The often repeated line by reactionaries in the west, and their servile agents in other parts of the world, is that colonialism and imperialism are no more, that they are only a thing in the past, history. Of course this is not true, and an even cursory look at current events would yield this answer. One can see this in countries free from foreign military presence, as well as those under occupation, although obviously the latter are much better and more clear examples of this. This brings up an issue which is often debated, especially by socialists. This issue is what stance should be taken in regards to the soldiers who are part of the imperialist militaries which currently occupy Afghanistan, Iraq, etc…

The main divide among socialists is whether or not to support the resistance and be happy to see the imperialist soldiers be killed. Some “socialists” use the excuse that most of these soldiers are from lower class backgrounds, and thus deserve our sympathy. First off, I would like to say that this had some legitimacy when the amerikkkans were massacring the Vietnamese in the 1960’s and 70’s because at that time there was a draft, and thus the men who would become soldiers had little choice about whether or not they would be a part of the imperialist rape of Vietnam. But even then they could have refused, and at worst be faced with years in prison, which sounds a lot better than becoming an imperialist murderer and possibly dying. So even then I would say that this type of view was wrong, and that the chant “One sides right, one sides wrong, victory to the Vietcong” was the right point of view.

Nowadays there is no draft in any of the countries which have their murdering soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you would think support for the resistance would be greater…but it is less. But the main point to debate is this: most of the soldiers are lower class. OK, let me give a little parable to begin my attack: Let’s say a group of police raid a lower class apartment block. These police are all from proletarian backgrounds, like most police are. The tenants, on their side, have done nothing wrong, and have no reason to deserve the violent raid, although the police say that it was being used to produce drugs. So, if the tenants were to violently resist this police raid, and manage to kill every last one of the policemen, would we mourn the policemen? NO! We would be glad they were dead, and we would praise the resistance of the tenants. This is the right attitude. The police were criminals, murderers without conscience, they deserved nothing but violent death.

Likewise with the imperialist murderers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and every other occupied country. These soldiers may be lower class, but when they are also destroying and occupying another country, no quarter or sympathy can or should be given. A further issue is this: as human beings, sentient beings, we have the responsibility to be aware of our actions, their implications and their consequences. And if someone decides they are going to be indifferent to their own actions, and not judge themselves, not to mention if they consciously approve of their own disgusting deeds and actions, then they have no reason to complain (and nor does anyone else!) when the effects of their actions catches up to them with a bullet in the head. I would like to add a quote from an amerikkkan soldier who explains why, during the Vietnam war, he testified before a court martial against the other members of his patrol, who had abducted, raped, and then deliberately murdered a Vietnamese girl: “The idea was simply that we had to answer for what we did. We had to answer to something, to someone – maybe just to ourselves.” This is exactly the point, and if someone refuses to answer for what they did or are doing, and this thing which they are doing is raping a country and murdering innocent people, then they deserve to die and nobody should mourn their death. On the contrary, when these psycotic fucks are killed, it should do nothing but make you happy.

So to make the airport experience everything you always wanted it to be, western countries, with amerikkka as always leading the cabal, have decided to expand and deepen their already routine and systematic racial and ethnic profiling:

“Passengers traveling from or through nations listed as “state sponsors of terrorism” — Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria — as well as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen will face heightened screening, an Obama administration official said…

Such passengers will be patted down, have their carry-on luggage searched and could undergo advanced explosive detection or imaging scans, according to the official, who spoke on condition on anonymity.”

Many western airports are also intending to introduce “body scanners”:

“Privacy campaigners told the Guardian that the images created by the machines were so graphic they amounted to “virtual strip searching” and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.”

I have a suggestion though, as it seems the west is becoming more and more open about it’s latent racial profiling in airports, among other places: why don’t they just make it a rule that anyone of color should be strip searched at gunpoint?  That would really work wonders towards clearing up any misunderstandings and distrust between passengers of color and the pigs at the airports: then at least no one could deny that racial profiling was the main tenet of airport “security.”  And anyone who has travelled knows the kind of disgusting, humiliating things the pigs at the airports do to passengers of color.

