools when the villages themselves are deserted?

A more rational proposal would be to ensure that the inhabitants of the villages are resettled with the assurance that the police and paramilitary will not continue their atrocities and let them live in peace. This should assume first and foremost priority in the war theaters all over India, particularly Dandakaranya.

11. Is the Maoist party and leadership under pressure because of recent top-level arrests like that of Kobad Ghandy? Is there also a wider crisis of leadership with fewer activists from the intelligentsia getting attracted to Maoists?

Azad: I did not understand what pressure you are referring to. Is it the pressure for a ceasefire and talks? If so, then I would say you are completely off base. One cannot overcome pressure through such tactics. Actually the Party and leadership is growing rapidly in times of war.

Several new leaders are emerging out of the struggle. War is giving birth to new generals and commanders, which we never anticipated in normal times. While it took several years to produce a leader of caliber in relatively peaceful times, it is taking a fraction of that time in the midst of the war situation.

Today we even find children acquiring high level of consciousness at an early age. War is transforming the world outlook of the illiterate people, their understanding about the class nature of the state and its various wings, and how they have to get rid of the anti-people state and establish their own organs of power.

People have begun to understand from their own lives what Comrade Lenin had taught in his State and Revolution. This transformation has contributed to the development of leadership at all levels. At the central level, I agree there are some problems, though not very acute, after the losses in the past two years.

Overall, it is not true to say that there is a wider crisis of leadership due to drop in recruitment from the intelligentsia. You would be surprised to know that contrary to the assessment of various analysts and media personnel, the appeal of the Maoist movement has actually grown stronger in the intelligentsia.

And it is precisely this fact which is rattling [the rulers] and [their] trumpeters in the media. The threats and attacks on intellectuals have been increasing in tenor, and there are growing attempts at isolating the intellectuals who seem to sympathize with the Maoists. The more the growth in popularity of the Maoists and their politics, the greater the cacophony about the erosion of the mass base of Maoists, especially among the intellectuals.

You must also look at it from another angle, instead of concluding that [a] lack of intelligentsia has created a crisis of leadership. The mass base of the Maoists has actually grown stronger, notwithstanding the attempts of the rulers to destroy it by brute force. The more you try to crush it, the more it bounces back.

Our leadership is drawn basically from the oppressed class of adivasis, dalits, agricultural labourers and poor peasants. It is precisely because of this circumstance that our movement has become invincible. Intellectuals are a good asset for the party, but it is the basic classes that are the lifeblood of the Party. And we have plenty from these sections.

12. In Ganapathi’s interview to Jan Myrdal and Navlakha he said:

“I reiterate that at present no one party or organization is capable enough to be a rallying center for all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic forces and people. Hence, at present juncture our Party can play a significant role in rallying all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic forces and people.”

This suggests you see the Maoists as one part of a wider force of progressive, patriotic people. Who else do you consider part of these forces? Which organizations or parties do you regard as progressive and patriotic part of these forces? Does this not include the CPI and CPI (M)? Why then have Maoists in Bengal been involved in assassinating cadres of other communist parties like CPI (M)?

Azad: It is not only now, but all along we have considered ourselves an indivisible part of the broader force of other revolutionary, democratic and patriotic sections of people. Firstly, we are one of the several revolutionary detachments in the international detachment of the world proletariat, and we see ourselves as a part of the broad worldwide anti-imperialist front.

Our mass organizations are a part of the International League of People’s Struggles (ILPS) and are in the forefront of the struggle against American imperialism.

Within India, our Party was born in the midst of the revolutionary upsurge of the late 1960s, particularly with the glorious Naxalbari Uprising, and hence we are an indivisible part of all that is revolutionary in the Indian political stream.

We are also an heir to the great Telangana Armed Agrarian Uprising (1946-51), the Tebhaga Uprising of 1946, and all the revolutionary struggles led by the Communist Party since its birth in 1921, notwithstanding the betrayals by its central leadership at every critical turning point in the revolutionary political history of our country.

Second, and more pertinent to your query, is the fact that the Communist revolutionaries are politically (i.e., in terms of its program), a part of the wider democratic stream of all anti-feudal and anti-imperialist forces in the country.

This is the essence of our program of new democratic revolution (NDR), which seeks to unite all those opposed to imperialism, feudalism and comprador bureaucratic capitalism into one broad front to overthrow these enemies and establish a government comprised of the four-class alliance of the working class, peasantry, urban petty-bourgeoisie, and the national bourgeoisie.

Once you grasp this political basis of our NDR, it will not be difficult to understand why we are trying to form numerous tactical united fronts as part of forming a strategic united front in various states and at the all-India level.

To identify the organizations or parties that can be called progressive (usage of the term ‘democratic’ would be more appropriate) and patriotic, one has to determine not only whether they have any anti-imperialist, anti-feudal and anti-state or anti-authoritarian aspect included in their political programmes, but also one needs to look at their actual practice. We consider most of the ML revolutionary forces as part of this front.

We consider national liberation organizations like the NSCN, ULFA, PLA of Manipur, and the JKLF in Kashmir as part of the wider democratic forces fighting the Indian state.

We consider the non-parliamentary trade union organizations, the progressive organizations belonging to the religious minorities which are persecuted by state-backed Hindu fascist organizations; the organizations of Dalits and other oppressed castes, adivasis and women; the non-parliamentary organizations that are fighting for demands like separate a Telangana, Gorkhaland, Vidarbha, Bundelkhand and so on; the organizations that are waging struggles against SEZs, mining and other so-called development projects leading to massive displacement of people; organizations fighting against the Liberalization-Privatization- Globalization (LPG) policies of the reactionary rulers; the organizations which boldly confront the growing authoritarianism and unbridled state repression resulting in fake encounters, mass murders, and violation of all fundamental rights of the people; and so on, as part of this broad-based non-parliamentary democratic people’s front.

There are also a large number of intellectuals and other democratic individuals who are concerned about the well-being of the people and the sovereignty of our country at large. We consider all these as genuine patriotic forces that are deeply concerned about the future of our country and about the well-being of the overwhelming majority of the Indian people rather than of a tiny parasitical class that runs the country through the so-called mainstream parliamentary parties.

I am obviously leaving out the names of the organizations and individuals who in our opinion could play a crucial role in the revolutionary transformation of our country into a self-reliant, genuinely democratic society. Today we are passing through a phase of Indian McCarthyism that brands every form of dissent and anyone who questions the authoritarianism of the Indian state as Maoist in order to legitimize its witch-hunting and brutal repression.

Today immense possibilities have unfolded for the rapid advance of the revolutionary war in India, and the task of the revolutionary Party lies in how effectively and ably it can utilize the present situation, rally all those who have become the victims of the anti-people, imperialist-dictated policies of the comprador-feudal forces ruling our country, and forge a broad-based united front of all these affected sections of our society and all revolutionary, democratic and patriotic forces in the country.

This task should be achieved by defeating the brutal all-out countrywide coordinated war unleashed by the reactionary ruling classes of our country with the aid and assistance of the imperialists, particularly the American imperialists.

If we fail in achieving broader unity of all these forces, the fallout would be disastrous for the Indian people at large, since the aim of this cruel armed onslaught is not only to suppress the Maoist movement, but also to suppress every form of democratic dissent and struggle of the people against the authoritarian, feudal and autocratic structure of the Indian state and socio-political system.

As put forth by our General Secretary, Comrade Ganapathi, in a recent interview: “This war is principally against the Maoist movement but not limited to this movement and is aimed enough against all revolutionary, democratic, progressive and patriotic movements and the movements of oppressed communities of our society,  including the oppressed nationalities. At this juncture, all these forces have to think together how to face this mighty enemy and how to unite to go ahead.”

Now coming to your specific question regarding the CPI and CPI (M). Are they not a part of the wider democratic and patriotic forces? I would say yes and no. As far as the rank and file cadre of these parties is concerned, there is still some sincerity and zeal to work for the well-being of the people among a section of them.

But the leadership has completely capitulated to the exploiting ruling classes and pursues a reformist line that only helps sustain the status quo albeit with a few cosmetic changes.

Here too, we have to differentiate the CPI from the CPI (M). We do not place both the CPI and the CPI (M) in the same category. The CPI leadership has been critical of the policies of the CPI (M), has consistently opposed counter-revolutionary vigilante gangs like Salwa Judum propped up by the State and central governments, and is opposing the Operation Green Hunt launched by the Centre.

One can witness the reactionary anti-people nature of the policies of the CPI (M), especially in States where it is in power. Singur, Nandigram, Lalgarh, and a host of other names have stripped the CPI (M) of its guise of anti-imperialism and anti­-neoliberalism.

