Ok, so bush, i mean obama, gave his speech today at west point. Very exciting to be sure, because it’s not as if he just vomitted boring, hypocritical crap right? Anyway, I am going to critique it, i will not post the whole speech I will just quote the certain passages which I want to critique, anyway if your masacistic enought to want to read the whole speech, you can read it here.

First I would like to start with the title of the speech: “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” i don’t know call be crazy, but the title sounds just a little propagandistic, no? Anyways, let’s boldly move on the way forward in the critique by RevolutionarySocialist.

I must say I like the first paragraph, really, seriously, it shows how committed amerikkka is to the safety of the Afghan people and how this is the only reason amerikkkan soldiers are there. Just read for yourself: “I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan…our commitment there…our interests” he then continues “It’s an extraordinary honor for me to do so [i.e. give a speech] here at West Point…[where people are] prepared to stand up for our security…[and represent] our country.” So you can see that Obama here outlines very well the trully selfless nature of amerikkkan armed murderers, otherwise know as soldiers, and the scum which control them, otherwise known as politicians.

Next Obama (wallahi its really hard for me not to say bush, because they are really indistinguishable) repeats an incredibly cliched statement which every war mongering president in amerikkka has repeated ad infinitum since the amerikkkan rape of Afghanistan: “We did not ask for this fight.” I am no expert in logic, but if you didn’t who did? Who was it who invaded Afghanistan? And then of course he tries to claim that the “terrorists” of 9/11 were the ones to ask for it. Really, is that what they wanted? And by the way how many Afghans were among the hijackers? Oh, right none. And of course if the “terrorists” of 9/11 had been trained in the mountains of switzerland, im sure amerikkka and nato would have invaded switzerland, right? And did the amerikkkans ever seriously attempt to negotiate with the Taliban to hand over the al-Qaeda leadership? No. And im sure again that if the “terrorists” were trained in switzerland the amerikkkans wouldn’t have tried to negotiate with the swiss government, yeah sure.

Particularly distasteful is Obama’s mention of the “nearly 3,000 people” who were “murdered” on 9/11. Do you really want to start a number’s game you stupid fuck? OK, here’s some numbers for you shit head: what about the more than a million Iraqis massacred by amerikkkan led murders? what about the tens of thousands of Afghanis and Pakistanis massacred by the same brutal physopaths? Guess they don’t matter, huh? White blood is just worth more, right you scumbag?

Then Obama claims “They [i.e. the terrorists] took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station.” He should have added “We, however, all superior amerikkkans, have focused on only killing poor Afghani and Pakistani Muslims. Do you see now how stupid those damned extremists are? We are proud to say that we slaughter with the utmost regard to faith, race, and class.”

Obama also describes the Pentagon, yes that Pentagon, as “one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington.” I mean how could he get that out of his mouth with a straight face? Maybe Obama just needs a little lesson. For those who don’t know, presumably only Obama, the Pentagon is the headquarters of the amerikkkan military, i.e. the headquarters of the most savage, militaristic, inhuman, genocidal group of murdering thugs the world has ever seen. If this is a sign of “democracy” please save us from this “democracy!” We want nothing to do with “democracy” if it means genocidal imperialism.

But I must say for all the criticisms I have of Obama, his analysis of the House of Saud was spot on: “a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions.” Oops, I read it over and he actually meant al-Qaeda, sorry about that. By the way the House of Saud continues to be one of amerikkka’s greatest allies.

This is Obama’s analytic (ok, im lying Obama is not smart enough to be capable of analysis) description of the Taliban: ” ruthless, repressive and radical movement.” I like this description but only if it is applied to amerikkka: “amerikka is a ruthless, repressive, and conservative country,” yeah that sounds about right.

Also look how Obama absolves amerikkka of any misconduct during the years of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan: “[the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan] after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.” So training and supplying the people you would later call “extremists,” “terrorists,” “radicals,” “islamofascists,” was really just amerikkkan “attention?” If that is so, then amerikkkan “attention” most be pretty fucked up, but perhaps Obama’s so deep in fictional, basely propagandistic crap that he doesn’t bother himself about silly “meanings” and “definitions” of words.

In the next paragraph Obama aims to show how “justified,” “democratic,” and “international” the decision to rape Afghanistan was. Listen to what he said, and try not to laugh: “The vote [to use force] in the Senate was 98 to nothing. The vote in the House was 420 to 1….[nato] invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks.” So, the elements which lended legitamacy to the rape of Afghanistan in Obama’s view were: the amerikkkan senate, the amerikkkan house, nato, and the UN security council (these are what Obama calls “domestic unity and international legitimacy”). First of all, that pitiful mention of the senate and the house only really show how spineless and war mongering amerikkkan politicans are, I mean ONE person among 519 voted against mass murder. How courageous. Now as regards nato and the UN security council, these are well known tools of western imperialism and are firmly under the control of white racists, so them supporting mass murder of non-whites is hardly surprising. But Obama really sums this up nicely himself, “America, our allies [and puppets] and the [white] world were acting as one to protect our [white imperialists'] common security.”

He continues to defend the rape of Afghanistan saying, “only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan.” You see they gave it a whole (actually less than) one month after 9/11 to invade Afghanistan. Now I am not a military strategist, but figuring in troop movements and the general excitement following 9/11, it is obvious that they maybe negotiated with the Taliban for a week, if that. But that was just to cover their ass, they obviously wanted to invade Afghanistan no matter what.