Also, does anyone else find it extremly absurd that they have specified that they will “pat down,” i.e. grope to their heart’s content, passengers from certain countries, and even passengers who passed through these countries?  I mean let’s be honest, they already “randomly” grope anyone of color for that very reason.  When you are waiting to be searched, humiliated, and groped, you can already pick out the passengers who will be searched extensively, humiliated, and groped.  But let me ask a simple question: Is there anything that makes you want to blow up a plane more than being humiliated and defiled before a large group of people, especially when those people are white europeans who could pack guns and knives and not be bothered at all by these fucking airport pigs?

But I must say, these new regulations are really a big step for every pervert and racist who works in/goes through western airports.  And I really would like to see the return of the heydays of plane hijackings, like the ones PFLP completed, for many reasons of course, but prime among them being to stick it to those racist fucks who make these policies and the sick fucks who carry them out.  Surely no Arab or African government will complain about these policies, just as they haven’t in the past, due to their addiction to being servants and agents of the western imperialist powers.  But on a personal level there is something you can do, which may perhaps help you get through your extensive humiliation based upon race by the western airport pigs: try swearing at them in arabic, with a big smile on your face, perhaps then you will be able to resist the understandable desire to snatch a gun from the nearest pig and  shoot as many of the pricks as you can.  So I wish you happy travels all, and would like to say to all the racist fucks in western airports: please fuck off and die you pieces of shit.

Judges. O fearless defenders of justice, I bow before your judicial erudition and knowledge! You selflessly carry out the arduous functions of law and order daily without regard for anything but justice. Yes, o noble judges! You place yourselves above us rabble and hand out judgements on our lives like gods on earth! With a brief monologue of your monotonous voices and a quick stroke of your hand you condemn or reprieve, imprison or execute. Like the emperors of Rome, you decide with little physical effort, and just as little time: thumbs up or thumbs down. Years of prison or the sweet air of freedom. The gallows or the continued grind of life. Someone as admiring of your noble profession as I can only but wonder: where does your omnipotence and god-like ability to judge come from? Perhaps from the various costumes you clothe yourself in to fulfil the rigorous demands of your noble occupation? Or perhaps from the variety of papers you study which dictate right and wrong?

I can’t go on, seriously. Fuck judges.

I honestly don’t know how anyone can respect these criminals. In every trial which takes place, I see one thing very clearly: that the judges and the defendants are in the wrong places. Those who believe they have the right, or the moral authority, to condemn another human being to life or death, or death while living, can be called only one thing: criminals. Do you realize how much blood judges have on their hands? The ultimate irony must be when a judge presides over the trial of someone accused of torture, since judges make it their lives work to torture obscene amounts of their fellow humans in the name of “justice.” For what is torture if not years spent rotting away in prison? Even animals understand that to be caged up against their will is something very much like death.

No one should ever respect any one of these disgusting vermin who make it their responsibility to condemn their fellow human beings to death while living. Not to mention those who sentence people to death. When they do this, sentence someone to death, they are doing nothing more and nothing less than murdering someone. And why do they do all of this disgusting work? To what end, and for whom? For the people, the masses? Of course not. For the sake of justice and rule of law? No. They do it for a very simple reason: to keep the ruling classes in control. To carry out the repression of the state, to make sure that us rabble stay in our “correct” places.

If I have no food to eat, or decide that I don’t want work inhuman hours at an exhausting job just to be able to put food in my mouth, no more no less, and decide to break the number one commandment of capitalist society (private property) and steal, rob, burgle, should my actions be ruled just or unjust by a man who is a representative and faithful member of the class which has sought nothing else except to grind me into submission and defeat? NO! The “thieves,” the supposed criminals in a capitalist society, should be the ones to decide the fate of the judges, the soulless sycophants of the state and of capital.

Should the person who has been brutalized from their very birth by the conditions imposed upon them by the oppressive ruling classes be judged as to the righteousness or unjustness of their taking another person’s life? NO! What right could these disgusting ruling class lackeys possibly have to decide what punishment should be given to someone who has taken a life, when their VOCATION is to kill, to steal years off a person’s life? When the class to which they belong and which they work exclusively for, only sustains itself by consuming the blood of their fellow humankind?