The CPI (M) is not even a democratic force, let alone  Communist. However, we are prepared to join forces with even these revisionists if they support non-parliamentary struggles on the basic issues of the people, and to the extent they uphold democratic values.

It is wrong to say we are assassinating the cadres of the CPI (M). We are confronting the armed onslaught by the stormtroopers like the Harmad Bahini and other armed [men] maintained by their party leaders by putting up courageous resistance. The struggle against the CPI (M) is part of the class struggle of the people against exploitation and oppression. We challenge them to an open debate on any issue.

Despite their diplomatic and opportunistic stance that their fight with the Maoists is mainly political, they are in the forefront in the war waged by the Indian ruling classes against the Maoists. Unable to confront us ideologically and politically, their leaders and spokespersons have unleashed a vicious campaign of outright lies and slander against the Maoists.

We call upon the cadres of the CPI (M) and other so-called left parties to come forward to unite with other forces to fight against the disastrous policies of the central and state governments and to unite with others to oppose the brutal war waged by the reactionary rulers guided by the US imperialists against the Maoist movement and all forms of democratic dissent. We are prepared to unite with all sincere and genuine forces in these parties who take the side of the broad masses of people.

13. Why has the CPI (Maoist) decided to reach out through the columns of The Hindu? To use a newspaper to clarify its views vis a vis the government?

Azad: Among the daily newspapers, The Hindu has a reputation for printing serious news and less of the sensational stuff that has become the norm of the media these days. Our party leadership has given interviews to this paper earlier, such as my interview on the developments in Nepal, which was covered in a two part article. In a lighter vein, I think it will reach out to our direct Enemy No. 1 at the present juncture, Mr. Chidambaram, too.

I think the media can play a role in carrying the views of a banned party to the government and the people at large, particularly at a time when facts about our Party are distorted, misinterpreted, and obfuscated in a meticulously planned manner. And when there is no scope for a dialogue given the determination of the rulers to carry out their pre-programmed war offensive that was worked out a year ago, we think it appropriate to reach out to the people at large through the media too.

Finally, I thank The Hindu for the thought-provoking and incisive questions it placed before our Party. We look forward to more such interactions with the media in future. On behalf of our Central Committee and our entire Party, I welcome any questions related to our ideology, political programme, strategy, tactics, and practice.

I hope through regular and active interaction between organizations like ours that are proscribed by the government and the media, an opportunity is provided to the people to arrive at a correct judgment and seek truth from facts. Otherwise, truth is certain to become a casualty in this world dominated by corporate sharks that control virtually every source of information that is fed to the people.

Elena Kagan’s Performance in Citizens United vs. The United States

From The Pen, or The People’s Email Network, a great site run by the left wing of the Democratic Party, an analysis of Elena Kagan, who is on Obama’s short list to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. According to this piece, Kagan looks like a bad choice. She seems to have badly bungled the government’s case in the outrageous Citizens United case. Let’s hope he picks someone else.

This post is a little hard to understand since it deals with legal theory, but I think most of you ought to be able to get through it. The main thing is that the Supremes were not allowed to write new law in this case. All they can rule on is findings of law, findings by the lower courts. Apparently the argument that the Supremes used to make their decision was dumped by all the lower courts. Even the plaintiffs apparently dumped it.

In these cases, they are supposed to remand to the lower court and ask to them to consider the new finding that the Supremes wish to pull out of their ass. This should have been Kagan’s main argument, but she hardly used it at all.

I’m not sure anything could have been done to stop this court from ruling this way though. They seem to have been dead set on it.

But she does seem to be an inferior legal mind to either Roberts or Alito, and possibly even to Clarence Thomas, which is pretty bad.

In a moment the 9th of our series of analyses cutting up the Supreme Court’s dreadful corporate personhood decision, as it relates specifically to the worst choice that could be made, current Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Even with the tens of thousands we have distributed already, we are still just starting to plaster “Corporations Are NOT The People” stickers on bumpers all over the country. So do please consider being the key activist in your own local neighborhood by picking up one of the 25 bulk packs for a modest cost, just enough for use to keep all this going.

Bulk Bumper Stickers

Free Bumper Stickers

We were not sure if we should address the embarrassingly pathetic performance by Solicitor General Elena Kagan in this analysis series of the multitude of unconscionable and premeditated errors foisted on the American people, when the Supreme Court held that corporations were the true rulers of all us. But since Kagan’s name is again being tossed about as a replacement for retiring Justice Stevens, we have no choice.

So we will confront this now, and will pick up the last thread we were discussing (the Supreme Court’s contortion of the First Amendment) again in the next installment after this.

Even we would have to admit that the government’s (Kagan’s) argument in this case did not even rise to the level of lameness. Because her performance was so muddle headed, Kennedy claimed license to say that the people must therefore lose. It is a specious excuse of course, because the Supreme Court has an independent obligation to respect precedent regardless of how poorly cited by the party for the people, as the justices being so wrongfully overturned no doubt argued behind the scenes (Stevens opinion pp. 7-8).

And moreover, Seth P. Waxman (who also argued the people’s side in oral argument) made the points that needed to be made, even if they flew right by Kagan herself.

And the first and most important of those points was that the Supreme Court was rushing into this decision in the stark absence of any record of testimony in the Court below to develop findings of fact on the issue they themselves wanted to resurrect (having previously been abandoned in the court below and not preserved for appeal by the corporations’ advocate).

For those who have not been following this series from the beginning, in the second installment we talked about what a “finding of fact” was, and how the review power of appellate courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, is supposed to be limited to making rulings of law, based on a record of testimony on the facts developed by the original trial court. If you like and it would be helpful, you can go back and read the second part on OpedNews.com.

So the complaint that the Supreme Court was barging ahead without even a factual record to support their decision was one of the first points we made in this series, and it should have been the first words out of Kagan’s mouth.

While Kagan in her written filings kind of made the procedural point that the Supreme Court should not revive the issue waived in the court below (Supplemental brief of appellee Federal Election Commission, pp. 3-5), at NO time did she argue that even if the Court were inclined to do so, it still could not do so fairly without returning the case back to the lower court for further proceedings there (what is called a “remand”).

What a remand would do is preclude an immediate (and in this case ill-advisedly hasty) decision by the Supreme Court, but allowing that it could be reviewed again after those necessary findings of fact were conducted, presuming one of the parties wanted to again appeal the subsequent decision by the lower court.

For her part, Justice Sotomayor did as valiant a job as she could to hand Kagan the ball, raising this issue herself when questioning attorney Olson (Oral argument, p. 25, lines 16-22.) Attorney Seth Waxman himself did indeed put up a glove to try to catch this ball by the end of his own presentation (Oral argument, p. 75, line 10 – p. 77, line 2). But it should have been the government’s first bulwark. Kagan did more than drop the ball, she did not even notice that there was a ball.

And the reason is, Kagan was so self-absorbed with the sound of her own voice, wandering miles away from any point persuasive on the case actually before the court, she did not even have a coherent presentation in mind stepping into that chamber. Kennedy ridiculed her in the opinion, describing the “litigating position of the Government” with the word “uncertainty” (Opinion, p. 23).

Roberts was even more pointed in his concurring opinion mocking her for discarding the original reasoning (the only righteous basis for stare decisis in the first place) which supported the cases they were unilaterally determined to reverse (Roberts opinion, pp. 12-13).

Here we remind you (part 5 of this series) that the only thing binding as precedent about a previous Supreme Court decision is the reasoning by which it was reached on the point of law critical to the decision, what is called its “essential holding”. But instead of making a strong defense of the Austin case based on its essential holding, Kagan walked in with a grab bag of alternative theories, including a vague one of her own, namely “something related to the shareholder interest that is in truth my view of Austin” (Oral argument, p 48, lines 14-15).

Hey, Kagan, who gives a flying fig what your view of the case is? Your job as Solicitor General was to argue what the view was of the Supreme Court justices who wrote the opinion you were there to preserve, to reinforce their reasoning, the basis of the precedent, not egotistically invent fatuous new theories on the spot in oral argument to show off what a brilliant legal mind you have. Nothing could demonstrate more that Kagan hasn’t got the slightest clue what our entire legal system, let alone the Supreme Court, is supposed to be about.

So utterly disconnected was Kagan from what was actually going on in that oral argument that Justice Stevens himself had to correct her for getting wrong the point that he was trying to help her with (Oral argument, p. 43, lines 3-5).

Oh, but it gets so much worse. Behold this black pearl of oral argument advocacy out of Kagan’s mouth.

“If you asking me, Mr. Chief Justice, as to whether the government has a preference as to the way in which it loses, if it has to lose, the answer is yes,” (Oral argument, p. 40, lines 4-7).