Now Obama gets really absurd, he tries to say how succefully everything went, but wait, that was over 8 years ago, if it was so succesfull why are amerikkkan murders still occupying Afghanistan? Here he spurts this absurdity: “The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels.” OK, is this why the Taliban continues to give heavy resistance to the occupying murderers and control many parts of Afghanistan?

And here Obama gets even more absurd in describing what the results of the brutal amerikkkan occupation are, “A place [Afghanistan] that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.” Hey fuck head, the only thing Afghanis were hoping after the amerikkkan invasion was that the amerikkkan occupiers GET THE FUCK OUT of Afghanistan. And do you think being constantly bombed from the air by amerikkkan airplanes brings the Afghanis happiness? NO it scares them and embitters them you stupid fuck.

Then Obama justifies and white-washes amerikkka’s installation of major puppet-in-chief Karzai, “t a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai.” Funny that an unelected president choosen by the western occupiers for his subservience and collaboration is still around eight years later, after several “elections,” surely just a coincidence.

And again Obama invokes “internationalism” to justify amerikkkan imperialism and mass murder: “an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.” He should have said, “an International group of murders from countries most subservient to amerikkka was created to bring lasting violence to what had been a relatively peaceful country.”

Now Obama moves his focus, or rather his lies, to the rape of Iraq, stating “The wrenching debate over the Iraq war is well-known and need not be repeated here.” If he is talking about “debate” in amerikkka he is making a big mistake: amerikkkans were almost as blindly supportive of the rape of Iraq as they were of the rape of Afghanistan.

And now let the whitewash of the rape of Iraq begin: “Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end.” Responsible? Are you fucking serious? Over a million Iraqi civilians massacred and you call this responsible? Is making sure you have tens of bases and thousands of soldiers stationed in Iraq, FOREVER, responsible you fucking bastard? Seriously get a dictionary dumbass.

Now some of that good old “greet us with flowers and sweets dammit” amerikkkan bullshit: “we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.” This is all complete lies, you fucking pieces of shit have invaded, occupied, and slaughtered our brothers in Iraq, and you want to keep a brutal presence in Iraq through military basses and stationing troops so you can continue to control Iraq, and you have the nerve to claim you gave Iraqis the chance to “shape their future?” and that you are “leaving Iraq to its people?” Rot in hell you hypocritical, lying piece of shit.

LOL, this is just funny: “Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it’s been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient security forces. ” Yes Obama continued, it’s is so legitamate that it was elected under foreign occupation, grovels disgustingly in front of the occupiers, is corrupt to its core, and is more conservative than the Taliban, oh yeah this government is legitamate.

Also, when talking about the need for a “surge” in Afghanistan, Obama repeatedly tries to portray it as a fight against mainly al-Qaeda, when the truth is it’s the Taliban who are fighting. Also when mentioning Pakistan, Obama repeatedly uses phrases about “extremist safe havens in Pakistan,” and yet leaves out the part about amerikkkan drone attacks in Pakistan which routinely slaughter tens of innocent Pakistani civilians.

Gotta love Obama’s description of the recent “election” in Afghanistan, he really has amazing logic: “although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.” So logically I guess this would suggest that when the amerikkkans were writing the Afghani constitution they made sure to point out that “elections” won by fraud are legitamate and legal.

In explaining his reasons for approving a 30,000 “surge” in Afghanistan, Obama claims ” the review has allowed me to ask the hard questions, and to explore all the different options.” How come all these “hard questions” and “different options” only led to a decision to continue the status quo, i.e. resulted in no change at all? Are you a little slow in grasping big concepts or what? Or are you just so stupid that no matter how many questions who ask or options you “explore” you will just continue the status quo?

I hate when people act righteous when in reality they are nothing but despicable, murderous criminals, and this is something which Obama is well skilled at: “I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.” To quote Immortal Technique, “Don’t lie to me motherfucker!” If you really thought about “restraint” and “consequences” you wouldn’t be an unrepentant genocidal fuck would you now Obama?

He even goes on to claim: “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” How does he see what he calls “the terrible wages of war?” By visiting amerikkkan murders in amerikkkan hospitals and going to a few funerals for dead amerikkkan murderers. Do you see the implication of this? The implication is that only amerikkkan blood, only the white man’s blood being shed can be considered a harmful attribute of war. To Obama it seems the far greater spilling of non-white blood is a plus, a beneficial aspect of war.

Obama also borrows from Bush’s rhetoric when he refers to something called ” the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda,” presumambly he means Afghanistan and Pakistan, but saying these two countries names I guess is too hard for him. Continuing his apeing of Bushian rhetoric, Obama claims “new attacks are being plotted as I speak…In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror.” I didn’t watch the speech, but I imagine Obama even pronounced “terror” in the same ignorant way as bush. By the way Obama, could you not just make up shit to try and scare the stupid amerikkkan sheep you control? Thanks, cause making up stories is a little juvenile, and at your age it is just a little criminal and devious.

Apparently Obama is under the impression that “the common security of the world” is “at stake” in Afghanistan. You know what, Obama? Do you know the single most effective way for work for “the common security of the world?” Demilitarize the most muderous, genocidal country on the earth, and in history: amerikkka.