And don’t tell me the bullshit argument that judges are impartial, and however flawed, they are working to implement justice. This same argument is used to defend pigs, and are we now to defend and support pigs because like judges they claim to be serving the people when they are in reality agents of the state and of capital, and solely defend the interests of the state and of capital? In reality, the conception of “justice” which judges really stand behind is simple: whatever benefits and serves the interests of the state and of capital is “just,” anything which goes against the interests of the state or of capital is a “crime” which will be prosecuted. The second a judge assumes his office, he becomes an enemy of the people, a criminal in the truest sense. These callous state murders, no matter whether they label themselves “reformists” or any other false and misleading title, they deserve nothing less than to be hauled out into the street by the masses of the people who they have devoted their lives to oppress, and be strung up from the nearest lamp post.

http://socialiststories.org/content/oppressed-and-oppressors-antonio-gramsci

I hate tourism. I really hate it. I think there are few things I hate more. First of all, we should not even call it tourism, I mean that really is a misleading, or at least not accurate enough word. I prefer to use “gawking” but I understand that since I am the only one who uses that, I will have to type tourism throughout this post so as not to confuse people. Anyway, there are many levels on which you can criticize tourism, perhaps the easiest and most “scientific” would be one a economic basis. I will go into that, but I should point out at the beginning that the main reservation I have about tourism is the extent it is connected to racism.

Economically tourism acts as another form of neo-imperialist exploitation, and also of capitalist exploitation. It leaves countries which depend on tourism for a large part of it’s national income, more or less at the mercy of the western countries where most tourists come from. Also, very much like foreign investment, tourism favors countries which are “stable,” friendly with the west, capitalist, and essentially this means a brutal dictatorship which is subservient to the west, like the fucking regime of mubarak. You can also see the impact this has on the population of countries which are heavily frequented by tourists, and who rely on them for a significant portion of their national income. People are often kicked out of their homes, or their land is appropriated, or barriers are built up around their neighbourhoods so as not to “spoil” or “contaminate” the atmosphere for the foreign, mostly western, tourists who frequent said country.

These kind of things are mentioned in the media, surely not as much as they should, but the other aspect of tourism, which is perhaps worse, is rarely written about. I am of course referring to the extreme racism and paternalism of tourists when they visit another country, especially if we are talking about western tourists visiting countries in the global south (or the so-called “third” world). Why is this? The answer is simple: race. I mean think about it, “tourism” really just means a bunch of bourgeois foreigners gawking at the “native.” And this is even strengthened and worsened depending on race. I mean to say that western tourists in egypt will of course be much more condescending than say arab, african, latin american, or asian tourists would be. This stays true even for very slight differences. Take for instance Sicily (since sicilians look more like north africans than north italians), where I was a few months ago. The northern italians who come to sicily also gawk, etc, just like the western tourists who come to egypt. Thus even inside one country, the north italian racism is acted out in Sicily through the perverse oggling of the sicilians by the north italians. There is also much evidence of the colonial and imperialistic nature of tourism, just think of how the western colonists and imperial officials of the past acted in the countries they were colonizing: did they know the language? NO. did they know the country? NO. did they know anything true about the culture? NO. did they have any respect for the “natives” of the country? NO. did they act as visitors, guests, in a country they were not tied to by anything but the desire to exploit? NO, of course not! Now for the real question: is this exactly how most western tourists still behave to this day? YES!

Now for something no one seems to ever agree with me about: objects. Can anyone deny that the focus of tourism is mainly put on inanimate objects? In regards to people, fuck them, no, we just want to oggle at objects, and if we see any people it will only be to oggle them like they are animals, like they are objects. In egypt for example foreigners come to look at a variety of objects, the pyramids, the stuff in the egyptian museum, various ruins, etc… In italy it is the Colosseum, the Vatican, all the various museums of art, etc…in france it is the Eiffel tower, the Louvre, the Champs Elysée, etc…So in other words tourism is first and foremost about looking at, walking in, etc, inanimate objects and places with no commendable aim in sight. And I must say that from my observations of these tourists, in many different countries, they really like that stuff , and there is no doubt at all that they care more about the safety of these things than they do about the well-being of the people who inhabit said country.