Yes, that’s the ticket, let’s go to the Supreme Court so we can tell them how they can rule against us. Let’s walk in with the attitude that we want to give them a road map about how we want to lose. Good grief!!

The most important quality of Justice Stevens, and why his replacement is so important, was his ability to build consensus in persuading other judges to join him, were they to be fair minded at all. In Kagan we would have the exact opposite, a self-indulgent self-marginalizer, who doesn’t even possess the listening skills to even hear what those who would be her fellow justices, were she unfortunately to be appointed, are saying.

She not only hasn’t got the legal mental weight to stand up to Kennedy or Roberts, she couldn’t even stand toe to toe with Thomas. He didn’t even have to open his mouth for her to make a fool of herself.

There is a sophomoric tradition in the Supreme Court that when a new justice is appointed they become the designated coffee fetcher for the rest when they conference together. Based on her abysmal performance in this case, we can predict with certainly that if we are stuck with Kagan as the next appointee she will never (without massive clerking help) rise above the level of legal coffee fetcher. We say anybody but Kagan. Enabling by her fumbling incompetence the worst Supreme Court decision of the last century is enough damage for one legal career.

“Caucasian Law Enforcement Defends Minority Rights,” by Alpha Unit

Harris County, Texas, is the site of the latest push for civil rights in America. The minority in question are Caucasians.

In Harris County, sheriff’s deputies seeking solidarity with like-minded others have their pick of civil rights “flavors” – the Mexican-American Sheriff’s Organization, the Afro-American Sheriff’s Deputy League, and, now, the Caucasian Law Enforcement Association.

Its founder, deputy Daniel McCool, is concerned, he says, with hiring practices of Sheriff Adrian Garcia, who was elected a couple of years ago as the county’s first Hispanic sheriff.

McCool doesn’t claim to have evidence of hiring malfeasance, but he believes that hiring is now based not on merit but on that old standard of “who you know” or on some kind of commitment to affirmative action. He and his fellow White officers are now, according to him, feeling the sting of discrimination that is coming from people “we used to call minorities.”

Mark Warren, whose article brought all of this to my attention, has a local’s take on the situation:

I’m from a little town in east Harris County called Highlands, and I can attest to the fact that there has always been a Caucasian Law Enforcement Association standing up for the rights of Whites. It’s called the “Harris County Sheriff’s Department.”

Extremely Racialized Language and Memes in the Teabagger Movement

Are Teabaggers racists? As usual, it’s an interesting question.

Teabaggers are just Republicans. 8

I’ve known quite a few California Republicans, and not all are racists. Out here they are more about hatred of government and liberals than about race. California Republicans have close friends, date and even marry people of other races. It’s often a White Republican male marrying an Asian (often Republican) male. I’ve known young Republican males who openly dated Black women.

Many of these people would support the Teabaggers, and some were so nuts they would probably go to their rallies.

So the situation is complicated.

Nevertheless, I am on the list for a major Teabagger mailing list. The list owner is the founder and owner of one of the larger Teabagger groups (something like Teaparty USA). Anyway, I get this guy’s mails on a regular basis.

I must say, in all of my years following US politics, I have never seen such blatant racial language, imagery and code words used by any major US political movement. The racial language in these mails is palpable, open, obvious, and clear. It’s actually pretty shocking in the context of US politics.


Whoa! That’s the headline of a recent Teabagger mail to me. Included was an ad for the Glenn Beck Show. Beck’s racial language these days is really shocking. I swear he sounds more like a White nationalist every day. He’s using the language, imagery and tone of the White nationalist movement on his program regularly. What’s he trying to do?


This one is even worse. Note the anti-Semitism and racism, followed by projection of racism onto non-racist Democrats, followed by the denial of the racism and anti-Semitism later on.

This is pretty typical.

One day I will get a blatantly anti-Semitic email, then the next day, I get a mail accusing Obama of being an anti-Semite for selling out Israel. I get a racist email bashing Blacks, then the next day, I get a mail accusing liberals of being the only real racists, and accusing Blacks of being racists. Then it quotes MLK favorably to top things off.

US White racism is a funny beast these days. It’s really progressed from the days of Bull Connor.

Christians against Abortion; Black Politicians Racists?; Anti-Obama Care; Anti-Give Away to BUMS; Abortion & The Bible; We The People Michigan; Tea Party – Michigan+; Free Speech, 1st Amend; Fire OBAMA & Congress; Election Fraud; Don’t Trust Obama; Discrimination on Race; Free Speech,1st Amendment; Against Welfare 4 Immigrants; Against Welfare Fraud; American 4 Tax Reform; Angry White America; Anti-Give Away to BUMS; Anti-Socialism-Racism; Get BUMS off Welfare; Fleecing White America; Fleecing of America; Fed up with Barack Obama; Fair Reporting; Equal Rights & Social Justice; End Slavery Taxes; End Affirmative Action; Defeat Amnesty

Those are some of their affiliated grouplets.

The Michigan groups are heavily involved with the Michigan Militia movement.

Note that they are calling all Black politicians racists.

Anti-give away to bums means anti-giveaway to Black bums.

Note the strong Christian fundamentalist and anti-abortion sentiment. This runs through all Teabagger posts.

Election fraud means that Obama is not an American, therefore he has no right to be President.

Discrimination on race means discrimination against Whites, the only kind of discrimination these guys care about. The implication, taken straight from the White nationalist playbook, is that all discrimination against non-Whites is over now, and the only remaining discrimination is against the majority.

The anti-tax rhetoric runs through all this stuff. It’s tied in with the anti-Black and anti-immigrant stuff. White tax dollars are going to Blacks and Browns, who don’t deserve it. That’s the subtext.

Note the calls to get rid of affirmative action. That’s not racist per se of course, but in the midst of all this stuff, it’s just one more piece of the puzzle.

Note the attacks on the media. The media is run by liberals, supposedly. No matter how rightwing the media is, it’s never far right enough for Republicans, who keep calling the media liberal in order to keep moving the goalposts and pushing the media further to the Right.

Equal Rights and Social Justice

It appears that White Politicians must look after all the voters but there seems to be a different set of rules for Black and Latino Politicians.

I noticed that retired Florida Senator Mel Martinez did little to nothing about all the illegal immigrants in Florida, the same Martinez retired the day after he voted for Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, also Latino.

What I want to know as a White American Citizen is how do I know that Francisco Rodriguez, running for Florida State House, District 83 or Marco Rubio running for Florida State Senate will look after “All the People”?

I know these are sensitive questions, but they must be asked. These Politicians must be held accountable for their promises while campaigning and stop the lying to get elected!

Thank you, The Christian Patriot from Florida. April 10, 2010.

Whoa! That’s some pretty racialized language against Latinos!

What’s interesting about Teabagger mails is that there are many open references to White Americans. In US politics, that’s usually beyond the pale.

Equal rights and social justice is a play on the use of those terms by the Left. These guys are for equal rights and social justice, but only for Whites. They’re also implying that there no longer exists equal rights or social justice for White Americans. That language is from White nationalism.



Maybe White America is very unhappy with the Democratic Party forcing them to support illegal immigrants so that the Democrats get the Latino vote?


Maybe White America is tired of all the Black violence and crime?



Whoa! That’s some really racialized language! Darn. I can’t remember the last time I saw that coming out of any major US political movement. That sounds like it’s copied from the commenters at American Renaissance .

American racism has moved way beyond Nordicism. The guy who sends me that stuff is an Italian guy from Florida.

The Teabagger movement is more about US White politics versus US Hispanic or Black politics. As such, they are dying for Black traitors to go to their racist parties and line up behind this White racist movement. There have always been Blacks who were willing to sell out their race and line up with the enemy.

Less ferocious forms of White racism (less virulent than say Jim Crow, segregation or slavery) use anti-Black Blacks to further the White racist project. In this way, they don’t hate all Blacks per se, and the racist nature of the project becomes foggy and hard to see.

All in all, based on the extremely racialized language they are using (shocking in the context of a major US political movement), I must say that this is one of the most openly and virulently White racist major US political movements I’ve seen in a long time. By virulent I do not mean to equate them with segregationists, slavers or Jim Crow folks. US White racism has moved beyond that for the most part and has evolved into a more benign, though still very racist, movement.

Hot Black Women: Trinidad and Tobago

Carnival in Trinidad and Tobago. The woman on the lower left is incredibly beautiful. She also has African features and dark skin.

The woman next to her actually looks Asian. Many of the guys appear Amerindian, but a friend of mine who lives in Trinidad and Tobago (T &T) told me that they are mixed with East Indian, Black and White. Strange. How do you mix those three and come up with an Amerindian look?