Oh yeah Obama: “But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they [i.e. Afghanis] will ultimately be responsible for their own country.” Couldn’t you have saved eight years of murder and genocide, and let the Afghanis be responsible for their own country from the beginning?

A little praise for the puppet never hurts: “President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction.” But no one should be surprised Obama is praising Karzai’s speech, I mean the speech was obviously written for him by amerikkkans just like all his speeches and public statements.

Laying out his views on corruption in Afghanistan, Obama said, “We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.” Let me clarify what this means, it means those ministers, governors, and “local leaders” (i.e. warlords) who are subservient to the amerikkkans and who take money from the amerikkkans and karzai will be deemed “uncorrupt,” but if any ministers, governors, or “local leaders” are not subservient to the amerikkkans and karzai, they will be deemed “corrupt” and removed from their positions or imprisoned.

This deserves quoting at lenth: “The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering.” Yes, if you have just fallen off your chair I completely understand. Now I think Obama is a congenital liar and scumbag, but come on! You dare mention foreign occupation and you don’t include the criminal, genocidal amerikkkan occupation of Afghanistan as occupation? Are you fucking kidding me? And give me a fucking break, al-Qaeda occupied Afghanistan? How???!!! With the few thousand people, at most, that they had in Afghanistan? Go fuck yourself seriously. But maybe Obama just thinks that its not possible to call an amerikkkan occupation what it is, i.e. a fucking occupation! Oh and how does it make sense that you claim the Soviet occupation and the nonexistent al-Qaeda “occupation” were violent, and yet you claim that the amerikkkan occupation will end “war and suffering” in Afghanistan?????

Oh and by the way, amerikkka’s “relationship with Pakistan…is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust.” Now you know when someone uses “mutual” that many times it is just a vulgar attempt to disguise the base subservience of one of the parties.

LOL, this made me laugh: “America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development.” And as we know, amerikkka’s tried and true method for supporting “democracy and development” is normally mass amounts of arms which the recieving country buys instead of food for its people. Wow, what great “development” that is!

Once again Obama emphasize the selflessness of the amerikkkan rape of Afghanistan (psst: cause you see it is really solely for the benefit of the Afghanis): “I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces.”

This is by far the smartest thing Obama said yet in his speech: “Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military.” But you see this dumbass thinks thats a good thing, not that it’s an argument of how capitalism supports and is supported by murderous imperialism.

OK, unfortunately I have had the displeasure of reading many of bush’s speaches, and this is word for word copied from bush’s speeches: “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world.” Exactly as much would repeat in every stupid fucking speech he gave.

Obama always likes to assure the white man that he is just as racist and has just as much disgust with “third world” countries. Here he describes them as “disorderly regions, failed states.” Good job Obama, racist whites are impressed with your toming.

“We’ll have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power.” OK, just so you know you stupid fuck, amerikkka is the antithesis of anything “nimble” and “precise,” especially when it comes to “military power.”

So, like basically every amerikkkan president since WWII Obama claims that he wants “to pursue the goal of a world without them [nuclear weapons] — because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.” OK, amerikkka is the country with the most nuclear weapons, and it is doing nothing to get rid of them. And amerikkka’s greatest ally is the zionist entity which refuses to admit it has nuclear weapons, although everyone knows they do. But I will guarantee you this: amerikkka and the zionist entity can have all the nukes they want, in the end, as Obama said, this will not protect them.

“And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world.” Pleeeeeeeeeeeeez shut up! I had enough of your bullshit about “amerikkka and the Muslim world” when you came to my city and fucked everything up, so SHUT UP!

I didn’t watch the speech I read it, but I imagine he winked a few times at his audience when he said this: “which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.” Yalla shut up Obama, we know you’re lying out your ass.

This is just comical in its vulgarity: “And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.” Yep! That is who the amerikkkans are! Not the amerikkkans known for massacres, torture, weapons dealings, proping up dictatorships, maintaining racial segregation, and killing all people of color as fast as they can, wherever they can, even in amerikkka itself (or perhaps most of all in amerikkka itself, historically).

This is too fucking much: “We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.” nato and the world bank are the two organazations most recognized in starving and massacring millions and millions of people around the world. Your disgusting vulgarity and inhumanity just gets worse and worse you worthless piece of shit.

I need to rephrase this entire quote to make it accurate: “But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.” now we turn to revolutionary socialist for the truth: “More than any other nation, amerikkka has undercut global security and propagated genocides and racism accross the globe for a long as this disgusting entity has existed — a time that, for all it’s advocates of resistance to imperialism and capitalism, has seen walls erected, brutal capitalist markets open, and billions die from poverty in a world of plenty, unparalleleled advances in science aimed at further enslaving and impoverishing the human masses and restricting already limited human liberty.”

Obama’s final florish of lying and bullshiting: “unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination…we do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.” Again these are complete and utter lies, so i will rephrase it into the truth: “like the great powers of old, in fact even more than the great powers of old, amerikkka has sought world domination…amerikkka seeks to occupy other nations every chance it gets. amerikkka claims other nations’ resources as often as possible and continually targets peoples because of their faith and ethnicity.”

Now I will end my critque in a similar way to how Obama ended his speech:

Fuck you Obama. Rot in Hell Obama. Death to amerikkka. Fuck you very much Obama. Fuck you Obama.