Now I personally view such things as old roman ruins, pharonic ruins, etc, as useless rocks which I can’t understand why anyone in their right mind would spend so much time on unless they were archaeologists, historians, etc, who actually know what they are looking at and who intend to do something with the knowledge they gain. In regard to other objects, I feel it would be appropriate to relate an example from my own life: when I was younger I remember going to see a lot of the famous art work in Italy, like the Pietà , the statue David, the creation of Adam in the sistine chapel, etc…, and I was repeatedly told that I was very lucky to be seeing these things. I never understood it though, and I still don’t, I mean anyone can look at a picture of these famous art works online, very detailed pictures even, which are really all you need to see and study these art works if that it what you want to do. I mean if the emphasis which is placed upon seeing these artistic works in person was really just to be able to see and study them, there would be no need to travel since you can see them just as well on the internet in your home! The real reason I feel is more this: its basically a primitive bourgeois status symbol to be able to say “I was in Italy and I saw the Pieta in person, [now insert a long, meaningless dialogue where the speaker makes many points about this work which may or may not be figments of their imagination intended to impress].”

Now I understand that my view of artistic pieces and historical “artifacts” and really old pieces of rock, is somewhat of an extreme position, but you have to agree that tourism is much too focused on these material objects, which it makes little rational sense to spend money to see in the first place. Finally, this is the point I want to make: why can’t travel to another country not be about oggling the “natives,” or acting paternalistically like you own a certain foreign country although you have nothing to do with it, or placing higher value on inanimate objects than on the human beings who are the descendent of the people who produced those objects? Why can’t people travelling to other countries respect the people of these countries and express the genuine, non-condescending, non-racist, and non-paternalist, desire to learn about the people and the country which they are visiting? Why can’t travel to another country broaden peoples minds instead of them keeping inside them the same old racist ideas they always had, but now “justified” by being able to say that they travelled to another country? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????!!!!!!

As socialists and decent human beings, we should be categorically against this type of racist, paternalist, bourgeois, materialistic type of travel known as tourism. We should stand in solidarity, sisterhood, and brotherhood with all the peoples of the world, and never ever place material objects over human beings. For a world without borders racism, or oppression!!!!!

This post was published originally by my very good comrade Dalal, but it is excellent and I agree completely with it, so here it is, please read comrades:

This is an article I read on Al-jazeera Asia blog by Clayton Swisher:

I am saddened to learn the tragic news that a professional colleague, Michelle Lang, was among the casualties that marked the deadliest day for Canada in Afghanistan since 2007.

Michelle was an award-winning reporter for the Calgary Herald (link to her blog: http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/afghanistandispatches/default.aspx).

She began her military embed at Kandahar Air Field in mid-December, until it was cut short yesterday by a roadside bomb attack that killed her and accompanying Canadian soldiers.

Michelle’s death underscores the risks journalists face in covering a war where improvised explosive devices are so common.

Their blasts do not discriminate.

I trust the Canadians will be taking the news especially hard.

When we interviewed Brig-Gen Daniel Menard, Canada’s top officer in Afghanistan and the man responsible for the Kandahar area of operations, I was struck by how many Canadian journalists turned out to grill him with pointed questions – about the Canadian military deaths, the direction and duration of the war, and especially what the Obama surge would mean for their struggling forces.

The issue of Canadian casualties was well on their mind.  The day prior to our meeting, Menard’s staff asked us to stop filming a memorial ceremony he was hosting for the family of a single Canadian soldier who was also killed in Kandahar.

We obliged.  The emotion was already running high amongst the Canadians serving there and we did not want to add to it.

The past 24 hours must be especially difficult.

One unusual announcement (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/12/2009123153319496846.html) of yesterday’s violence was that those killed at US Forward Operating Base (FOB) Chapman in Khost were CIA employees.