How could any White man look at that Black woman and not think she is beautiful? You know, growing up White, we were all socialized to think that all Black women are ugly. The socialization continues into adulthood. A lot of us never bought it, but it kind of sinks in anyway.

I suspect that this woman may be mixed race? Some of the most beautiful Black women of all are fairly mixed. We have some Black women around here who look like this woman. A couple of them are part Black, part White and part Indian, creole from Arkansas. One of them also has Filipino. Her sister won a beauty contest here in the Central Valley. She’s a knockout!

Creoles from Louisiana and Arkansas do have more White in them than other Blacks. I’ve known a few of them and they take great pride in this. It’s kind of funny actually. They think they are better than other Blacks because they have more White in them. Creoles also associate with Whites a lot, and often seem to get along with them pretty well. One Creole woman I know refers to other Blacks as “niggers,” but it’s like she’s not one herself. She’s Creole! She’s better! It’s funny.

The Trinidadians are said to be some of the most mixed race people on Earth. Black Trinidadians are 4

There are two schools of thought about mixed race people. The White nationalists say that mixed race people are automatically ugly mutts. There is another group who thinks they often look better than the purer races. I suppose it’s possible to get the worst physical qualities of both races. The Whites used to say that about the “half-breed” Indian-White mixes in the Old West – they had the worst qualities of the White man and the Red man.

But just as often or maybe more often, mixed race people seem to be better looking than purer single race people. Let’s face it, the purer races have their beauties, but they also have harsh features in the extreme.

With Whites, they can look like Neandertals at the extreme. Asian men often say they find White women to be too masculine looking. I never thought of it before, but when I started looking, lo and behold! Our women are somewhat masculine looking, especially as compared to Asian women, who are ultra-feminine.

Pure Asians can have high cheek bones and almost look like aliens.

Pure Blacks can be prothagnous.

On and on.

But when you mix well, you often tone down the harsher qualities that you find in the purer folks and it seems, paradoxically, that they more subtle qualities of beauty are heightened. I don’t know how that works.

Sort of like a recipe, I guess, like of this, little of that, fantastic. Too much of this, too much of that, overwhelming.

Animal and plant breeders of ten breed all sorts of strains together to get the ultimate strain of this or that.

Cuba Versus the Rest of the Region

Good article.

I should point out that death squads are back in El Salvador. They are not killing many, but they are killing a few.

And they are back in a big way in Honduras ever since the US-sponsored and promoted coup that removed the democratically elected President for the crime of raising the minimum wage. Death squads are killing people just about every day in Honduras lately. I wonder how much longer this can last before the Left takes up guns again.

And Haiti has always been run by death squads. After the US-sponsored coup which removed President Aristide (US mercenaries and Marines appeared at his mansion and ordered him to leave the country), death squads have rampaged through Haiti. At least 3,000 people have been killed. Those targeted were the supporters of Aristide. The US supports the death squads in Haiti and Honduras to the hilt, and probably supports them in Guatemala and El Salvador too (they always did in the past).

On this question, Obama is no socialist or Communist. He’s just another far rightwing US imperialist running interference for the reactionary cliques down South. There’s barely any light between Obama and Bush on Latin American policy. Democrats or Republicans, it’s always the Monroe Doctrine down there.

Anti-Communists like to say that no one ever flees to a Communist regime, but the eastern part of Cuba is full of Haitians and Jamaicans who have fled their countries. Cuba took them in, and they like it a Hell of a lot better in Cuba. Everything is relative, you know.

"What the Hell Is Wrong With Some People?" by Alpha Unit

Being on this blog has been eye-opening for me. I’ve learned how fascinated people are by the minutest racial differences. People can go on and on here about how White somebody is. People can go on at length discussing details about people they supposedly dislike, usually Black people. This kind of thinking is alien to me. I readily acknowledge that there are racial differences among people. But I can’t imagine caring deeply about those differences. What kind of person cares deeply and intensely about the finest racial and ethnic distinctions? If you’re an anthropologist or some sort of scientist, sure. Differences and distinctions might have repercussions, especially for medical treatments and the like. But if you’re just an ordinary person living a pretty ordinary life, why do you give a damn about all this stuff about who belongs to which haplogroup, what degree of Whiteness exists in some such group, whether of not this other group is really Black or not, and so forth? Why are you so fixated on the beauty or ugliness of some group of people? If you find a group of people unattractive, that’s your business; so be it. So concentrate on those souls you find so gorgeous, and ignore those other people. Who needs to hear your justification of why you find Group X so unappealing? Guess what: you don’t have to find them appealing. Whoever gave you the impression you did? They’re going to keep on existing and looking the way they look, with or without your approval. In the meantime, the Beautiful People are waiting for your gaze. Don’t deny them another moment of your attention.

“What the Hell Is Wrong With Some People?” by Alpha Unit

Being on this blog has been eye-opening for me.

I’ve learned how fascinated people are by the minutest racial differences. People can go on and on here about how White somebody is. People can go on at length discussing details about people they supposedly dislike, usually Black people. This kind of thinking is alien to me. I readily acknowledge that there are racial differences among people. But I can’t imagine caring deeply about those differences.

What kind of person cares deeply and intensely about the finest racial and ethnic distinctions? If you’re an anthropologist or some sort of scientist, sure. Differences and distinctions might have repercussions, especially for medical treatments and the like. But if you’re just an ordinary person living a pretty ordinary life, why do you give a damn about all this stuff about who belongs to which haplogroup, what degree of Whiteness exists in some such group, whether of not this other group is really Black or not, and so forth?

Why are you so fixated on the beauty or ugliness of some group of people? If you find a group of people unattractive, that’s your business; so be it. So concentrate on those souls you find so gorgeous, and ignore those other people. Who needs to hear your justification of why you find Group X so unappealing?

Guess what: you don’t have to find them appealing. Whoever gave you the impression you did? They’re going to keep on existing and looking the way they look, with or without your approval. In the meantime, the Beautiful People are waiting for your gaze. Don’t deny them another moment of your attention.

Anarcho-Capitalism? We Already Have It

The previous post dealt with the sheer madness of something called anarcho-capitalism, a baffling philosophy with roots in anarchism, capitalism and especially libertarianism. Because anarchism is typically a Leftist philosophy, one wonders whether anarcho-capitalism is right or leftwing. Anarcho-capitalists are quite coy, like Libertardians, and often refuse to admit that they are extreme rightwingers. Instead, they say they are “neither right nor left.”

This has ended up conning a lot of fools, mostly young, single, moneyed, male fools, usually White but disturbingly sometimes also Black and Hispanic, into lining up with Libertardianism as some sort of weird progressive vision.

It’s nothing of the kind.

True, many anarchists are Leftists, but searching through the Wikipedia article on anarcho-capitalism, I found few if any Leftists. I did find tons of rightwingers, mostly extreme rightwingers, often Libertardians, but also in many cases White racists such as White Separatists, neo-Confederates, paleocons, etc.

There can’t possibly be anything progressive about anarcho-capitalism, not in any possible universe. Most of us on the Left are dubious at best about capitalism. Capitalism may be a necessary evil, but so what? So is death, disease, all sorts of shitty things. Big deal. I should as much cheer for capitalism as I cheer for aging and death. Three cheers!

Anarcho-capitalism is everything fucked about capitalism balled into one horrific, nightmarish mass, compressed into a solid and toxic cannonball with the density of a Black Hole hurling right at your face, and no ducking allowed. Lie back and enjoy it, suckers.

Let us be clear. We Leftists are Big Staters. We like taxation to a degree, government services that benefit the people, redistribution of wealth to a degree, Big Government programs, etc. We don’t need a classless society; I have no objections to a physician making eight times more than a ditch-digger. But at some point extremes of wealth call for intense government redistribution of wealth.

The capitalist or “successful person” has generally “earned” his right to untold multiples of average wealth only in the most dubious in senses.

Capitalism, such that we allow this necessary evil beast to exist at all, needs to be caged, like all wild and dangerous animals. Capitalism must be regulated. Not strangled, but regulated.

As this article makes clear, we’ve already got something like anarcho-capitalism. It’s called the Republican Party. Or the teabaggers. Or the conservatives. It isn’t really the pure, real deal anarcho-capitalism, but it’s heading there.

The Bush Administration was a quasi-anarcho-capitalist administration. The insanity of anarcho-capitalism is shown by the theory that the best society is one in which business regulates itself. The Bush Administration relied on “voluntary regulation” more times than I can count.

The problem with voluntary regulation is that it’s no regulation at all. Business sectors under a regime of voluntary regulation generally refuse to regulate themselves in any way whatsoever. This has been proven so many times, there’s no use testing it anymore.

According to this theory, the good businesses regulate themselves and  win out in the context with the evil businesses who refuse to regulate themselves, and the capitalists get rich and everyone lives happily ever after.

This is the most cruel of fantasy worlds.

In capitalism, bad is much more like to drive out good than the other way around, the prerogatives of capital being what they are.

Looking around the world, capitalists aren’t exactly regulating themselves just to be nice and get workers, society, environmentalists and liberals to love their company and buy their shit instead of Evil Co’s shit. When all the successful corporations are spawns and clones of Evil Co., you either go evil yourself or you’re in Chapter 13.

The main thing is that all the nice stuff that business is supposed to do – not abuse workers or consumers, not pollute, not destroy the environment, pay their taxes, not destroy society and the economy – all of these business ethics are bad for the bottom line.

Abuse your workers and customers and refuse to regulate yourself? Your bottom line goes up.

Destroy the environment, society and the economy? Your stock’s rising.

Do the right thing, treat your workers and consumers well, regulate yourself, be kind to the environment, be a good corporate citizen? Watch your competitors, Mafia Co. and Evil Scum, Ltd. make mincemeat out of you.

From the article:

If you are an anarcho-capitalist, you believe that the force of the market will have companies do the right thing. The problem with this idea is that what is right for a nation is not the same as what is right for a profit making enterprise…

This is what corporations are for, the pursuit of profit. If they are not limited, then they become rapacious entities which will cut any corner, bend any rule to make more and more money. Corporations are prone to this kind of behavior even when they are limited by regulation, which is why there must be strong enforcement as well.

As you can see, anarcho-capitalism is utopia!

It is time to stop calling the Republicans capitalists, they are no longer that benign, we need to start pointing out the fact they would be happiest with no regulation. This is a powerful meme, if we are willing to use it.

No regulation means a return to acid rain. No regulation means not knowing if your medicines are safe. It means that our drinking water could have lead and PCP’s and other contaminants. It means that we would be unable to have an confidence in the safety of our cars or washing machines or ovens. It would take us to a society where the only motto is Caveat Emptor, buyer beware.

Yeah right. Some utopia.

Noam Chomsky, an anarcho-syndicalist Leftist, on anarcho-capitalism:

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn’t the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error.

The idea of “free contract” between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

Anarcho-capitalism? We’ve already got it, or we’re heading there anyway.

You Want Customer Feedback? You Got It

Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.

I’m proud that my friends have a great sense of humor, in particular, as offensive a sense of humor as I do. I aim to offend everyone, hopefully. If there’s any group I haven’t offended yet, let me know? Negritos? Check. Anti-Negrito post coming soon. Stay tuned!

This is what a friend of mine told me:

You know on Domino’s Pizza, it says, “We love your feedback? Well, I ordered a pizza, and just to be an asshole, for no other reason (I love their pizza and their service), I vomited in the box. That was my “feedback.” Funny or what? ROLFLMFAO! Well, anyway, I took it back to Domino’s, opened the box, and said, “Here’s my feedback.” And then I started laughing. The guy at the counter got mad and told me to fuck off.

Fuck Domino’s! I hate Domino’s!

Damn! That’s funny, man! I wish I’d thought of that one.

I agree, screw Domino’s. I hate em too. Well, now I do anyway. Humorless prigs.

Some people just can’t take a joke. Jeez.

Lighten up guys.

I Never Knew Hayek Was a Socialist

But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others.

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

It is planning for security of the second kind which has such an insidious effect on liberty. It is planning designed to protect individuals or groups against diminutions of their incomes.

Let a uniform minimum be secured to everybody by all means; but let us admit at the same time that all claims for a privileged security of particular classes must lapse

[T]here is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

There can be no question that adequate security against severe privation will have to be one of our main goals of policy (Hayek 1944).

Friedrich Hayek is the God of the “Austrian” Libertarians, the nuttiest of all, and The Road to Serfdom is his Bible. But if you actually read this monster book, it turns out that Hayek would be called a Communist by the teabaggers, Republicans, elites and corporations of today, since, anyone insisting on any minimum safety net is automatically a Communist. At the very least some kind of social democrat. Hayek was to the Left of Bill Clinton, who got rid of welfare. He’s to the Left of Barack Obama, who is busy trying to destroy Social Security.

It’s a sad day when they Hayeks are so reasonable that they’re nearly social democrats because the center has moved to the right of Hayek himself.

Of all of the Libertarian thinkers, the Austrians are considered the craziest and most dangerous of them all. Those lined up with the Austrians include the wildest of the Libertarians, including the fake anarchists known as anarcho-capitalists (I thought we had anarcho-capitalism already).

These people move beyond gutting all social spending and all normal government functions, selling off all roads, parks, forests, beaches, marine reserves, grasslands, etc. Supposedly, the gap in social spending will be taken up by charities, who will compete to see who can serve the poor better. LOL! Why would anyone get into the “business” of being a charity? For God’s sake, there’s no money to be made. It’s all just a money-loser. That right there just shows you how deranged Libertarians are.

Anyway, the Austrians go beyond. The want to get rid of state cops, fire departments and even courts. They will replace them with private cops and private firefighters. How these guys bill I will never figure out. Supposedly they will compete on how best they serve the public.

I guess the nice White suburbs can hardass Crack Down on Crime cops for their money, while the ghetto folks (How will they have the money to buy any cops?) will purchase the laid-back, Go Easy on the Criminals Cops, perfect for a criminal society. I assume at some point the private cop forces (Really warlordism) will inevitably shoot it out as private warlord cop armies and paramilitaries do all over the 3rd World. I suppose that’s all part of the anarcho-capitalism fun and games, dodging the bullets and all.

Fire departments? Competition once again? And how do they get paid? The perfect Republican way. Your house burns down, you not only over fork over for everything else you lost and buying everything new but you dish out another $20K for the bastards who fought your fire.

Of course, the longer the fire goes on, the more they make, so firefighters will drag out their battles with the flames. Since they get paid per fire fought, at some point, firefighters or the paramilitary gangs allied with them will go around torching places so they can get paid to fight the fires.

Courts? Why, we will have competition in the court system! Criminals will prefer the Get Out of Jail Free Court, while victims will prefer the Hang Em High Court. How they will sort this all out no one knows.

You buy and sell your leaders too. Kind like most capitalist societies already do, you know?

The environment will take care of itself, as it’s the evil state that wrecks the environment, not the naturophilic capitalist John Muir-Rachel Carson types.

Some advocate getting rid of all laws, which leaves it an open question why you would need cops. Some guy just shot your family? Take the bastard to court, dammit! Ruin his credit forever!

Others want laws to be bought and sold on the free market, but they already are anyway here in anarcho-capitalist US, so I don’t see how this is a reform.

I guess the military gets replaced by private militias, contractors and mercenaries, but there’s nothing new about that. It already operates that way in Russia and the 3rd World, where the rich and businesses have their own private armies, frequently assassinating their competitors.

The defense of those who could not afford cops or armies. Why, wonderful charity armies would spring up to lay it all on the line for your sorry impoverished ass for free. Yeah right.

Clearly, corporations would buy their own armies and would not only attack workers, communities, etc. like say the Colombian death squads of today, but they would even go further and in the US, where the private armies had the latest military hardware, surely they would attack other nations to drive out competitors, overthrow regimes bad for business, force open new markets, etc. All the stuff that imperialist militaries already do, but with the sociopathic ethics of capitalism to make it all even more shitty and evil than it already is.

A lot of racists, especially White Southern racists, support anarcho-capitalism because, well, Southern caste society has always been pretty anarcho-capitalistic anyway. What was the KKK but a private militia? Also, in the glorious anarcho-capitalist world, everyone can discriminate their asses off against anyone they want to, and that prospect makes racists go all google-eyed.

As you can see, the Austrians even distort the findings of their leader, Hayek.

They lie, like most neoliberals do.

Just like how the neoliberals lie about Adam Smith, who was adamant that the state had to manage the free market. The neoliberals just pick and choose the crap they want to believe even from the Biblical tomes of their Gods. Like rabbis arguing over the Talmud, it’s all a matter of interpretation to them.


Hayek, Friedrich A. 1944. The Road To Serfdom. University of Chicago Press, pp. 120-122

“The Truth About ‘Indian Socialism’,” by Peter Tobin

Via my colleague Peter Tobin, an explication of Indian socialism. I told him that commenters were saying that India had already tried socialism and it had failed, so Maoism was doomed from the start and had already been tried anyway. I doubted this and asked him for an explication of Indian socialism, how it differed from Maoism and why it failed, particularly even in a socialist sense.

Peter is very smart, and he’s also a very good writer.

Regarding the notion about India having already tried socialism – it depends on what you call ‘socialism.’

Congress India was a progressive nationalist party which had an, admittedly, sizable socialist faction. During the twenties and thirties it became dominant and at Independence could claim the adherence of the two leading figures in CI, Nehru and Menon.

Their socialism, however, was that of the Second International, which from the beginning of the 20th century became an openly reformist option, which accepted the constitutional niceties of bourgeois democracy.

It specifically rejected the path of Communist revolution in favour of Fabian strategy, which envisaged socialism coming through an evolutionary process, in which the free market dissolved before the logic of more intense collective measures brought about by the tendencies of all markets to monopolize and all industrial processes to become more collective.

This process would be aided by socialist/social democratic parties enacting progressive legislation through a parliamentary system, in which it would compete in the ‘market place of democracy’ with openly bourgeois parties.

The parties who successfully operated within these parameters were initially the Scandinavian countries before the second world war and fairly spectacularly by the post-war Labour party in Britain, which nationalized the commanding heights of the economy, rail, steel, coal, etc and initiated the Welfare State. Other European countries, to a greater or lesser degree, followed this path, among whom the most outstanding was West Germany.

These developments were made possible by Marshall Aid, granted by America, as a means of competing with the Soviet bloc at on level and containing it at another, (Viz Harriman, Kennan).

It is also a hard fact that large sections of the economy were left in private hands, and the principle of the mixed economy was accepted, with the proviso – and certainty – that they would inevitably wither (see above).

The SI came from Marxism (especially that of the German Social Democrats) but it abandoned Marx’s revolutionary side (vide; Kautsky) because it claimed that socialism was economically determined, as against Lenin and the Third International who argued for revolutionary political intervention and the involvement of the masses, under the leadership of a vanguard Communist party.

The progressive left of Congress India emerged under the influence of, and eventually joined, the SI. Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, etc. followed the path of Lenin and the TI.

It is true that Congress India did try to follow a Western type of parliamentary democratic socialism in the post-Independence spirit of optimism, and a diluted form of socialism was promoted which stressed economic planning and welfare. There were also state investments where there were no private interests. There was a State Commission in 1950 which saw the first 5 year plan launched in 1951, which while nationalizing some of new, but still insignificant, modern industrial sectors, e.g, steel, mainly concentrated on raising agricultural output.

Initially there were some good GDP growth rates, but there was almost complete failure to provide decent, comprehensive welfare and to alleviate the plight of the overwhelming rural majority. But this socialism was a half dead thing in a half dead world because in did not involve a land to the tiller or cooperative element, leaving the landlords and the zamindars in ownership and control.

Crucially, while the Ambedkar Constitution outlawed casteism in theory, in practice it remained a decisive social and cultural force. How can expect to build socialism without the involvement, based on equality, of the broad masses?

Capitalist, Brahminical corruption remained and grew in strength, and with India’s humiliating defeat by the Chinese in 1962, Nehru’s attempt to, as he said in 1955 to establish “a socialist pattern of society,” was effectively over and India started the march towards Anglo-Saxon style capitalism.

The Chinese Communist Party did not fuck around; they seized all the commanding heights of the economy, especially agriculture, freed the peasants from the grip of the landlords and began their long march based upon collectivization, mass participation and cultural revolution. Ultimately, wherever they are at the moment, it was much more successful than the feeble Indian attempt.

It is Mao’s type of socialism that the Indian masses need, not Nehru’s (who was only picked by Gandhi to divert radicalism from Communism). That is what the comrades in the CPI (Maoist) are fighting for.

Please point to these people that therefore, socialism is not homogeneous, but takes different forms given different objective historical and ideological conditions. Also there are some who wave the red flag in order to oppose it.

India tried a form of democratic socialism that has since failed in the developed countries to a greater or lesser extent, as most of these SI parties are now more or less on board with the neoliberal form of free market capitalism that has dominated the last thirty years.

India gained its Independence in heroic circumstances and after bitter struggle, but it did not follow through with a thoroughgoing revolution that emancipated and unlocked the creativity and potential of its peoples.

But it is never too late, so let the corrupt, gangster, Brahminical, comprador class tremble. There is a broom moving that will sweep them in to the dustbin of history. They know this and that is why they have launched Operation Green Hunt, with American and Israeli aid – and generally replaced the ‘world’s biggest democracy’ with the world biggest fascist state.

Inquilab Zindabad!

Teabagger Rally, Circa 1960

Notice how pro-Black = Communism in 1960? Now we have a proud pro-Black Black man in the Presidency in 2010, and pro-Black = Communism once again.

Same people, different decade.

Via this excellent, but very long, post at Daily Kos. The post is very long, but you might want to look through it. The liberals there are actually debating what role racism plays in the Teabaggers. It’s not an entirely unreasonable argument.

Honestly, it’s hard to say what role racism plays in the Teabaggers.

Sure, there is a Black Agenda and a White Agenda in the US. The Teabaggers are for the White Agenda and against the Black Agenda. They see this President as a “traitor” President. Not one of us – not an American, not a citizen, a Muslim, get it? Not one of us – he’s not White! However, most Teabaggers are more sophisticated than most White nationalists.

WN’s in general oppose Obama because he is, as they put it, “the latest outrage, a Negro President.” Most WN’s will not accept any Black as President, no matter his politics or agenda.

The Teabaggers in general are much more sophisticated than that. American White racism is subtle and hard to pick up on unless you are used to the code words.

The Teabaggers will use any Black who is anti-Black agenda and pro-White agenda. That is, Black traitors and sell-outs to Whitey are A-OK with most tea partiers. This is why the Teabaggers are so hard to figure out. The Teabaggers will gladly support any Black pol who backs their agenda and supports White America against his people.

So their opposition to Obama is not “based on the fact that he is Black.” He’s a Black who’s working for the Blacks, and in US White America, that’s called working for the enemy .

There is much discussion in the thread about whether or not Teabaggers have it in for poor Whites too. No one knows.

The Right in the US, from the KKK all the way down, always feared that low-income Whites would unite with low-income Blacks on class terms, and they’ve always sought to throw a wedge between that incipient alliance. They succeeded very well.

There is a good argument that Prohibition was a WASP project by WASP’s outraged at the drunkenness and Underclass behavior of “non-Whites” such as the Irish and the Italians. Prohibition was really a White Supremacy project.

When Prohibition ended, it was replaced immediately with marijuana prohibition. This was sold to frightened Whites on the basis that Underclass Mexicans and Blacks were smoking weed, getting horny and screwing White girls or killing White people. Worse, they were corrupting Whites with Underclass Black and Brown values. Marijuana Prohibition was a White Supremacy project.

Under FDR, Whites were adamant that they be allowed to discriminate for WPA jobs. And they did discriminate a lot. FDR tried to stop it by forcing WPA projects in the South to hire both Blacks and Whites, but it was a tough haul.

Notably, Social Security and other social protections were initially denied to farm workers and domestic workers . In the 1930’s, these classes of employees were for the most part Black. The sentiment at the time was the same as now – Whites saying, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to those people.” It was Tea Party 1934.

When Reagan came in, poverty was rewritten to mean “Black.” The phony and nonexistent welfare queen was created. I see this backlash as a reaction against the Civil Rights Liberation of the 1960’s. It was another Reconstruction reactionary backlash, the 2nd or 3rd Reconstruction if you will. Every time Blacks get some rights, there’s a White backlash to withdraw many of the rights newly granted.

There have always been plenty of White poor. Go to West Virginia sometime and look around. But for the last 30 years at least, poverty has been rewritten to mean “Black.” Poor = Black and increasingly Brown. When Teabaggers say that Obama is for the poor and against them, they mean he is for the Blacks and the Browns and against the Whites.

The problem in the US is that racism is all tied up in issues of class. Class and race are mingled in America for so long now that it’s hard to tell where one starts and the other ends. That’s why discussions about whether or not the Teabaggers are racist are ultimately futile. Until you understand the American race-class marriage and the decades-long use of code words for racialized projects, the discussion isn’t going anywhere.

The “China Has Moved to Capitalism” Lie

In the comments section, a defender of capitalism (who I think doesn’t understand it very well) takes issue with my defense of Maoist China:

True, Maoism has a spotty record, but compared to India, Communist China looks like paradise.

Compared to India, many parts of Oakland look like paradise!

Under Mao, China experienced great famines, political repression, persecution of intellectuals during the cultural revolution, and other problems during the so-called “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution” (More like “Great Leap Backwards” and the “Cultural Devolution”).

Only when Deng Xiaoping took over did China begin to prosper, which they did by adopting Capitalism. As he said, “I don’t care if a cat is black, white, red, or yellow, so long as it catches mice” (paraphrase). While China is more Socialist than India due to its relative absence of baseline poverty, China’s economic growth came more from Capitalism than Communism.

Of course, let’s also not forget that China has a ton of people. Therefore, even if the vast majority of people are poor, there are at least 400-500 million well educated and middle class people, which is more than the entire population of the United States. I know that India also has a ton of people and they’re not doing as well, but you get my point. Besides, India’s on the rise.

Robert, I think you too often conflate Capitalism with neoliberal economics and corporate America. Adam Smith hated corporations and believed in a truly free market.

If he were alive today, he wouldn’t approve of corporations outsourcing jobs, corporate tax breaks at the expense of working people, or the fact that many politicians are on the payroll of corporations and special interests. He wouldn’t approve of monopolies that harm local industries and drive people out of business.

I’m just as angry about corporate greed and theft as you are, but to attribute various ills to Capitalism is just wrong.

Also, let’s be honest, Can you name a nation that became wealthy through an economic system that wasn’t Capitalism? Sure, you have European nations that are Socialist in many ways, but they got rich in the first place through Capitalism. The wealthy non-western nations (ie. Japan, South Korea, Singapore) became wealthy by adopting western ways, which practiced Capitalism.

Well, I hate capitalism. Recall that I am a socialist. However, I support any kind of socialism, from piecemeal programs in places like the US to social democracy in Europe to China’s neo-Communism. The best system is a mixed economy with capitalist, socialist, collective, family and other forms of ownership. I call that socialism. You may call it what you will.

First of all, China and India were in the same place in 1949. Even all through the Mao era, China kicked India’s ass, and they are still doing so under neo-Communism. Maoism and neo-Communism simply kick ass on the Indian system, period.

Also understand that China’s economy grew by about 1

The Great Leap Forward did have a problematic famine, and in one year, there were 4.3 million excess deaths as compared to 1949. But in the years immediately before and after that year, the death rate was vastly higher in 1949.

The real killer was capitalist China! Every year, Maoism was saving a good 10 million plus lives.

We need to take this into consideration when thinking of why people put up with Maoism.

A new system comes in, Maoism. It’s repressive, but so was the old system. More importantly, the state cares about you, the lowly worker or peasant. And with each year after 1949, increasingly fewer and fewer people are getting sick and dying. People are living longer and longer every year. Looking back at the previous system, many more people were sick, many more were dying, and people were not living as long. Sure, there was a small setback and a famine for one year, but there was more like a short return to the bad old days.

Seen in this context, you can see why the people regarded Maoism as a Godsend and not some killer system. Sure, the system killed a few people, but many more were being killed before. You do the math!

It is important to note that China’s recent growth has not occurred due to “capitalism.” Most of that growth is coming from public firms, generally controlled by small municipalities and labor collectives. Under Mao, all firms were officially owned by the workers. Such is the case in China of today – all Chinese firms are officially owned by the workers. Sound like capitalism to you? The 3rd largest manufacturer of TV’s in the world is a public firm – it’s owned by the workers – a socialist enterprise.

Under the Chinese system, municipalities and labor collectives run firms. They compete with each other. For instance, if a municipality has a very successful enterprise, they will make lots of money. They will pay their workers more and give them better benefits. So workers flock to those cities from all over China to try to work for that firm. In this way, cities compete with each other. Sound like capitalism to you?

The cities that do best turn into “company towns.” They provide public housing for the workers, public transportation, public day care, etc. Sound like capitalism to you?

It is illegal to own land in China. Does that sound like capitalism to you? This is another Mao era decree that the radicals have been trying to get rid of. Chinese land ownership is so fair precisely because of the forbidding of the private ownership of land. Were that not in place, a few rich people would own all of rural China, like they do in India.

The state owns all the land. You go out into the wild areas, and it’s all state-owned. And much of it is protected too. If the state didn’t own that land, private speculators would have bought up a lot of that land and destroyed it.

They do let you lease the land your home is on. And if you have been paying rent on your home for a long time, increasingly, the state is just giving you the house. You own your house. You can even sell your house to someone else. You can sell the land-use rights on the land that you own the rights to. The state gives you a house to live in for free. Sound like capitalism to you?

There is a system of free public education available to most Chinese, through the graduate level. Sound like capitalism?

China offers health insurance, but it’s rather expensive, and most cannot afford it. But it covers 8

The Chinese state is now planning to spend a tremendous amount of money upgrading the rural areas, because there is starting to be some serious poverty there. People are leaving the rural areas to work in the cities. The state will spend vast sums of money on roads, infrastructure, irrigation, schools, housing, health care, etc in the rural areas. Only a socialist state would do that. Capitalist states never do these things.

All farmland in China is owned by the state. It is often managed by rural collectives though, and they can keep a lot of what they sell. A capitalist country where all farmland is owned by the state? Come on.

The banks in China are very heavily regulated. This is why China largely avoided the latest Neoliberal World Recession. Sound like capitalism to you?

China has not “moved to capitalism.” It is a mixed system with capitalism, socialism and other forms of ownership, a huge public sector and a vast state with tremendous spending power that spends wild amounts of money. The state has very heavy involvement in the economy, including planning it in some ways.

Deng’s reforms have resulted in millions of Chinese dying for lack of health care who would have not have died otherwise. That is because under these wonderful capitalist reforms, all state medical clinics began charging for visits and medicine. Many people can’t afford it, so they just get sick and die. Was it worth it? I say no.

Deng’s reforms have resulted in the closing of schools all over rural China. In some areas, 8

The great growth in Western Europe occurred after World War 2 in the context of a mixed socialist-capitalist system called social democracy. It’s not true at all that Western Europe developed due to capitalism.

Japan has had a social democracy since World War 2, but the benefits are provided by corporations, not by the state so much.

South Korea, Taiwan and Japan all had extensive land reforms that helped their economies take off. Your economy will never go anywhere with semi-feudal relations in the countryside.

Taiwan has an extensive social democracy in place.

Singapore has a very well-developed social democracy. Furthermore, Singapore is not reproducible. Sure, it’s rich, but the area around it in Malaysia is poor. Malays commute to work in Singapore every day. Singapore’s riches have come via paying low wages and buying cheap materials from surrounding poor countries.

None of those East Asian states developed via neoliberalism. They all had land reforms, extensive social democratic programs run by either corporations or the state, and especially massive state involvement in the economy, even including economic planning.

India is up and coming? 5

The “pure free market” of Adam Smith was nothing of the sort. Actually, Smith was an advocate of state intervention to protect society from the ravages of unfettered capitalism. He described pure free market capitalism as one of the most evil systems ever designed by man.

You ever hear neoliberals quote Smith on that? Of course not. All neoliberals are liars. They pick and choose what they want out of Smith and elide the rest. They describe China as “capitalist”, but if we tried to transplant a tiny bit of the Chinese system to the US, they would scream “Communism!”

The pure free market you laud is nothing but neoliberalism. Guess what? It doesn’t work. It only works for about the top 2

It creates incredible inequality and tons of poverty at the same time it produces vast riches at the top, and is everywhere associated with a tremendous amount of corruption of the political class. Everywhere you have a pure free market, you generally have a massively corrupted political class, since the capitalists purchase the state via money-based elections and their control of the media. Corruption under pure free market conditions is not a bug, it’s a feature. It goes right along with it, always.

Maoism in China: A Look at the Record

The current lie, or meme, in US, if not world, popular culture, is “Mao ruined China.” If they are being charitable, they say, “Mao nearly ruined China.”

People can and do say anything to further their cause, in this case, the cause of neoliberal capitalism and especially imperialism. Since Maoism is one of most potent enemies of both these days, it needs to be stamped out by any means necessary, lies, truth, whatever it takes, just take it out, who cares how you do it.

Let’s take a look at the real record here.

Keep in mind that the comparisons to India are because China and India were at the same level in 1949. The record below indicates how horribly India has failed compared to Maoist and even neo-Communist China. There’s no comparison. China kicked India’s ass. Indian capitalism has been nothing but 60 years of repetitive failure.

In 1949, the Chinese peasantry existed on the border of starvation and death. Life expectancy was 32 years. As if that was inevitable, note that in Russia in 1913, life expectancy was 32 years. By 1949, it was 63 years. A 32 year life expectancy for China in 1949 was not inevitable for any possible universe. More than anything else, that figure alone represents the utter and complete failure of Chinese semi-feudal capitalism.

If a peasant was ill, if he had money, he could go to a clinic in the city. If not, he would wait until he either got better or died. There were no medical facilities in the rural areas. People might add that this was inevitable in any possible China. But was it really? This was the situation in Russia in 1916. By 1949, there were clinics in every Russian village, and hardly a Russian lacked for medical care. Why was horrific lack of medical care inevitable?

By 1976, there was a polyclinic in every Chinese commune and a medical facility in every district.

Apologists, generally neoliberals who oppose all state spending on health care, since health care is a matter of private sector, say that this was inevitable. But was it really? Says who? China had not accomplished this in the decades before 1949, so why would they have accomplished it afterwards? Further, there are many nations where health care is still about as bad as 1949 China. The Maoist record on health care was so Earth-shatteringly great that even the UN’s World Health Organization complemented China on its achievement.

In 1949, China had serious problems with smallpox, leprosy, pestilence, cholera, malaria and tuberculosis. By 1976, they were nearly wiped out. Apologists say that this was inevitable? But why? The Chinese capitalists had failed, or not even tried to eliminate epidemic diseases before, why would they have suddenly changed their tune after 1949? Further, these diseases continue to be epidemic in many parts of the world, including India. India started out at the same place as China in 1949, so it’s a useful comparison.

Population growth was controlled, hunger was solved for the first time in Chinese history, and the principal fatal infectious diseases were controlled, in contrast to India, Indonesia and South America, where hunger and infectious diseases are still catastrophic problems. By comparing China to South America, India and Indonesia we can clearly see how disastrously capitalism has fared in those places and how totally Maoism has kicked capitalism’s butt.

Starvation, poverty and illiteracy were wiped out. China was self-sufficient in food for the first time ever. For the first time ever. For the first time ever. Repeat that as many times as you want to until it sinks in. So much for the lie that “Communism brings nothing but starvation.”

The industrial growth rate was double that of India. Keep in mind that China’s and India’s industrial growth rates were about the same in 1949. In industrial growth, Maoism has left India in the dust.

In 1949, China had about the same number of scientists per capita as India. In the meantime, China under Mao and his successors has completely devastated India in the number of scientists per capita. Communist China made huge efforts to increase the number of scientists in society through incredible increases in the availability of education and offering free education to the masses who only had private education for the rich before.

India’s education system is a catastrophe, and the nation places zero emphasis on producing scientists or educated people of any nature. The public education system is disastrously underfunded, and most Indians can’t afford to go to school. The rich send their kids to private schools, but that’s not good for society, as it does not produce the number of highly skilled people that a society needs to develop.

It will take India 150 years to catch up with China in the number of scientists per capita.

Most Indian scientists leave the country; most Chinese scientists stay in China and serve the nation. As you can see, the Communists have cultivated a love of service and of nation in their scientists.

Indian scientists are essentially traitors with purely capitalist values. They spout Hindutva nonsense and the Indian ultranationalist fascist mantras of the day, but they have no love of nation. Their only value is money, and they quickly hop the first plane out of India to hightail it to the UK or the US to cash in on the big bucks, leaving their catastrophe of a nation in the lurch.

From their new perches in the West, they preach contempt for the Whites that enabled them to earn these fat wads of cash while dishonestly singing jingoist praises for the glorious Jai Hind, Bharat India that they so unceremoniously dumped.

Consumption of electricity in agriculture went from 20m kilowatts/hour to 6,000m. Grain production rose

I am not sure why agriculture has failed so badly in India, but semi-feudal relations in the countryside and lack of land reform must have something to do with it. As long as India is under capitalist rule, there will never be the necessary land reform that this suffering land needs, as the feudal lords have always owned the Indian state and always will until revolution sweeps them away.

Many or most Indian farmers are actually sharecroppers in perpetual debt slavery to large semi-feudal landlords. Until this system is eliminated, India will never develop into a real nation.

Production of chemical fertilizers increased 32X, steel 4.2X, oil 63X. Those figures are amazing. Fertilizer increased by 32 times! Oil increased by 63 times! Wow.

Why was this inevitable? If it was inevitable, why had capitalist China so failed to develop these essential industries before 1949? Easy. Because capitalist China, ruled by feudal lords, placed absolutely zero emphasis on the development of a national economy. The feudal lords of capitalist China cared only about increasing their own wealth,the nation be damned. Today we see the same thing in Latin America and the same underdevelopment that results. Some people never learn.

One argument which makes no sense is that India already tried socialism, and it failed. But exactly what kind of socialism was that, anyway? It was a fake crony socialism with a small public sector in which almost all of the economy was in private hands, mostly in the hands of monopoly capital. There was no land reform in the countryside where  semi-feudal relations continued to rule. Sure, the Communists have been running West Bengal for 20 years. Who on the Left thinks there is any kind of real socialism or Communism in West Bengal?

If China and India were practicing the exact same kind of system (they were not) then why was China creaming India every step of the way, year and year out, even all through the Mao era? Answer. Indian socialism wasn’t any good, and it hardly deserved to be called socialism.

There was nothing good about Indian “socialism.” It left 5

The state sector was and is tiny. The state sector in India, including local, state and national levels combined, is about 5-1

In India, for all intents and purposes, in most places, the state is nearly nonexistent. It’s always been that way, a tiny, corrupt, crony capitalist state, even during the Indian Socialism era. The Indian state is a neoliberal dream, with a minimal government and the ruined society that always flows from that.

Industry grew by 1

Looking at these figures with a clear eye, you can see why so many Indians are getting behind Maoism. True, Maoism has a spotty record, but compared to India, Communist China looks like paradise.

One Reason For the Holocaust


Jews were

Hmm, what more do we need to know? Actually, there were a variety of reasons for the genocidal anti-Semitism of the Nazis, but this was surely one of them. You can’t bring this up either, because the Super Jews call you anti-Semite and accuse you of blaming the victim.

Interesting question: how many ethnic groups are going to put up with

Solutions, you ask for solutions? I have none, and there probably are none. And so I leave you with this nasty tidbit…

Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women

In the comments section, Cyrus points out that some ethnic groups do place priority on breeding within the group, particularly the Jews and the Armenians:

Robert, in addition to Jews having a fixation on non-intermarriage, I might also add that I have noticed this pattern with Armenians as well. Just an observation. Though, I believe there exists a social rational behind Jews and Armenians holding such views. A similar history of persecution, perhaps? A Near Eastern cultural element?

Yes, the Armenians and the Jews do want you to marry inside the group. And many immigrants to the West do too. I have noticed that with East Asians, there is strong pressure for Chinese to marry another Chinese, Koreans another Korean, Japanese another Japanese, etc. Even among SE Asians, there is pressure to marry your own. Khmer are pressured to marry other Khmer and not those horrible Lao or Viets, etc.

What’s funny is that marrying your own tribe can’t really be natural, since in order to keep it going, you have pound it into your people’s heads how evil the other tribes are. Most of these accusations against the other groups are simply lies. So the only way to prevent mass miscegenation is with mass lying propaganda. Doesn’t sound like an inborn trait to me.

If you study tribes, it’s clear that most totally don’t give a fuck about genetic purity. I studied Amerindian tribes, and it was quite common to take a wife not just from another village, but even from another tribe. She left her tribe and came to yours, abandoned her language and culture and adopted yours, and she was automatically one of your people. It also makes sense from a genetic POV, as you are avoiding becoming inbred. It seems that primitives had some understanding of genetics after all.

Further, tribes have always conquered other tribes and raided them to steal their women. One thing you can do is raid the other tribe and rape all their women to force them to bear your genetic line. Or bring the women back to your tribe and breed them in with your tribe, and extinct their tribe in the process.

Primitives did not understand genetics very well, but clearly there was a prerogative to keep the tribe going and in many cases to wipe out the competing tribes. By kidnapping their women, bringing them back to your village, and making them bear your kids, you extinct their tribe while incorporating their genes into your own line.

Any group doing this cares not one whit about genetic purity. They just mass-miscegenated with the enemy! Come on!

However, they did keep their tribe going and extinct a competing tribe. These tendencies may well be genetically driven.

Kevin MacDonald says that humans have evolved traits to do two opposite things:

1. Guard the women of your own tribe from breeding with enemy or competing groups.

2. Conversely, the men have a drive to breed with the women of the competing group (in addition to breeding with their own)!

Maybe this is not so contrary as it seems. Women are the seed stock of your tribe. When they are gone, you are gone. You need to preserve them from the enemy taking them out and extincting your group. On the other hand, by stealing the enemy’s women, you weaken them, force them to carry your line, and possibly wipe them out altogether.

The result is the imperative in the title: Safeguard Your Own Women, Steal the Enemy’s Women.

All makes sense from a group competition POV.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)