Some socialists may laugh at or mock reactionaries and capitalists when they bring forth their arguments for capitalism and “democracy,” weaving as they do first this way than that way, irrevocably ending up with a tangled mess of logic that is near impossible to untangle and set straight. And indeed like a bow, once you succeed in pulling one end and untangling this mess, the whole argument falls apart. But I take great pleasure in hearing the arguments of reactionaries, nay I even learn much from their unceasing flow of wisdom.

For example, one of the chief arguments of reactionaries and capitalists in favor of capitalism and against marxism and socialism, is a very simple idea, sort of like the clever explanations for the world you would hear at a neo-nazi rally. This idea is that man (or humanity, I said man because the person elucidating this idea is most likely a sexist, just trying to set the mood) is at base selfish, and that socialism and marxism are too idealistic because they don’t take into account the fact that man is selfish and will always be selfish (or so say these brilliant luminaries). On the other hand, explain these luminaries, capitalism is based on a firm footing because it is based on the “realistic” view that man is selfish and will only look after his own interests.

Now I can’t help but be very impressed with such a noble and realistic argument. No, actually I am even completely convinced of it’s truth! Here I am, a socialist of several years, perhaps still young and thus impetuous, and all it took was this brilliant idea to win me over to brutal…i mean beautiful capitalism. I also used to be a radical feminist, and yes men can be feminists you misogynistic fucks, but after internalizing this brilliant, prophetic idea, I have taken it’s to it’s logical conclusion and become a devoted sexist. For I reasoned to myself that since man is by far mostly sexist, radical feminism is just absurd because it imagines that opinions and attitudes could change over time…imagine what nonsense! Obviously just as man is selfish and will always be selfish, so man is sexist and will always be sexist, thus just as capitalism is the only illogical…i mean logical economic system to pursue, so sexism is the only logical ideology to pursue in regards to gender relations. Simple!

I would just like to thank all the brilliant thinkers out there who have been fighting a los…winning battle against progressive ideologies in favor of ideologies which rest firmly on the prejudices and imperfections of humankind…er I mean of man.

This subject has always annoyed the hell out of me, and today when I was reading an article in the normally excellent International Socialist Journal (ISJ), the issue came up again and succeded in succesfully pissing me the fuck off. Here is the article: Class divisions in the gay community. Now I admit that i didn’t read the whole article, but the begining was enough to disgust the fuck out me. First of all I would like to say that ISJ articles are normally very well researched and never reactionary or racist. But this article was both racist and poorly researched. For instance he claimed that: “To be gay or lesbian in Cuba, for example, means you are likely to be sent to jail.” Now this is patently false, homosexual relations have been legal in Cuba since fucking 1979, and the Cuban government is often praised for its progressive stance on gay rights, and this is one of the reasons that the fucking reactionary Catholic church hates the Cuban government.

Before this the genius who wrote this article said: “But if we look at the position of gays and lesbians in capitalist society today we see that, despite the gains of the last three decades, in particular in the advanced industrialised countries, it is beyond any doubt that oppression continues.” In other words the glorius, all beneficient white man has made progress in the struggle for gay rights, but the dirty, dark savages of the “developing” countries are all just conservatives who are solely fighting against gay rights. He goes on to give examples of this, the first of which was Cuba (which we can see was a blatant lie), the others he mentioned were Bangladesh, Bahrain, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. In other words he specifically focused on Muslim nations, and of Muslim nations he intentionally picked the more conservative. Describing the treatment of homosexuals in these countries he offers very vague information and for all these countries he uses only 4 short sentences, i.e. not even a sentence per country. But you see they are dark, savage countries, so we supposedly don’t need much persausion to be convinced they are inhumane and conservative. Plus all except one is a Muslim nation! In the opinion of racist, islamaphobe fucks like this Peter Morgan that in itself is an indictment.

Anyway the “developed,” i.e. white countries about which he talks are australia, amerikkka, and britain. Each of these countries is given a paragraph length description and the issues of gay rights are not treated anywhere near as topically as when he used “developing” countries. Also his view of problems in the white countries is basically: they have progressive laws but they need to be expanded. Compare this with his heavy handed and vague characterization of the “developing” countries as basely cruel, illogical, and conservative.

So why is this important, and why did I waste my time writing all that? Well first of all I was pissed off, but second of all this is a serious problem that you can see everywhere.

Supposed supporters of gay rights and women’s rights often descend into base and disgusting racism and often are blatant and vocal supporters of imperialism. This is far from a new occurence, it is as old as feminism and the gay right’s movement. Take for instince this anecdote by Edward Said from 1979 about suppossed “feminist” Simone Beauvoir:

“Beauvoir was already there [at a discussion held by Jean-Paul Sarte's journal] in her famous turban, lecturing anyone who would listen about her forthcoming trip to Teheran with Kate Millett, where they were planning to demonstrate against the chador; the whole idea struck me as patronising and silly, and although I was eager to hear what Beauvoir had to say, I also realised that she was quite vain and quite beyond arguing with at that moment…

Beauvoir had been a serious disappointment, flouncing out of the room in a cloud of opinionated babble about Islam and the veiling of women.”