This obviously highlights the risks of operating near the volatile Afpak border.

But it also touches on the delicate issue of incorporating Afghans into US security and intelligence operations.

Most FOB’s in Afghanistan, including the one we embedded at in Kunar this past summer (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7ml9BgAJ4I), employ a fair number of local Afghan nationals.

They are normally vetted first by tribal elders in the area who co-operate with the US, then kept under the watchful eye of Afghan National Army soldiers as well as US military intelligence.

Local Afghans are searched when they enter the installation, normally by an Afghan being watched by a US soldier or Marine.

If the reports are true that as many as seven CIA officials have been killed, this will surely widen a rift of mistrust between the US and its Afghan partners.

For their part, the Afghans are also angry by repeated US strikes that have claimed the lives of innocent Afghanis.

Bottom line: the confluence of these events are a body blow to the struggling US-Afghan alliance.

The Taliban, meanwhile, has closed out 2009 with a deadly grand finale. In total this year the group has killed more multinational forces than in all previous years

I find this article problematic, to put it nicely, on so many levels. First of all, this sentence;

Michelle’s death underscores the risks journalists face in covering a war where improvised explosive devices are so common.

The woman was an embedded journalist! You should not put her on the same foot with real journalists who face real dangers for covering atrocities. Or those who are tried and jailed by repressive governments. This woman chose to be embedded with an occupying force! plus, she lived in a miliraty compound, which is much safer than Afghan homes that get bombed without a prior notice!

People like the Palestinian journalist Mohammed Omer, who was beaten by Israeli intelligence because of his reporting in Gaza is someone I’m willing to call a journalist and respect greatly. Also, take John Pilger who documented struggles in Australia and out of. That’s a journalist! Embedded journalists are propagandist pieces of shit at best!

Don’t believe me? Take a look at Michelle Lang’s reporting. It’s disgusting! She went to a country ravaged by numerous foreign occupation for decades. A land that is filled with mines…A place with high child mortality rates and she chose to write about bomb sniffing dogs? What kind of journalism this is?

So called journalists who try to stay “impartial”, there is no such a thing really, in the face of injustice are disgraceful enough. How about those who try to put a human face on an occupation by writing about dogs and military hair dressers?

And then, Their blasts do not discriminate!!!  And the NATO blasts do? Only last week Eight boys, aged between 13 and 18, and two men in their 20s were killed in an air strike.And please don’t pull out, the she was a human argument! What about the Afghans who lost their lives in this war? Collateral damage?

And why is that when Westerners go invade a country, people should expect civilianst to die because it’s just a consequence of war, but it’s so heartbreaking when a Westerner dies? Notice how the article mentions the death of Afghan civilians in one sentence at the end of the article?

These two sentences take the cake though. of yesterday’s violence was that those killed at US Forward Operating Base (FOB) Chapman in Khost were CIA employees. This obviously highlights the risks of operating near the volatile Afpak border.

And now I’m supposed to mourn CIA operatives? The successors of the guys who brought the world the Shah of Iran and Latin American dictatorships? The reason behind the kidnapping, jail and torture of thousands upon thousands of political activists? And what on earth is “operating”? probably working towards liberating more Afghans. From their lives, that is!

Oh, I get it… I’m suppose to feel sad because “Most FOB’s in Afghanistan, employ a fair number of local Afghan nationals”. The white man saves the world from poverty again! How patronising!

So Afghans, please.. Don’t protest against the occupation..  Instead, line up for jobs at US bases!

*Dalal*

This is a subject which of course could just about never be exhausted: Feminism and the bourgeois. One often hears or reads things by faithful bourgeois who claim they are feminists, and while they are claiming this they spout the most ridiculous crap about gender relations that you want to scream. This has happened many times to me personally, both at university and at home while reading something. As always I feel it is best to explain with examples, so let me begin my first one.