This is a good representation of the racists “feminists.” You see in their opinion the white woman is perfect and needs to be the example for all non-white women. The only time racist pieces of shit like this ever admit that a woman of color is an admirable “feminist” is is she has some association with whiteness: married to a white man, lives in the west, went to foreign schools, etc. And if she is anti-imperialist, that is a sure repellant for such faux feminists.

The “feminism” of the colonial feminists is nothing but racist misogyny. These “feminists” are really nothing but condescending “white is right” racists whose idea of “feminism” is white women instructing women of color how they should act, what they should do, and how they should fight gender oppression in their society. In reality these dumb fucks need instruction themselves because they never seem to realize that white countries are as sexist and conservative as “dark” countries, but the methods of oppression are different. Calling them feminists at all is an insult to the feminism of real heroic, struggling women around the world. They are nothing but apologists for the sexism in their own societies (they often like to claim that western societies are past sexism) and brutal supporters of imperialist violence against women of color around the world. Such sexist shits also continually portray women of color as powerless, ignorant victims of inhumanly cruel men of color. What about the working women of Egypt who continually take the vanguard in labor struggles, to give but one of innumerable such examples? But racists rarely take THE TRUTH into account while they are spewing their bullshit.

Real feminism as opposed to faux, racist “feminism” has never portrayed women (anywhere) as powerless, ignorant actors in life. The reality is that many, if not most women, constantly struggle against sexism every day of their lives and are rarely praised for their admirable resistance which is nothing less than heroic. To claim women are passive in the face of sexism and male oppression is just as sexist as being a male mysioginist.

My argument is really quite simple: sexism, racism, imperialism, and homophobia are all illogical, narrow-minded ideologies which preach oppression of a supposedly “superior” group over a supposedly “inferior” group. That being said, if you are trully against oppression, you would have to be against all four of these. Yet we see sexist anti-imperialists, racist gay rights supporters, racist “feminists,” etc. But unless you are against sexism, racism, imperialism, and homophobia, and not one or the other among these, its obvious that you are not sincere in your beliefs. And in my opinion, even if you are all of these things except one you are really no fucking better than someone who is an advocate of all four.

In other words:

FUCK RACISTS!

FUCK SEXISTS!

FUCK IMPERIALISTS!

FUCK HOMOPHOBES!

And we should all realize that if we trully want to build a better world, one where no one is discriminated against and where differences are respected and praised, we must fight against all four of these disgusting ideologies, and not be fooled or tricked by the fucking sewage which claims to be fighting against one of these, but is in reality only working to further the goal of another. And we must also remember that any “leftist” who is a racist, an imperialist, a homophobe, or a sexist is not a true leftist, but instead deserves only our contempt and a noose hung from the nearest tree. And we must realize that any revolutionary group or socialist movement which is not adamantly and clearly against sexism, homophobia, racism, and imperialism, is destined to fail miserably and only serve to perpetuate the inhuman, cruel, bitter existence which is metted out to the majority of the world’s people.

I would like to sincerely thank my betters, the beneficent government, the self-sacrificing and kind police, the rich who drive drive cars worth as much as our apartments.

Thanks to all of your beneficent actions and kind struggles we all live in anger and many of us in indifference.

When we steal and murder, we thank you for your efforts to find the jobless jobs and find food for the poor.

When we hear each other flare up and scream at each other over trifles, we thank you o benevolent masters for lightening the load of life from our shoulders.

When our children are burnt alive or shot dead in the street, we thank you o civilized white man.

When our lovers and companions are raped we thank you for doing your best to ignore such abominations and instead focusing your impartial justice on the truly dangerous people: political dissidents who shamelessly try to tear down the status quo.

We thank you for beating, raping, and electrocuting them to ensure they don’t struggle any more.

When you give the wealth of the nation to foreign capitalists, we can only fall to our knees in sincere thanks to this bold effort to stabilize our jobs, pay, and working conditions, which you selflessly implement without pocketing a pound.

When we ride old, beaten down, half-operative buses, our hearts overflow in gratitude towards those driving around us in expensive foreign cars, grateful that we could have the honor of reaping the benefits of their lifestyle.

When we see children working on construction sites, building lavish apartments for other children to live in we can only think of the greatness and beauty of the system which lets this happen.

When our betters laugh in derision when we tell them where we live, our only response is to thank them for using some of their precious time to converse with us, who’s time is as expensive as dirt.

When prices are increased for the only foods we eat, we are thankful that our masters who make these decisions won’t be hurt because they never eat these foods.

When friends and family die because they cannot afford medical care, we thank you o benevolent government for privatizing our health care, it has indeed changed our lives.

When you scold us for having too many babies, or for living in filth, or for being lazy, we take your advice to heart and thank you for your kind words.

When you allow us to work 12 hours a day, we thank you for the opportunity to live solely for work, food, and sleep.

When we are crushed by poverty and are forced to beg for food, we can only praise your kindness in allowing us to carry on.

When we are forced to prostitute ourselves to feed our children, we thank our charitable customers for their donations.

When we are imprisoned trying to feed our families we can only marvel at the stately courts and judges who know so well how to administer justice to us, their obvious inferiors.

When we are told that white women are the pinnacle of beauty, we thank you for your instruction and try our best to immitate them.

When we are told that we should follow the western model of complete gender equality we can’t hold back our praise for your wisdom o infinitely just whites.

When you invade and occupy our countries and kill our brethren we thank you for your protection of innocents and selfless desire to spread your superior civilization.

When you decide what we can and cannot read, we thank you for protecting our morals and weak minds.

When you turn us against each other and turn men and women into animals struggling for survival we thank you for your impartiality and condescension.

Thank you for your beatings, your torture, your oppression, your racism, your murder, your brutality, your classism, your injustice, your prisons, your jinjoism, your arrogance, your sexism, your indifference, your inhumanity, thank you!

I have been thinking a lot lately about something which hopefully will interest my comrades who read this blog. Yet I am a little uneasy writing it as at first I couldn’t really articulate my argument about this topic. My aim in this post is to show not that the proletariat is by nature unreligious, but that however religious the proletariat in any given place may be, there are nonetheless large groups of people in the downtrodden and exploited classes who give little, if any attention to religion. For many of the lower class issues like food, health, and housing are so overwhelming that religion is unimportant to them, or at best peripheral. Also one can see the truth in this as most religious extremists and conservatives tend to come from the bourgeois, although the bourgeois itself often blames (illogically) religious conservatism on the lower class. This also shows how class oriented are groups that insist on making religion more important an issue than social and political problems (and this goes for preachy atheists as well as preachy believers). I mean religion or disbelief should be a personal issue, not conflated in importance at the expense of social and political issues of real importance. That being said, I already wrote a post about my feelings about religion and socialism, you can read it here.

Anyway…what I want to write about is what I am going to call proletarian atheism although this name leaves a lot to be desired. I would like to make clear from the beginning that it is not necessarily a belief that there is no god, but rather an unbelief in a god or an indifference to the existence of a god.

Now what brought all of this to my mind is that I recently saw my grandmother and while talking with her and then later with my mother I found out about something which really surprised me and made me feel like a complete idiot for completely misunderstanding a woman who I have spent so much time with and talked so much with throughout my life. Before I continue I should give a little background on my grandmother. She is now in her mid-80’s, but still healthy and active, and not senile. She was born into a poor family, and although her family weren’t peasants, her mother and father’s families were. She got married about 60 years ago, and the family she maintained with her husband was a proletarian one. For more than thirty years she worked as a nurse, and throughout this time, especially when her children were still at home, she often worked several jobs (among the extra jobs she worked was in an railroad office, and in a post office). Her husband died about thirty-five years ago after being sick with parkinsons disease for years, during which he was on a strict diet, had to move around in a wheel chair, and couldn’t work which left all of the bread-earning to his wife. Before his illness he worked on the railroad and later for the post. Her husband died when my mother, the youngest, was about 17, and because he was sick and unable to work for such a long time it basically meant that my grandmother raised three children on her own with no help and not only did she have to work long hours to provide for her family (she often would work two full shifts at the hospital), but she also had to take care of her sick and dying husband. Sorry for the long background, but I think the background is necessary.

Now to get to the point which I’m obviously not very good at doing. About a month ago my family was having dinner with my grandmother, and while talking someone said something about the afterlife, you know one of the common expressions like “things will be better when we die,” etc, and my grandmother immediately jumped on them and asked them if they really believed there was an afterlife. To which the person responded, ~ “don’t you believe in a life after death?” To which my grandmother responded ~ “no, when I die that’s it I will be laying in the ground dead, life will be over.” This surprised me greatly, but as the conversation ended there it quickly slipped from my mind. A few days later however I was having dinner with my mother, and while we were talking she brought up the subject of her mother, and after I expressed my surprise that my grandmother doesn’t believe in an afterlife, although I had always thought she was religious, my mother responded by saying that she thinks my grandmother doesn’t really believes in god at all, and obviously not in an afterlife, and that her observation of many of the rituals of belief is just due to a kind feeling of insurance in her mind, like “I might as well observe the rituals, in case there is a god.” Now I should mention that my mother was not saying this with any contempt or derision or disapproval at all, as my mother isn’t very religious either. Yet the whole point I am trying to make here is that my grandmother really shouldn’t be considered religious or a believer, although outwardly it may appear that she is. And I think I can explain this very simply. My grandmother’s life has been very difficult, she was always very busy just keeping food on the table and a roof over her family’s head, i.e. she never had time to bother herself with religion except perhaps in her old age, which is obviously the only period in which I have known her, and even then she seems to have just taken to observing some of the rituals while really not believing in anything. And further she has seen first hand the cruelty of the world vividly, a cruelty which of course easily leads to unbelief, and so perhaps even if she did believe in anything at one point in her life, now she doesn’t.