I took a political science class a year ago, and the teacher was a female, and like all the students (I was the SOLE exception) all faithful bourgeois who loved the west. Anyway, after causing trouble in the class several times I eventually dropped it. One of the times the teacher decided to discuss “feminism” or in other words start one of the most annoying discussions I have ever heard. Now the discussion was thoroughly ridiculous all the way through, but how it was started is what I want to focus on. The teacher started by basically saying that women should embrace their “femininity” and at the same time they should be equal to men (“equal to men,” now is their any female who wouldn’t say this? That is why I should stress that it was almost like an afterthought, her real focus was on “femininity”). She proceeded to stress that women should proudly embrace their “femininity.” Perhaps this sounds innocuous, but it is not. I mean what is “femininity”? It is a male constructed conception which dictates how a woman should act and behave and what her responsibilities are. Let’s take motherhood as an example. Now someone stressing “femininity” would say that motherhood, or rather the bond between mother and child, should be much stronger than the bond between father and child, due to the extra care and work the woman sacrifices for the child. Yet what does this imply? It implies that the vast majority of the responsibilities of raising the child should fall on the mother. This is obviously disgusting and misogynist, but it is nothing but the logical conclusion of a reliance of a male constructed idea of what women should be. I mean it is ridiculous to say that women should accept this, it is like saying that the Palestinians should proudly accept zionism. Now there are a million other examples I could give to prove this point, and all of them would end the same: i.e. oppression of women. I mean this same argument is used to stress that women should wear tight, revealing clothes to show their “charms,” or in the same misogynistic vein, that women should wear certain clothes to not “distract” men, both of these cases are exactly the same, both of them are predicated on the view that women should only wear what men want them to. Anyway to get back to the professor’s idiotic argument, it is basically the same thing you will hear from any faithful bourgeois woman: they want to improve the status of women, but are not willing to go against the prevailing societal norms (which are bourgeois themselves), they are inherently against people who go against these, and they are adamantly opposed to a complete overthrow of the current societal norms, values, and morals. This is just another form of the bourgeois’ inherent opposition to a revolution, without which the status of women could never be improved, except in token amounts.

To illustrate this basic aversion, I have another story: In a certain literature class which was all females (except me), there was a discussion about two books, and the course the discussion took was a comparison between the two main characters of these books (both females). I won’t go into what books they were, but I will say that character A was a little rebellious, but she wouldn’t go against any societal norms, she always worked within them, and in the end she marries a rich man and lives happily ever after (in other words the perfect character for bourgeois females). Character B, however was a real rebel, she didn’t give a fuck about society and she did whatever she wanted to, and didn’t care if she was viewed as scandalous, this character ends up committing suicide. Now the argument of everyone in class was that A was a better role model, and also smarter because she worked within societies boundaries (that’s exactly what they said). Now they all criticized B because she went outside that, and they even said verbatim that she was too rebellious, and that she should work within societies boundaries. It was really ridiculous, and I really couldn’t believe my ears, but of course I spoke up and argued that nothing would ever change unless there is a revolution, a complete change in the way men behave towards women, and women themselves behave (i.e. given the freedom to act as they desire), and that working within the “system” would accomplish nothing, as A demonstrated very well since she achieved nothing in the end except doing exactly what everyone wanted her to do. But I was really amazed at this discussion and the extent to which the bourgeois are opposed to rebellion and revolution, even in such minor things as cheap, uninspiring literature.

One can also see the results of such thinking in the various bourgeois “womens rights” groups which are nothing but collections of bourgeois women who fight first and foremost for the continuation of their class’ hegemony, and not for a true liberation of all women, irrespective of class or race. That’s why just as we need to stress that racism and feminism do not go together, we also need to stress that holding onto reactionary, bourgeois ideas and morals is in fundamental opposition to feminism, and can never lead to anything but the continued oppression of the downtrodden, including women. In other words, for feminism to have any real impact on the status of women, all women, it needs to be feminism for all, not racist feminism for white women, or bourgeois feminism for the upper classes. We, as feminists, should also realize what we need to fight for: REVOLUTION! and realize that any less will be a despicable dis-service to all the struggling and oppressed women of the world.

LONG LIVE RADICAL FEMINISM AND SOCIALISM!!!

It really is about time that I write a post about swearing and cursing, given the large role it takes in this blog, and surely in my life in general. I personally have never understood why some people take offense at it, they are just words o imperious moralizers. Furthermore, as words they serve a purpose, a very important purpose, that is to give expression to one’s thoughts and emotions. Now if I’m speaking of a moralizing hypocite who constantly invokes god and religion when they have no bearing on the subject at hand, how can I help but call them a fucking hypocrite, or a dirty bastard? Personally I don’t think it’s possible, and in fact given the usefullness of swearing, why should I?

I have always cursed a lot, and hopefully I always will. I will even tell you all a little story to show that I will never stop and that it is useless to try to make anyone stop: Once upon a time RevSocialist was a child, and he was a very rebellious child, especially around his father, and his mouth was always quite dirty from curses. The father, may he burn eternally in hell, would always upbraid his son and tell him “If you don’t stop swearing, I’m going to wash out your dirty mouth.” Now being the snarky (look it up, I never knew what it meant either until I was called it by a professor) child that he was, RevSocialist would always mock his father about this. Then one day, the father did something particularly unfair and unjust (a common occurence), although even RevSocialist himself cannot remember what. In response, the glorious child let off a good, strong curse at the father. Now the father being enraged easily, he decided to finally make good on his promise to wash out the dirty mouth of the said child. Now anyone with brains (here I must apologize to the father, alas he has none) knows that to wash out a child’s mouth one needs bar soap, not liquid. Yet the father was an adventrous type and decided to try it with liquid (which is rather worse for the child than using bar soap, if I may say so). So the washing of the child’s mouth began, and throughout this the clever child had on his face nothing but the largest smile you ever saw. The child also repeatedly told the father how much he was enjoying himself, and even asked that more soap be used and that the be washing prolonged. Needless to say, the child never had his mouth washed out again. And so cleverness and cursing won out over stupidity and cowardly moralizing.

I humbly ask that you remember this story when raising your own children, for I definetly shall. Anyway to move on, I would like to conclude with a short excerpt from Jaroslav Hasek, in which he gives his thoughts on swearing and cursing:

“Everyone speaks the way he is made…Where it is necessary to use a strong expression which was actually said, I am not ashamed of reproducing it exactly as it was. I regard the use of polite circumlocutions or asterisks as the stupidest form of sham. The same words are used in parliament too…The only people who boggle at what is perfectly natural are those who are the worst swine and the finest experts in filth. In their utterly contemptible pseudo-morality they ignore the contents and madly attack individual words.

Years ago I read a criticism of a novelette, in which the critic was furious because the author had written: “He blew his nose and wiped it.” He said it went against everything beautiful and exalted which literature should give the nation. This is only a small illustration of what bloody fools are born under the sun.

Those who boggle at strong language are cowards, because it is real life which is shocking them, and weaklings like that are the very people who cause the most harm to culture and character. They would like to see the nation grow up into a group of over-sensitive people – masturbators of false culture…People like that proclaim their indignation in public but take unusual pleasure in going to public lavatories to read obscene inscriptions on the walls…who would like to turn the whole Czechoslovak Republic into a big salon with parquet flooring, where people go about in tail-coats, white ties and gloves, speak in choice phrases and cultivate the refined behaviour of the drawing-room. But beneath this camouflage these drawing-room lions indulge in the worst vices and excesses.”

If you like facebook and are not on twitter, then add me as a “friend” on facebook here (I am the only one who thinks you should be able to add someone as a comrade? Comrades are better than friends, right?)

To follow my two blogs on Facebook click here:

RevSocialist اشتراكي ثوري

SocialistStories حكايات اشتراكية

I just read today an excellent analysis by Black Panther Michael Cetewayo Tabor entitled “Capitalism Plus Dope Equals Genocide.” Now I am not at all new to the black power critique of drugs, but this article by Tabor is really excellent and makes a lot of important points, especially how it exposes the dual use that the state (especially in am etnically non-homogenous country) and capitalists make of drug abuse. Anway please read this short (6 pages) article, and please not that I have written more below, after the embedded article.

Capitalism Plus Dope Equals Genocide by Black Panther Michael Cetewayo Tabor

This article is a little old, and yet it is still obviously very accurate and even very relevant. Yet in amerikkka, which Tabor obviously focused on in this article, heroin long receded to the back in terms of major drugs abused in the mainly minority inter-cities of the racist amerikkkan entity. In fact this article, written about heroin during the Black Panther’s time, when read today almost sounds like a warning for the crack cocaine epidemic which started in the 80’s and 90’s. And that is what I am going to write a little about now, as I already did research for this subject for a presentation I did at my university last year (I choose the topic intentionally to expose how racist amerikkka is to the students in the class, since they were disgustingly excited about Obama).

Let me first point out that for every 100,000 people in amerikkka there are 12, 300 Africans (of which 2,531 are imprisoned) and 75, 100 whites (of which 393 are in prison). Now unfortunately I am not mistaken about these numbers, as unreal as they surely seem.

Furthermore: “On any given day, nearly one third of all black men aged twenty to twenty-nine are under the supervision of the criminal justice system – in prison or jail, on probation, or on parole.” (A second look at crack cocaine sentencing policies by Angeli in the American Criminal Law Review)

To explain the vast inequality in the number of africans in jail as compared to whites, which of course reflects the deep, embedded, and brutal reality of amerikkkan racism, among other reasons for their inequality in prisons is the amerikkkan government’s racist drug policy:

“In 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act which provided, in part, for the creation of the United States Sentencing Commission to develop a system of guidelines that would structure and direct the sentencing discretion of federal judges. As the newly created Sentencing Commission began to develop its guidelines, Congress…enacted several ‘mandatory minimum’ statutes aimed primarily at drug and weapons offenders. Among these statues were two enacted in 1986 and 1988 for sentencing federal cocaine offenses. These statues differentiate between powder and crack cocaine, singling out crack for much harsher punishment.” (Angeli)

Now why is this significant? It is significant because crack cocaine is almost solely found in poor minority communities, expecially inter-city areas which the Panthers rightly refer to as “colonies.” Powered cocaine, on the other hand, is mainly found in wealthy white areas (for despite the propaganda to the contrary amerikkka is still basically as segregated as it was in the 60’s). The reason for the difference can easily be explained: gram by gram crack cocaine is much cheaper than powder cocaine (which is much stronger).

With that in mind consider the specifics of these “sentencing guidelines”:

“The statues require only 5 grams of crack [cocaine] to trigger a 5 year mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking [selling] and 50 grams to trigger a 10 year minimum; in contrast, 500 grams of powder cocaine triggers the 5 year minimum, and 5000 grams triggers the 10 year minimum. This ration is commonly referred to as the ‘100-to-1′ quantity ratio.”
“The ratio is therefore applicable to all federal offenses involving crack or
powder cocaine. At every quantity level federal defendants convicted of a crack cocaine offense receive the same sentence as powder cocaine defendants convicted of an offense involving 100 times as much cocaine.”

This has an obvious impact on the makeup of the prison population:

“The impact of the ‘100-to-1′ disparity is felt almost exclusively by black defendants. In 1993, for example, blacks accounted for 88.3% of federal crack distribution convictions; 4.1% were white. In contrast, whites accounted for 32% of those sentenced for powder cocaine distribution; 27.4% were black. Since
the average sentence for trafficking in crack is more than five years longer than the average powder sentence, federal cocaine laws clearly have a large disproportionate impact on black defendants.” (Angeli)

And here the result is spelled out even clearer:

“In 1994, African Americans served an average of 33.1 months for a drug offense; this grew to 57.2 months by 2002. Time served for drug offenses for whites increased from 29.1 months in 1994 to 37.2 months in 2002.
African Americans now serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (57.2 months) as whites do for a violent offense (58.8 months).” (NGO Sentencing Project)

Or in other words…LISTEN TO THE PANTHERS! They had it right!

DOWN WITH RACISM!

DOWN WITH CAPITALISM!

FUCK THE POLICE!

LONG LIVE BLACK POWER!