The other instance of this I found in Albert Camus’s autobiographical novel The First Man which was published posthumously and unfinished. Now whatever you think about Camus, and the fact that he was one of the French in occupied Algeria, please disregard that at least for now. I do plan to write a long post about this on my other blog Socialist Stories, as this is an issue I have been very interested in because I really love Camus’s literature, and have read all of his novels several times, and yet many, like Edward Said condemn his literature for justified or unjustified reasons (I will explore this in the other post). Anyway…this book is where I first ran across this idea of “proletarian atheism” not in theory but through the portrait Camus drew of his family. Before I give the excerpt however I should say something briefly about the structure of this book. First of all he narrated the novel not in first person, but in third person and also changes the names of the characters from their real-life equivalents. Jacques in the novel is really Albert Camus, and the grandmother and mother in the novel are really based on Camus’ mother and grandmother. Also, Camus’ father (and thus also Jacques’) died only a few years after he married Camus’ mother. The rest of her life Camus’ mother remained unmarried. Now here is the excerpt:

“Religion had no part in their [his family's] lives. No one went to Mass, no one invoked or taught the Ten Commandments, nor did anyone refer to the rewards and punishments of the hereafter. When someone’s death was reported in the grandmother’s presence, “Well,” she would say, “he’ll fart no more.” If it was someone for who she was deemed to have at least some liking, “Poor man,” she would say, “he was still young,” even if the deceased had long since been old enough to die. It was not a matter of ignorance on her part. For she had seen many die around her. Two of her children, her husband, her son-in-law [the mother's husband], and all her nephews in the war. But that was just it: she was as familiar with death as she was with work or poverty, she did not think about it but in some ways lived it, and besides, the needs of the moment were even more urgent for her than [most]…[add to that] the harsh work and struggle of daily life, not to mention, in the case of Jacques’ family, the awful wear and tear of poverty, it becomes hard to find a place for religion…As for Catherine Cormery [the mother], only she with her gentleness might have suggested faith, but in fact that gentleness was her faith…[and] she never spoke of God. In fact, that was a word Jacques never heard spoken in his childhood, nor did he trouble himself about it. Life, so vivid and mysterious, was enough to occupy his entire being…[For Jacques' family] religion was part of their civic life and that alone. They were Catholic as they were French; it entailed a certain number of rituals…between these rituals, which necessarily were far apart in time, they were occupied with other things, and most of all with surviving.”

I have only been to a zoo once or maximum twice in my life. I can still vaguely remember my first and perhaps only visit to a zoo. I was about eight and I believe that I went just me and my mother. I remember walking around and looking at the animals, easily noticing their tight caging in and the artificial, contrived surroundings in which they dwelled. I also remember how depressed and lethargic they looked, with perhaps the occasional activity that seemed to be done more out of distress than energy. The one emotion I can still remember carrying away from there to this day is an indignation and confused state of mind, wondering why should these poor animals be caged up, locked in and prevented from living freely and moving around of their own volition. In other words, I carried away with me a feeling that zoos were disgusting and unjust, a feeling which was only strengthened in me after talking with my mother, who felt and feels strongly the same way.

It is not surprising then that I have always been revolted at the thought of a human zoo, or in other words a prison. A place where humans are kept caged in like animals for years upon years, and some even for life. The thought of being kept from such a simple thing as moving freely, and to be prevented from tasting fresh air, living in the same cell for years on end, is a horrible thought. Whoever thought up the idea of prisons, and for that matter zoos, must have been one sick psychopathic piece of shit. As if all of this wasn’t bad enough, prisons are kept packed with the most downtrodden people in society, people given no opportunities, just problems. People who, while trying to feed themselves and perhaps their family, are thrown into the bottom of the slave ship (as immortal technique articulately puts it) to rot for years on end just because they don’t wilfully follow the state’s brutal capitalist system. And of course like so many other things the fascists who rule justify the existence of prisons by exceptions, you know rapists, brutal murders, etc. Yet these, of course only make up a tiny minority of the prison population in any country. I say the more prison riots the better, the more breakouts the better, the more prison guards killed the better. When the revolution comes, we will deal with the real criminals: business men, leaders of state, the factory owners, the fucks who will in villas worth millions of pounds, and we will all join together and liberate the prisoners of capitalist oppression and destroy the fucking Bastille. Any less wouldn’t be anything close to a Revolution.

I’m too tired to blog about Bushama’s Nobel, but this article sums up my feelings very well (via comrade Atef):

As Brian Cowen congratulated President Barack Obama on behalf of the Irish people on winning the Nobel Peace Prize many people in Ireland and around the world are livid at the award.

On 7th October a legal case was filed at the Spanish Audiencia Nacional against the United States president for commissioning, condoning and/or perpetuating multiple war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq. Strangely this did not receive international mainstream media attention.

Why has Barack Obama been awarded the prize? The US leader’s efforts to strengthen international diplomacy was acknowledged but no mention made of how much substance it contains.

Obama’s alleged willingness to talk with leaders of Iran and Syria was refreshing yet he has extended sanctions against both countries.
His declaration to pursue a worldwide reduction of nuclear weapons,and ending the Eastern European missile defence system are welcomed, yet Obama is supporting Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads while repeatedly raising the threat of an unconfirmed Iranian nuke. Here is Obama with troops engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan demanding that Iran, which is invading and occupying no country, cannot be trusted with nuclear energy capability, because the capability might in the future lead to nuclear weapon capability, like Israel’s, India’s, and Pakistan’s–all non-signatories to the nuclear proliferation treaty, countries that, unlike Iran, have never submitted to IAEA inspections.

The Israeli government is screaming at the suggestion that Israel submit to IAEA inspections.
Iran is insisting that the US government abide by the non-proliferation treaty that the US originated and that Iran signed, but there is no co-operation from Obama on that one.

Meanwhile, the US and Israeli governments, who are so solicitous of international law and holding accountable countries that violate it moved to prevent the report of Judge Richard Goldstone from reaching the UN Security Council.
Despite the findings of the report on war crimes committed by Israel Obama refuses to challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza or to induce the United Nations to challenge Israeli impunity. Instead he supports increasing US military aid to Israel to $30 billion over the next 10 years.

Obama continues to ignore Hamas notwithstanding the party’s democratic mandate since 2006. This policy shows that talk of diplomacy and promoting democracy in the Middle East is a bad joke.

The US president’s priorities are escalating war in Afghanistan, spreading war into Pakistan whilst continuing an almost forgotten war in Iraq. He has substantially increased the number of mercenaries involved in these occupations. Obama toured around the G20 trying to sell his AfPak strategy to his NATO allies to commit large numbers of troops to a doomed war.

He’s asking Europe to support U.S. objectives in western and central Asia. He has retained the use of extraordinary rendition and secret prison camps involving third countries. He’s pumping up the National Endowment for Democracy to promote U.S. neoliberal economic policy and interferes in the elections and democratic processes of countries where the outcome might not be favourable to U.S. interests. He’s continuing to use the rhetoric of the war on drugs in Latin America.
Is this “co-operation between peoples” Obama style?

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said “only very rarely has a person captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future to the same extent as President Obama”.
It is true that during his electoral campaign, Barack Obama raised the hopes of many around the world. But examining his months in office many are disappointed. Barak Obama asserts a different image and puts a different face on US foreign policy without providing any substantive change in policies.

President Ahmadinejad told the UN that “selfishness and insatiable greed have taken the place of such humanitarian concepts as love, sacrifice, dignity, and justice. . . . Lies have taken the place of honesty; hypocrisy has replaced integrity, and selfishness has taken the place of sacrifice. Deception in foreign affairs is called foresight and statesmanship, looting the wealth of other nations is called development efforts; occupation is said to be a gift that promotes freedom and democracy; and defenseless nations are subjected to repression in the name of defending human rights.”

No wonder Obama joins the likes of Henry Kissenger in receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

I should have written this post months ago, but never actually thought of writing a post about this subject although it is always on my mind at the university. My university, AUC, is of course one of the best examples of universities being essentially like businesses, but I think that higher education at any level in a capitalistic society will be by nature like a business.

Think about it like this, how many times have you heard something like “education (i.e. higher education) is an investment”? Surely many times, and although it’s point normally is to stress the importance of higher education, I would agree with it completely and yet use this to show how UN-useful higher education can be. Because going to a university in a capitalist society is exactly like making an investment. You, or your parents pay money every semester to a university, or rather put a little money down each semester on an investment. Now at the end of your education, when you graduate, you will finally have finished paying off this investment and you will take what so much money was spent on: i.e. a little piece of paper saying you graduated from this or that university. This investment, this piece of paper, will then assist you in getting a more “respectable” and/or higher paying job than you could have gotten without this piece of paper, this investment.

This is exactly what higher education comes down to in a capitalist society, an economic transaction. And this basically economic nature of universities is another way the upper classes reinforce and maintain brutal capitalism in their societies. For through higher education the class system is reinforced: i.e. there will be those who can’t afford and higher education, there will be people who can only afford public education, and there will be people who can afford private education and there will be people who can afford education in foreign countries. And the higher that one is able to pay for an investment in higher “education,” the more the person will earn once they begin to work. And thus the rich will stay rich and the poor will stay poor. And this is of course denying the fact that many who spend less money on higher “education” are much better educated than the people who spent ridiculous amounts of money on private or foreign “education” and yet got little out of it in terms of actual education.

Yet if there was only public, free education, no one would be excluded, no one would be looked on as more intelligent just because they spent more money on their education than someone else. Also, with the inherently economic aspect removed, students would surely be able to enjoy true education, not indoctrination or petty rote memorization of useless bullshit. Free education is one of the necessary steps towards achieving a classless society and this is of course why capitalist governments are so opposed to it.
_

This is cross-posted on both RevSocialist (اشتراكي ثوري) and Socialist Stories (حكايات اشتراكية)

A comrade recently emailed me regarding my last two posts, and one of the things she wrote is that she was suprised that you can download all the works I post on this blog. This obvioubly brings up another issue: I use scribd almost exclusively when presenting works on Socialist Stories, and I also use it often on RevSocialist, yet if a numerous amount of people don’t know how to use and interact with scribd than that hurts everyone. So this is my tutorial for all my readers out there:

First of all to get from a post on my blog to the page of the document on Scribd, you need only click on the blue link (the title) above the document:

Or if you want you can browse the documents on my scribd accounts: RevSocialist, Socialist Stories.

Now if you want to download a pdf of one of my documents you need to sign up for a scribd account which is easy and free. First go to Scribd, and you will see this:

On the main page click on Sign Up, then a window will appear:

Fill in your email address, and create a username and password. Now you are a member of Scribd and freely download my documents! But lets see how that is done:

First go to the document you want to download, let’s say it is The Investigative Expedition which I showed earlier:

Then you will have to select the format you want to download the document in, ALWAYS choose .pdf:

Now you know how to use scribd! Please be sure to download your favorite works, it’s much easier to read them in pdf than online on scribd.

This is Tupac’s song Violent from his first album 2pacalypse now, I was listening to it to tonight for the about 10,000th time since I first heard it more than 10 years ago, and thought it would be a good idea to share it: