Movies Suck Now: Bush's Hollywood
skep...@aol.com
all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off. All movies are now
no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
he can steal their stuff.
Culture is now dead.
Aardvark
> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
that's because there is no need for socialism, einstein. socialism
destroys everything it touches. you'd also be *very much* hard pressed
to even try to act as though "movies are all rightwing". most
hollywood creations are quite leftwing, but please don't let the truth
get in the way of your slobbering pro-commie rant.
> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet.
you got at least that much right. of course even a broken clock is
right twice a day.
Ever since George
> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
why? peter fonda wasn't dressed up like karl marx drunkenly spouting
the 19th century's greatest side splitting comedy work (the communist
manefesto)?
All movies are now
> no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
i loved that scene where speed got the mach 5 up to highway speed
using his feet.
> Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
> he can steal their stuff.
they named the dog "indiana".
> Culture is now dead.
not as dead as socialism will make society. you intentionally left
that part out.
how you like them apples?
aardvark
Seon Ferguson
<skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:44770ac7-6c31-4924...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
automatically think Indiana Jones is a bad guy. Indy4 was the best thing to
come out of Hollywood for ages and don't give me the there's only left wing
movies in Hollywood crap what about Fahrenheit 911?
I hope there's more Indy movies so we can see more Commies get shoot or
eaten by ants.
BDK
441b73...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
Rightwing? BWHAHAHAAA!
Why should a movie hit at a non-existant need for socialism and
revolution?
> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> been on a giant slide into reaction.
BWHAHAHAHAA! You need to get back to the real world before anyone will
even begin to take you the slightest bit seriously.
> Bush asked Hollywood to come on
> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
WTF drugs are you on?
> All movies are now no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this
> years Flintstones.
Is it that bad? I didn't like the cartoon anyways..
> Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
> he can steal their stuff.
BWHAHAHAHAHA! So, what drugs are you currently on?
>
> Culture is now dead.
That was your brain.
--
BDK
Kook Magnet Supreme!
NJJC#1
Shill #1
BDK
01.iinet.net.au>, seo...@gmail.com says...
BWAHAAHAAAHAAAA!
Right and left get you mixed up sometimes, don't they Seonny Boy?
> I hope there's more Indy movies so we can see more Commies get shoot or
> eaten by ants.
>
>
>
--
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22a274b78...@news.buckeye-express.com...
Fred
>> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
>> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
>> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
>> been on a giant slide into reaction.
>
> BWHAHAHAHAA! You need to get back to the real world before anyone will
> even begin to take you the slightest bit seriously.
>
No he's quite correct in his overall assumption. Human rights have
been tossed out the window in the U.S. and there is a president there
who openly advocates interrogation techniques that the rest of the
world calls torture and he's bankrupted the country to finance his
insane wars for personal profit. The list of his crimes go on and on,
and he's only the figurehead. The crimes of the handlers behind him
are even greater. THAT is not a republic. It's fascism.
--
Peace,
Fred
Fred
> On May 24, 2:11 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies
>> are all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or
>> revolution.
>
> that's because there is no need for socialism, einstein. socialism
> destroys everything it touches.
There is a desperate need for socialism. We need a system that puts
the needs of people first; a system that treats everyone as equal,
because that's the way we are, a system that lets us all participate in
the governing of our countries
> you'd also be *very much* hard pressed
> to even try to act as though "movies are all rightwing". most
> hollywood creations are quite leftwing, but please don't let the truth
> get in the way of your slobbering pro-commie rant.
>
Nearly all the action movies are pro-violence, and that usually means
right wing, but not always. They are just trying to make violence a
part of our culture so it will be easier to get kids to join the army
and kill innocent people for them, and stuff like that.
>> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
>> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet.
>
> you got at least that much right. of course even a broken clock is
> right twice a day.
>
He's been more or less right on with everything.
>
> Ever since George
>> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
>> been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
>> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
>> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
>
> why? peter fonda wasn't dressed up like karl marx drunkenly spouting
> the 19th century's greatest side splitting comedy work (the communist
> manefesto)?
>
It has it's problems, but for the day and with what they knew at the
time, it was a great step forward.
--
Peace,
Fred
Aardvark
> On Saturday 24 May 2008 17:37, Aardvark wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 2:11 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies
> >> are all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or
> >> revolution.
>
> > that's because there is no need for socialism, einstein. socialism
> > destroys everything it touches.
>
> There is a desperate need for socialism. We need a system that puts
> the needs of people first;
the needs of the people? what the people need above all is to be left
alone by government.
a system that treats everyone as equal,
socialism makes us equally enslaved. we can all do without that.
socialism has failed in so many places (and succeeded nowhere on
earth) that i'm incredibly surprised that you guys still try to sell
it.
> because that's the way we are, a system that lets us all participate in
> the governing of our countries
it's supposed to let us participate. the reality is that the big shots
say who gets to play and who gets purposely ignored by the media.
> > you'd also be *very much* hard pressed
> > to even try to act as though "movies are all rightwing". most
> > hollywood creations are quite leftwing, but please don't let the truth
> > get in the way of your slobbering pro-commie rant.
>
> Nearly all the action movies are pro-violence, and that usually means
> right wing, but not always. They are just trying to make violence a
> part of our culture so it will be easier to get kids to join the army
> and kill innocent people for them, and stuff like that.
i figured that much out 20 yrs ago when they aired "g.i. joe"
cartoons. of course you say that as though only the political
rightwingers have a monopoly on violence. it's a shameful and
intentional ignorance of history, particularly stalinism, and other
socialist dictatorships.
> >> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> >> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet.
>
> > you got at least that much right. of course even a broken clock is
> > right twice a day.
>
> He's been more or less right on with everything.
less right. very much less right.
>
> > Ever since George
> >> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> >> been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
> >> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> >> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
>
> > why? peter fonda wasn't dressed up like karl marx drunkenly spouting
> > the 19th century's greatest side splitting comedy work (the communist
> > manefesto)?
>
> It has it's problems, but for the day and with what they knew at the
> time, it was a great step forward.
a "great step forward" for tyranny. over 100 million plus souls
murdered in the name of socialism. no peace came from it and most
certainly the people were less free than before socialism was forced
on them.
how many more times must it be *proven to you* before you get it that
socialism simply does not work?
> Peace,
> Fred
real peace (not *your* fake kind),
aardvark
BDK
fr...@fredwilliams.ca says...
It's still a whole lot better than the nightmare of socialism.
Red Cloud
> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
PWHAHAHAHAH....A commie is still here? I thought they were all dead.
Killed by American capitalists. Can't believe Hollywood is still
cooking commie menu. I mean Hollywood could go back to past to a
plenty of other menu to cook such as Native American Indian as savage
killing "innocent" white settlers , Black as criminal, Asian as red
communists. Whatever happend to the legendary Hollywood anti-Asian
depicted film? Oh I know growing market in Asia that HOllywood no
longer able to produce another anti-Asian film because no Asian would
spend money on that...Russia is a small market
for Hollywood that's why Hollywood still go after commies.
Red Cloud
> In article <g1aeuf$nf...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> f...@fredwilliams.ca says...
Actually you have never lived in socialism. So how do you know
socialism does not work? I don't know it works or not. But I think
socialism plus capitalism work better such place as Europe and
japan. Both Europe and Japan are more socialist than China or
Russia and they are doing much much much better than whatever this
USA is called. Look at the statistic! 14 more countries are known
to be better place to live than whatever this is called in USA.
Out of 14, only Japan is not European and all 13 are Europeans.
See I would never buy your sappy crappy American redneck view that
because America is better than China or Russia or Africa so America
must be the #1 place in the world. Why not compare to Scandinavian
nation? Why not compare to Japan? Did you know that Norway and Sweden
is more socialist than Capitalist?
Seon Ferguson
"Red Cloud" <mmdi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd73409c-95b0-4875...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
would make a realistic enemy for Indy? to me this is just a great movie. Its
a shame people have to let politics ruin the best movie of 2008.
Red Cloud
> On May 24, 8:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliams.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 24 May 2008 17:37, Aardvark wrote:
>
> > > On May 24, 2:11 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies
> > >> are all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or
> >
Oh you stupid redneck. All you know about socialism is
China or Russian or Cuba. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada
are all socialist nation. You shitty American simply have no idea
what socialism is. All you know is your redneck anti-chinese and
anti-Russian view.
> > because that's the way we are, a system that lets us all participate in
> > the governing of our countries
>
> it's supposed to let us participate. the reality is that the big shots
> say who gets to play and who gets purposely ignored by the media.
>
> > > you'd also be *very much* hard pressed
> > > to even try to act as though "movies are all rightwing". most
> > > hollywood creations are quite leftwing, but please don't let the truth
> > > get in the way of your slobbering pro-commie rant.
>
> > Nearly all the action movies are pro-violence, and that usually means
> > right wing, but not always. They are just trying to make violence a
> > part of our culture so it will be easier to get kids to join the army
> > and kill innocent people for them, and stuff like that.
>
> i figured that much out 20 yrs ago when they aired "g.i. joe"
> cartoons. of course you say that as though only the political
> rightwingers have a monopoly on violence. it's a shameful and
> intentional ignorance of history, particularly stalinism, and other
> socialist dictatorships.
>
The media has ignored racism and racist stereotype on native
American Indian and Asian-American because the media and Hollywood
is run by the white racists and Zionist mafia. Hollywood was the
projector of the White American racism and promoting Zionism.
Socialism has no place in Hollywood or any media. They were too busy
stereotyping Native American Indian as the savager killer of killing
"innocence" White American settlers such in John Wayne movies.
Shall I go on this?
> > >> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> > >> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet.
>
> > > you got at least that much right. of course even a broken clock is
> > > right twice a day.
>
> > He's been more or less right on with everything.
>
> less right. very much less right.
>
>
>
> > > Ever since George
> > >> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> > >> been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
> > >> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> > >> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
>
> > > why? peter fonda wasn't dressed up like karl marx drunkenly spouting
> > > the 19th century's greatest side splitting comedy work (the communist
> > > manefesto)?
>
> > It has it's problems, but for the day and with what they knew at the
> > time, it was a great step forward.
>
> a "great step forward" for tyranny. over 100 million plus souls
> murdered in the name of socialism. no peace came from it and most
> certainly the people were less free than before socialism was forced
> on them.
>
Learn history right, dumbass. It called "Great Leap Forward."
STOP spitting nonsense, lying, propaganda through your sappy
crappy redneck mouth! No 100 million souls killed in Russia or
China. Mao socialism caused 33 millions chinese souls. over 50
Russian killed during WWI and WWII war. over 10 millions Native
American Indians killed directly and indirectly by the European
invasion.
> how many more times must it be *proven to you* before you get it that
> socialism simply does not work?
>
How many more time must be proven to you before you get it
that your sappy crappy redneck view does not work?
> > Peace,
> > Fred
>
> real peace (not *your* fake kind),
>
> aardvark
zzarvark
Red Cloud
> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The real enemy is no market for Hollywood. Today Hollywood can't
use Asians as villains because Asian market is growing fast. No Asian
nation would watch anti-Asian Hollywood film. Anti-Asian Hollywood
film used to work perfect but now it doesn't work because Asians are
economically and politically growing. They do aware Hollywood racism
and Zionism. Look at China. There is no way Hollywood would produce
another Charlies Chan or other antiChinese character.
It's not about politic now. It's the market.
Seon Ferguson
but I don't foresee a movie where Asians are the bad guys. If that happens
who would make pirated versions of the movie after its released? Plus as you
said the market is big in those countries. However China and the US are
allies.
Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the Muslims
are the bad guys? I guess I understand sly's reasoning for Rambo 4 but
still...
Anyway so who do you think would be a more realistic enemy for Indiana Jones
after the Nazi's left the picture?
Government Shill #2
>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the Muslims
>are the bad guys?
No?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
Shill #2
--
I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Seon Ferguson
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r46i345ajebuk7t7m...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:27:37 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the
>>Muslims
>>are the bad guys?
>
> No?
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
>
Government Shill #2
Ah. So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began?"
How about:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/plotsummary
Seon Ferguson
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:52:44 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:r46i345ajebuk7t7m...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:27:37 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the
>>>>Muslims
>>>>are the bad guys?
>>>
>>> No?
>>>
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
>>>
>>I haven't seen that for years. Besides it was made before the War on
>>Terror.
>
> Ah. So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single
> movie
> where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began?"
>
> How about:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/plotsummary
>
Indiana Jones or even james Bond type hero has to fight muzzies.
Government Shill #2
>
>"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:js6i34hodr9u61dmn...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:52:44 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:r46i345ajebuk7t7m...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:27:37 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the
>>>>>Muslims
>>>>>are the bad guys?
>>>>
>>>> No?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
>>>>
>>>I haven't seen that for years. Besides it was made before the War on
>>>Terror.
>>
>> Ah. So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single
>> movie
>> where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began?"
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/plotsummary
>>
>Thats based on a true story. I meant action ones where the tough Rambo or
>Indiana Jones or even james Bond type hero has to fight muzzies.
Ah! So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began, action ones
where the tough Rambo or Indiana Jones or even james Bond type hero has to fight
muzzies?"
Why didn't you say so?!?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/plotsummary
Seon Ferguson
Government Shill #2
A single one!
Yay!
Shill #2
--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov
Fred
> On May 24, 8:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliams.ca> wrote:
>> On Saturday 24 May 2008 17:37, Aardvark wrote:
>>
>> > On May 24, 2:11 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies
>> >> are all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or
>> >> revolution.
>>
>> > that's because there is no need for socialism, einstein. socialism
>> > destroys everything it touches.
>>
>> There is a desperate need for socialism. We need a system that puts
>> the needs of people first;
>
> the needs of the people? what the people need above all is to be left
> alone by government.
>
If the people control the government it's no problem. If the people
don't control the government, then you don't have democracy.
> a system that treats everyone as equal,
>
> socialism makes us equally enslaved. we can all do without that.
> socialism has failed in so many places (and succeeded nowhere on
> earth) that i'm incredibly surprised that you guys still try to sell
> it.
Socialism is about all the people controlling the government.
>
>> because that's the way we are, a system that lets us all participate
>> in the governing of our countries
>
> it's supposed to let us participate. the reality is that the big shots
> say who gets to play and who gets purposely ignored by the media.
Which is why socialism was invented, to stop the "big shots" from
controlling the government and putting it back in the hands of the
people. The big shots are afraid of this and spend a lot of time and
money spreading lies about socialism, calling it evil.
>
>> > you'd also be *very much* hard pressed
>> > to even try to act as though "movies are all rightwing". most
>> > hollywood creations are quite leftwing, but please don't let the
>> > truth get in the way of your slobbering pro-commie rant.
>>
>> Nearly all the action movies are pro-violence, and that usually means
>> right wing, but not always. They are just trying to make violence a
>> part of our culture so it will be easier to get kids to join the army
>> and kill innocent people for them, and stuff like that.
>
> i figured that much out 20 yrs ago when they aired "g.i. joe"
> cartoons. of course you say that as though only the political
> rightwingers have a monopoly on violence. it's a shameful and
> intentional ignorance of history, particularly stalinism, and other
> socialist dictatorships.
>
Stalin was a traitor to communism. As soon as he made himself a "big
shot" he betrayed the communist ideal. He actually set about
supporting a class system with a preferred wealthy class. This is very
much against communist thought.
>> > Ever since George
>> >> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies
>> >> have been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to
>> >> come on board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To
>> >> Yuma' and the last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
>>
>> > why? peter fonda wasn't dressed up like karl marx drunkenly
>> > spouting the 19th century's greatest side splitting comedy work
>> > (the communist manefesto)?
>>
>> It has it's problems, but for the day and with what they knew at the
>> time, it was a great step forward.
>
> a "great step forward" for tyranny. over 100 million plus souls
> murdered in the name of socialism. no peace came from it and most
> certainly the people were less free than before socialism was forced
> on them.
>
100 million??? Ridiculous!
> how many more times must it be *proven to you* before you get it that
> socialism simply does not work?
>
Socialism works very well.
--
Peace,
Fred
Fred
> On May 24, 6:51 pm, Aardvark <zen...@rock.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 8:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliams.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday 24 May 2008 17:37, Aardvark wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 24, 2:11 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months.
>> > >> Movies are all rightwing without a hint of the need for
>> > >> socialism or
>> >
>
> Oh you stupid redneck. All you know about socialism is
> China or Russian or Cuba. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada
> are all socialist nation. You shitty American simply have no idea
> what socialism is. All you know is your redneck anti-chinese and
> anti-Russian view.
>
Well China is turning away from communism and allowing capitalist
companies to operate in China, and other places like McDonald's to
sprout up. The rights of workers have also been thrown out the window
as this started up.
Russia is no longer communist, and has undergone the transformation
with a lot of suffering and protests. Russian strikes and protests are
not carried by Western television of course. We're supposed to think
that Russians are happy with the change.
Cuba is still socialist, (but not communist). Cuba is starting to do
very well now and has free medical care, free education right through
the PhD for those who can do it, and organic farming techniques. They
spend a lot more time sitting in public meetings, talking about
potholes to be fixed and doctor-patient ratios and stuff like that, but
that's the price of having all the people participate in government.
I live in Canada, and we don't have nearly as much socialism as we used
to. We are being taken over quietly by American corporate interests.
Health care has been underfunded for many years and government support
for education has dwindled to almost nothing. We are being prepared
for take over by the U.S., not by military means, but by economics.
Look at the NAU, or North American Union plans, (you can search for
this on the Web).
Worldwide, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing with fewer
and fewer rich people controlling more and more of the economy. The
misery among the poor is also growing and starvation increasing.
--
Peace,
Fred
Fred
No way. Socialism is about people controlling their own government and
having the necessities of life provided for them. Everybody gets
housing, food, education, health care, and no one is left to die on the
streets. People care for one another. *That's* what socialism is
about.
--
Peace,
Fred
D2Za...@googlemail.com
> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
> Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
> he can steal their stuff.
>
Did you hear the ziopig say "only the media hasn't had the courage to
tell anybody yet"?
andyrichardson
If they had picked Asians for enemies, they could have dumped Cate
Blanchett and replaced her with Kelly Hu -- the hawtness quotient would
have gone way up that way. This is an Indiana Jones movie - that is
about as deep as you should think about it...
BDK
12a871...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, mmdi...@yahoo.com says...
I meant USSR, old Red China, Cuban type socialism.
BDK
fr...@fredwilliams.ca says...
As I just said, I meant USSR, old Red China Cuban, etc. I know people
from all those places who were very very happy to leave their respective
"paradises".
BDK
01.iinet.net.au>, seo...@gmail.com says...
You must not watch much TV or movies, there have been a lot of movies
and TV shows with Muslims as the bad guys. Both before and after 911.
I liked this one:
BDK
01.iinet.net.au>, seo...@gmail.com says...
>
Let's try that again...
I liked this one:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465353/
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
Seon's search skills and memory appear to be as shakey as his kook
filtering.
oldwifetale
> In article <790fe69f-fe12-4264-90a1-
> 12a871463...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, mmdir2...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>
> > Why not compare to Japan? Did you know that Norway and Sweden
> > is more socialist than Capitalist?
>
> I meant USSR, old Red China, Cuban type socialism.
>
*Communist* socialism. He doesn't seem to grasp centralization.
And regarding Japan, rc - check out their work-related suicide rate.
Government Shill #2
If we're doing TV series, there is also the totally wacky 24, staring Federal
Agent Jack Bauer, Series 4:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0285331/episodes#season-4
The best bit was when Jack created a diversion using an old tin can into which
he placed some dry grass and a couple of pistol rounds, then set the grass on
fire.
Government Shill #2
>Seon's search skills and memory appear to be as shakey as his kook
>filtering.
He seems to being employing kOOk Ploy#4. When presented with facts move the goal
posts.
The Shadow
States.
skepticl1
> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:44770ac7-6c31-4924...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> > all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
> > media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> > Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> > board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> > last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off. All movies are now
> > no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
> > Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
> > he can steal their stuff.
>
> Yep just because the bad guys are now Russians left wing nutters
> automatically think Indiana Jones is a bad guy. Indy4 was the best thing to
> come out of Hollywood for ages and don't give me the there's only left wing
> movies in Hollywood crap what about Fahrenheit 911?
> I hope there's more Indy movies so we can see more Commies get shoot or
> eaten by ants.
Michale Moore made what 3 films during the Bush Administration? I rush
out to see them, but that only comes by every three years or so. It's
disappointing to see that movie goers are so dumbed down they don't
immediately realize they are being fed war propaganda and rightwing
values. 310 to Yuma was mostly a cynical film saying all people suck
and that it's normal and 'historic' that people torture each other all
the time. There were three scenes of torture in that film. You think
its just a coincidence that the USA is going all over the world
building torture chambers and Bush's Hollywood just decides to feature
torture prominently in their films? Or that a whole spate of anti
abortion films are being vomited up by the 'left wing' Hollywood
establishment? (Hint it's all about who has the cash, and the
promoters have been told what values to show in their movies and what
images).
skepticl1
> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dd73409c-95b0-4875...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:44770ac7-6c31-4924...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...>
> >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> >> > all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
> >> > The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> >> > media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> >> > Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> >> > been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
> >> > board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> >> > last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off. All movies are now
> >> > no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
> >> > Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
> >> > he can steal their stuff.
>
> >> Yep just because the bad guys are now Russians left wing nutters
> >> automatically think Indiana Jones is a bad guy. Indy4 was the best thing
> >> to
> >> come out of Hollywood for ages and don't give me the there's only left
> >> wing
> >> movies in Hollywood crap what about Fahrenheit 911?
> >> I hope there's more Indy movies so we can see more Commies get shoot or
> >> eaten by ants.
>
> > Killed by American capitalists. Can't believe Hollywood is still
> > cooking �commie menu. I mean Hollywood could go back to past to a
> > plenty of other menu to cook such as �Native American Indian as savage
> > killing "innocent" white settlers , Black as criminal, Asian as red
> > communists. Whatever happend to the legendary Hollywood anti-Asian
> > depicted film? Oh I know growing market in Asia that HOllywood no
> > longer able to produce another anti-Asian �film because no Asian would
> > spend money on that...Russia is a small market
> > for Hollywood that's why Hollywood still go after commies.
>
> Indiana Jones was set 20 years after the last movie. Who else do you think
> would make a realistic enemy for Indy? to me this is just a great movie. Its
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your sites are set in the dirt. Have you noticed the movie posters
with Harrison Ford? His face is aging and he's begining to look like
Adolph Hitler. Ford made a movie about what a 'great victory' the
Imperialist had at a city named Falluja. Fuck him.
skepticl1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just saw a clip where Adam Sandler (A Jewish person) slams together
the heads of two Arabs and gets a great big laugh. If you guys haven't
noticed the whole of Latin America is kicking off with Socialism,
because the scumy United Snakes is so busy killing everybody in Asia,
Central and South America has a little time with Uncle Sam off their
backs. So Deathsquad Stallone, is happily ripping out the eyes and
gunning down the brown people of South America for the stars and
stripes. And you fools lap this shit up.
skepticl1
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:52:44 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >news:r46i345ajebuk7t7m...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:27:37 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the
> >>>Muslims
> >>>are the bad guys?
>
> >> No?
>
> >>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
>
> >I haven't seen that for years. Besides it was made before the War on Terror.
>
> Ah. So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
> where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began?"
>
> How about:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/plotsummary
>
> Shill #2
> --
> I am not young enough to know everything.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Flight 93 is all fictional events that never happened in Bush's
attempt to historicize that Arabs kidnapped jet liners when it was
really the US government doing all of it. Schwartzeneggers movies are
never ending slime fest of white imperialists and colonialists
murdering brown people and blaming them for things. Hollywood is a sea
of racism and violent white supremacy. Don't you guys get it?
Red Cloud
Check out homicidal rate in US.
Check out teenager suicidal rate in US.
Check out Imprison rate in US.
Check out poverty rate in US.
Check out homeless rate in US.
Check out Mexican invasion in US.
Check out political corruption in US.
Shall I go on?
Government Shill #2
>On 25 May, 00:58, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:52:44 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:r46i345ajebuk7t7m...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:27:37 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the
>> >>>Muslims
>> >>>are the bad guys?
>>
>> >> No?
>>
>> >>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
>>
>> >I haven't seen that for years. Besides it was made before the War on Terror.
>>
>> Ah. So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
>> where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began?"
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/plotsummary
>>
>> Shill #2
>> --
>> I am not young enough to know everything.
>> ?Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Flight 93 is all fictional events that never happened in Bush's
>attempt to historicize that Arabs kidnapped jet liners when it was
>really the US government doing all of it.
So? The question was "...why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
where the Muslims are the bad guys?"
>Schwartzeneggers movies are
>never ending slime fest of white imperialists and colonialists
>murdering brown people and blaming them for things.
So? The question was "...why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
where the Muslims are the bad guys?"
>Hollywood is a sea of racism and violent white supremacy.
So? The question was "...why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
where the Muslims are the bad guys?"
>Don't you guys get it?
You obviously didn't.
Shill #2
--
I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.
Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964)
skep...@aol.com
> On May 24, 10:08 pm, BDK <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <g1aeuf$nf...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> > f...@fredwilliams.ca says...
>
> > > On Saturday 24 May 2008 19:44, BDK wrote:
>
> > > >> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> > > >> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> > > >> been on a giant slide into reaction.
>
> > > > even begin to take you the slightest bit seriously.
>
> > > � � � � No he's quite correct in his overall assumption. �Human rights have
> > > been tossed out the window in the U.S. and there is a president there
> > > who openly advocates interrogation techniques that the rest of the
> > > world calls torture and he's bankrupted the country to finance his
> > > insane wars for personal profit. �The list of his crimes go on and on,
> > > and he's only the figurehead. �The crimes of the handlers behind him
> > > are even greater. �THAT is not a republic. �It's fascism.
>
> > It's still a whole lot better than the nightmare of socialism.
>
> socialism does not work? I don't know it works or not. But I think
> socialism plus capitalism work better such place as Europe and
> japan. Both Europe and Japan are more socialist than China or
> Russia and they are doing much much much better than whatever this
> USA is called. Look at the statistic! 14 more countries are known
> to be better place to live than whatever this is called in USA.
> Out of 14, only Japan is not European and all 13 are Europeans.
> See I would never buy your sappy crappy American redneck view that
> because America is better than China or Russia or Africa so America
> must be the #1 place in the world. Why not compare to Scandinavian
> is more socialist than Capitalist?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And Europe makes better movies than the United Snakes, and Europe
despises US culture (as they should!) because it is so dumbed down and
intellectually flabby and hate filled White Supremacy colonialist
shit. When you to have an newsgroup conversation with the kids spoon
fed this Hollywood shit, they are too dumb to know they are up to
their necks in manure. They love Hollywood, even though Hollywood is
on board with the War of Terror. The kids don't know better.
Red Cloud
> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8dbc8576-8ab7-4282...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 24, 11:36 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Red Cloud" <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:dd73409c-95b0-4875...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On May 24, 3:25 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:44770ac7-6c31-4924...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...>
> >> >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> >> >> > all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or
> >> >> > revolution.
> >> >> > media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> >> >> > Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> still...
> Anyway so who do you think would be a more realistic enemy for Indiana Jones
> after the Nazi's left the picture?
HOw about Indy Jones going after Zionist plot? Do you wanna to
hear how Zionist backup by USA to go after South Korean movie
producer?
skep...@aol.com
> > f...@fredwilliams.ca says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Fred you are correct. And since Capitalism has took over Russia,
20 million people have been killed by the everday workings of
Capitalism. Russian Orphans now live in train stations. Russian young
women have been kidnapped and brought as sex slaves to vile places
like Israel where they are raped 30 times a day, year after year. In
the last 7 years the people of the USA have lost their constitution.
It is no longer a republic but a military dictatorship. This is
reflected in the values and the story lines of Bush's Hollywood.
Hollywood had made in the past movies like 'Reds' or Oliver Stone
movies, or Woodie Allen movies. Now it is only a sea of frat boy jokes
and an ocean of blood. In the next 10 years 20 million more former
Soviets will die from the everyday workings of Capitalism. It is that
bad there. All the wealth was given to 26 families. In the United
Snakes the Capitalist econony has fallen apart and the Mafia is moving
in here too. Get ready to see your sister sold in to sex slavery in
Saudi Arabia, and gangs of thugs beating you up and stealing your
lunch money. Health care? Well Michael Moore made a movie about that.
Fred
You mean "right wing." The left wouldn't oppose abortion, and
certainly wouldn't make movies about it.
> (Hint it's all about who has the cash, and the
> promoters have been told what values to show in their movies and what
> images).
Yes, I agree, but you mean "producers" not promoters, don't you.
I just realized that English might not be your first language, forgive
my corrections. I hope they help.
--
Peace,
Fred
Fred
And for the hundreds who leave there are millions very happy to stay
there. How many people left the U.S. during the past 50 years?
You know there are millions of children around the world going to bed
homeless every night. Some of them live in the U.S., but not
one,...NOT ONE of them lives in Cuba.
--
Peace,
Fred
oldwifetale
Who's denying it? But you are always saying that japan used the usa as
a model, and are striving above on their own. The model they used was
not constitutional capitalism, it was a communist model involving
centralization with internationally owned corporations which can
ultimately go *nowhere* without establishing a communist world
government. That is a far cry from a socialist democracy where
capitalism still reigns but basic needs such as health care is
provided, monopolies prohibited, and companies operating on national
territory. It's a model disguised as 'democracy', but using the same
tactics of fear, force, propaganda, etc. that were used at the
inception of the Church, and before that - by the so-called 'chosen
ones'. Karl Marx was a 'newcomer' to an old plan, and actually lived
most of his life on the charitable proceeds of a capitalist cotton
mill owned by his best friend.
Fred
You forgot that more American Veterans are committing suicide than are
being killed in Iraq. Makes you wonder why, doesn't it. I guess that
if I had done the things they do in Iraq and then had time to think
about it, I'd be a little suicidal too. Just a guess.
--
Peace,
Fred
BDK
@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
You're reading too much into a remake of a 50 year old film. It's a
Western, not a movie about the "human condition". People like you make
way too much out of movies in general.
Sometimes, killing a guy just needs to be done.
That's a line from some old movie.
BDK
25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
> > > plenty of other menu to cook such as ï¿=3FNative American Indian as savage
> > > killing "innocent" white settlers , Black as criminal, Asian as red
> > > communists. Whatever happend to the legendary Hollywood anti-Asian
> > > depicted film? Oh I know growing market in Asia that HOllywood no
> > > spend money on that...Russia is a small market
> > > for Hollywood that's why Hollywood still go after commies.
> >
> > Indiana Jones was set 20 years after the last movie. Who else do you think
> > would make a realistic enemy for Indy? to me this is just a great movie. Its
> > a shame people have to let politics ruin the best movie of 2008.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Your sites are set in the dirt. Have you noticed the movie posters
> with Harrison Ford? His face is aging and he's begining to look like
> Adolph Hitler. Ford made a movie about what a 'great victory' the
> Imperialist had at a city named Falluja. Fuck him.
>
He's almost 66, so I would hope his face is aging, but to say he looks
like hitler is really weird. No shock coming from you..
What's the name of this "great victory" movie about Falluja?
BDK
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
> > >> > plenty of other menu to cook such as ï¿=3FNative American Indian as savage
> > >> > killing "innocent" white settlers , Black as criminal, Asian as red
> > >> > communists. Whatever happend to the legendary Hollywood anti-Asian
> > >> > depicted film? Oh I know growing market in Asia that HOllywood no
> > >> > spend money on that...Russia is a small market
> > >> > for Hollywood that's why Hollywood still go after commies.
> >
> > >> Indiana Jones was set 20 years after the last movie. Who else do you
> > >> think
> > >> would make a realistic enemy for Indy? to me this is just a great movie.
> > >> Its
> > >> a shame people have to let politics ruin the best movie of 2008.
> >
What drugs have you taken today? What does Stallone have to do with
South America? None of his movies was set down there, WTF are you raving
about, loon?
BDK
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
> On 25 May, 00:58, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:52:44 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:r46i345ajebuk7t7m...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Sun, 25 May 2008 17:27:37 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> >
> > >>>Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie where the
> > >>>Muslims
> > >>>are the bad guys?
> >
> > >> No?
> >
> > >>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111503/plotsummary
> >
> > >I haven't seen that for years. Besides it was made before the War on Terror.
> >
> > Ah. So you meant "Also why do you think Hollywood hasn't made a single movie
> > where the Muslims are the bad guys since the War on Terror began?"
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0481522/plotsummary
> >
> > Shill #2
> > --
> > I am not young enough to know everything.
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Flight 93 is all fictional events that never happened in Bush's
> attempt to historicize that Arabs kidnapped jet liners when it was
> really the US government doing all of it. Schwartzeneggers movies are
> never ending slime fest of white imperialists and colonialists
> murdering brown people and blaming them for things. Hollywood is a sea
> of racism and violent white supremacy. Don't you guys get it?
>
We totally get that you have severe mental health issues, of course.
ROTFL
BDK
Someone has to, I suppose. A whole lot of them would leave, if they
could. The Chinese guy I'm friends with has brought about 25 of his
brothers, sisters, and cousins over here during the last 20 years or so,
and he gets all kinds of requests for money to bribe the right people,
so others can get out. He can only do so much..
> How many people left the U.S. during the past 50 years?
Not very many.
> You know there are millions of children around the world going to bed
> homeless every night.
Yes, I do. Sad, but it's never going to be solved totally, no matter how
much you wish it was. I bet you watched a lot of Star Trek: TNG, didn't
you?
> Some of them live in the U.S., but not
> one,...NOT ONE of them lives in Cuba.
>
You really are living in a fantasy world. Talk to some Cuban immigrants,
and maybe you won't think Cuba is such a tropical paradise any more. If
the Cuban "leaders" said, "Anyone who wants to leave can go!", Miami
would be totally unable to handle the load of people that would show up
days later.
You think all those people who try to come here from are doing it for
political reasons only? There's a prisonlike feeling in all those
countries, and the semi-inmates want out. One of these days, all hell
will break loose in Cuba, and it will be a booming place when all the
Cuban Immigrants from Miami flood the place with money to rebuild
everything that has rotted in the past decades.
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
I never got into "24". I don't know why. I've watched it a few times,
but never got the DVDs. I met Keifer when he was a kid, visiting his
Grandpa "Old Man Sutherland", in Las Vegas. I worked on his car a couple
of times, and even got a dollar tip from him once!
skep...@aol.com
> In article <77fb00de-dbcf-4d6a-81de-b437f52dcb33
>
> - Show quoted text -
It just happened to take place in the desert where guys with guns are
doing vile deeds to each other every second. There where three scenes
of torture, in an attempt to try to normal torture. They shot their
assistants, just like the US army goons do to the brown slaves they
employ for empire. It was a cynical, dismal turd floating in the sewer
which is bourgeois culture. And it was dumb. Why would Russell Crowe
run and follow the guy leading him to incarceration? Why would Crowe
kill his own gang? Just 2 hours of war propaganda. This generation of
movie goers have been so dumbed down that the shit Hollywood spews out
so that the nation can be constantly at war to make profit, it almost
things US citizens deserve the kind of world the US government is
making. I saw a flier for Indy files. Almost every film was a super
gorey zombie film about people ripping each other to shreds. US
culture is dead. Society is falling about. Where are the films about
rebellion? Where are films about taking on the rich. Like Marlon
Brando's 'Burn!' This era of film will be laughed by film critics,
because it is just a bunch of right wing sports movies, war movies and
shit for bains comedies aimed at Frat boys. Where in the last 20 years
is there a film any women could enjoy? What do you think Black
people's opinion of movies that glorify cops are worth with people who
know better. With Fascism and war on the world comes repression at
home. Except for the fact that the Imperialist now know to stick some
token Blacks into a film, Adolph Hitler would love the Hollywood of
the 2000s.
skep...@aol.com
> In article <349935b9-788a-41c4-96a3-fc0d537ba469@
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harrison Ford is a rich guy who makes movies for rich guys, and poor
guys who don't know they are watching the opinions of the rich
betters. The world would be better off without his movies. Even Oliver
Stone should stop making movies because they are too right wing. These
are the times. Although I heard he was making a film about Bush called
'W' it will probably suck off bush the way the 'Nixon' admired that
Crook.
skep...@aol.com
> In article <g1c9qq$q6...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> f...@fredwilliams.ca says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday 25 May 2008 12:00, BDK wrote:
>
> > > f...@fredwilliams.ca says...
> > >> On Sunday 25 May 2008 01:08, BDK wrote:
>
> > >> > f...@fredwilliams.ca says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prison feeling? Putz ever talked to a Black person in the United
Snakes? One in 9 Black males are in prison. The USA has a higher
incarceration rate than anywhere else in the world. 400,000 inmates in
the USA could be let out tonight because they have been framed by rich
racist prosecutors. We have a plantation system of modern slavery. The
ghettos are semi-prison condition with police enforcers brutalizing
youth at every opportunity, like an occupying army. And you criticize
Cuba?!
Seon Ferguson
"skepticl1" <skep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:603d7cc7-946a-45ad...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Ok so thats 2. I'm sure the audience would have laughed if the 2 guys were
rich white men. Geez eather Hollywood has a right wing agenda or it has a
left winga genda, make up your minds people.
Me? I just think Hollywood has lost its way with all these re makes. Indy 4
was a fresh original movie.
Seon Ferguson
"Red Cloud" <mmdi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f0b60a6-5559-4831...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
what treasures would the Zionists have for Indy, the arc of convent?
Seon Ferguson
"BDK" <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22a3a0e87...@news.buckeye-express.com...
Indiana Jones and the paranoid delusion?
Seon Ferguson
So what if he's old? oh and btw he faught the Nazi's. He even said he hates
Nazi's. Have you watched any Indiana Jones movies? Have you even seen this
one?
skep...@aol.com
> In article <lv3j345lgj4e0kpb10eufqdklln4kbo...@4ax.com>,
> gov.sh...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:07:46 -0400, BDK <B...@kookmagnet.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <48391b12$0$21144$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> > >01.iinet.net.au>, seo...@gmail.com says...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Keifer is a right wing republican goon, just like you. His father must
be a fuck up to raise a piece of shit like that. Making movies
celebrating the gestapo and torturing people. Just your kind of stuff
huh? Did you give him a rim job for the dollar you earned?
Seon Ferguson
> On 24 May, 15:25, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:44770ac7-6c31-4924...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...>
>> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
>> > all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
>> > The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
>> > media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
>> > Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
>> > been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
>> > board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
>> > last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off. All movies are now
>> > no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
>> > Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
>> > he can steal their stuff.
>>
>> Yep just because the bad guys are now Russians left wing nutters
>> automatically think Indiana Jones is a bad guy. Indy4 was the best thing
>> to
>> come out of Hollywood for ages and don't give me the there's only left
>> wing
>> movies in Hollywood crap what about Fahrenheit 911?
>> I hope there's more Indy movies so we can see more Commies get shoot or
>> eaten by ants.
>
> out to see them, but that only comes by every three years or so. It's
> disappointing to see that movie goers are so dumbed down they don't
> immediately realize they are being fed war propaganda and rightwing
> values. 310 to Yuma was mostly a cynical film saying all people suck
> and that it's normal and 'historic' that people torture each other all
> the time. There were three scenes of torture in that film. You think
> its just a coincidence that the USA is going all over the world
> building torture chambers and Bush's Hollywood just decides to feature
> torture prominently in their films? Or that a whole spate of anti
> abortion films are being vomited up by the 'left wing' Hollywood
> establishment? (Hint it's all about who has the cash, and the
> promoters have been told what values to show in their movies and what
> images).
There's pro torture TV shows meant to dumb down the public, like 24 but I
don't think Hollywood writers get together and go "How can we brainwash the
American public into accepting torture" maybe one or two movies does but the
only right wing Hollywood people I know of is Arnold, Sly Stallone, that
chick who played Lois Lane and Chuck Norris. That's all.
Fahrenheit 911 is not a right wing movie. Sure it only focuses on the
popular Bush the idiot elf image but to say Michael Moore is right wing is
like saying I support the Israel lobby.
BDK
@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
WTF does that last even sentence mean? Must be some secret commie lingo,
eh?
> They shot their assistants, just like the US army goons do to the brown slaves they
> employ for empire. It was a cynical, dismal turd floating in the sewer
> which is bourgeois culture.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Using the word bougeois is a telltale symptom of being a
terminal asshole.
> And it was dumb.
How many movies aren't, regardless of when they were made, and where?
> Why would Russell Crowe run and follow the guy leading him to incarceration?
> Why would Crowe kill his own gang?
Happens all the time, in real life. Greed, you know?
> Just 2 hours of war propaganda.
LOL, so what was the first one, made in 1957, cold war propaganda? It's
just a movie. You're trying to make way, way too much out of things.
Needless stress is all your making for yourself.
> This generation of movie goers have been so dumbed down that the shit
> Hollywood spews out so that the nation can be constantly at war to make
> profit, it almost things US citizens deserve the kind of world the US
> government is making.
You have no life, do you? Do you think everything has to have a really
profound meaning? Does everything have to be serious with you types?
> I saw a flier for Indy files. Almost every film was a super
> gorey zombie film about people ripping each other to shreds.
I think you meant to say Indie Films. Don't worry they are cranking out
the profoundly boring movies you types love.
> US culture is dead. Society is falling about.
It is? Seems pretty much ok to me, but the job market does suck.
> Where are the films about rebellion?
I don't know, or care much, but I'm sure one will come along soon.
> Where are films about taking on the rich. Like Marlon
> Brando's 'Burn!'
Saw it a long time ago. Not one that goes on my "I have to see that
again!" list.
> This era of film will be laughed by film critics,
> because it is just a bunch of right wing sports movies, war movies and
> shit for bains comedies aimed at Frat boys.
Right wing? Where do you come up with this whacked out nonsense?
> Where in the last 20 years is there a film any women could enjoy?
ROTFL, I know lots of women who seem to like a lot of the movies out
these days, most of them ones I really hate.
> What do you think Black people's opinion of movies that glorify cops are
> worth with people who know better.
My black male friends seem to like pretty much the same movies I do. The
younger ones like a lot of movies I think are shit, but the older one's
tastes seem to match up with mine quite nicely. Women, regardless of
race, tend to like movies that are much too "touchy feely" for me. I bet
you like "touchy feely" movies, don't you?
> With Fascism and war on the world comes repression at home.
If you say so.
> Except for the fact that the Imperialist now know to stick some
> token Blacks into a film, Adolph Hitler would love the Hollywood of
> the 2000s.
BWHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAA! You're funny, in a kooky commie sort of way. I don't
think I would want to hang around with you for long though, you're too
much of a downer.
BDK
@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
Wow, you must watch movies through "kook colored glasses".
BDK
e9e4f7...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
Yeah, I talk to several 5 days a week, none seem to be doing all that
badly..
> One in 9 Black males are in prison.
Not the ones I know. Sure they know other black people that are in jail,
but I know white people in prison too, for all kinds of reasons. Most of
them are actually guilty. One wasn't, but he went away because in
general, he's a stupid chicken shit who pled guilty to a crime that
never happened in the first place.
The guy who robbed me 33 years ago is almost due for parole for the
attempted murder rap he got for shooting the owner of the liquor store a
couple of blocks down the street from where he grew up. If the pinhead
had any sense, he wouldn't have shot the guy in the first place, but if
your going to shoot someone, and he knows you by name, make sure he's
dead, not barely hurt. He spent over 20 years in prison for robbing me.
Big payment for 48 bucks and 4 cartons of Kook cigs, split 4 ways. We
couldn't identify his partners, but we sure could ID him. Yes, he was
black, not that it makes any difference.
> The USA has a higher incarceration rate than anywhere else in the world.
That's true. You got one right!
> 400,000 inmates in the USA could be let out tonight because they have been framed by rich
> racist prosecutors.
Oh please! You need to get a grip.
> We have a plantation system of modern slavery. The
> ghettos are semi-prison condition with police enforcers brutalizing
> youth at every opportunity, like an occupying army.
Did I say the US was a Utopia? No, but you're over the top, way, way
over the top of Mt. Kookdumb. I know a lot of cops, I went to school
with a lot of them, and none of them are what you claim they are above.
> And you criticize Cuba?!
Of course, any sane person would. Besides that, what does the hell of
Cuban life have to do with life in the US? They are different countries.
If you love Cuba so much, move there, and say hi to Arnie Coro for me.
BDK
@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skep...@aol.com says...
Holy shit! WTF is wrong with you? I'm a leftie, BTW, just not nearly as
big a lefty as you are, and haven't voted for a republican in a very
long time..
Umm, Keifer is a member of the Canadian NDP, and you think he's a right
winger?
You're one with the kookside..totally.
What is it with you kooks and the gay sex shit? You always resort to it
eventually. It's very odd, but funny..
BDK
01.iinet.net.au>, seo...@gmail.com says...
Exactly.
rat boy
> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies are
> all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or revolution.
> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet. Ever since George
> Bush blew up Manhattan, and the Pentagon blew itself up, movies have
> been on a giant slide into reaction. Bush asked Hollywood to come on
> board with the War of Terror. Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off. All movies are now
> no better than the Flintstones. Speed Racer is this years Flintstones.
> Indiana Jones is an Imperialist with weapons killing brown people so
> he can steal their stuff.
>
I don't give a damn about anything else but the new X-Files movie
coming out in July.
Government Shill #2
It was shit. My wife got me started on them and I kept watching, waiting for it
to get good. Total shit. Impossible events. A kOOk goldmine for the way they
think the world of cloak and dagger works. Spy satellites that can be
repositioned to locate someone in a car speeding along a freeway. Air-Air
missiles that can be fired at the President's plane and hit just the right spot
for the nuclear briefcase to fall out, but let the plane land. kOOk Gold.
>I met Keifer when he was a kid, visiting his
>Grandpa "Old Man Sutherland", in Las Vegas. I worked on his car a couple
>of times, and even got a dollar tip from him once!
A dollar! Man, what a gig you had there!
Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman
BDK
Now you've got me interested...damn.
>
> >I met Keifer when he was a kid, visiting his
> >Grandpa "Old Man Sutherland", in Las Vegas. I worked on his car a couple
> >of times, and even got a dollar tip from him once!
>
> A dollar! Man, what a gig you had there!
Hey, he liked me! That was a dollar more than anyone else working on his
car had gotten out of him. He was always saying, in his announcer type
voice, "My son Donald bought that car for me!" If they said anything
back, he told them all about Donald. I never got the chance to ask him
how he wound up in Vegas.
>
> Shill #2
> --
> Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
> theobviousgcashman
>
--
Aardvark
> On May 24, 6:51 pm, Aardvark <zen...@rock.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 8:29 pm, Fred <f...@fredwilliams.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday 24 May 2008 17:37, Aardvark wrote:
>
> > > > On May 24, 2:11 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> Just tried to watch a movie for the first time in 6 months. Movies
> > > >> are all rightwing without a hint of the need for socialism or
>
> China or Russian or Cuba. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada
> are all socialist nation. You shitty American simply have no idea
> what socialism is. All you know is your redneck anti-chinese and
> anti-Russian view.
the last refuge of the clueless leftist...the "redneck" flame.
you should stop reading this post at this point. to continue further
will simply just embarrass you and show you up for the foul mouthed
hypocrite you are.
i have a very good idea of what socialism is. it is a system of gov't
that claims on the surface, to make all men equal. in practice it
upholds the typical crooked politicians as heroes. it makes people
nothing more than sacrificial lambs to a pie-in-the-sky absurd notion
of the "greater good". of course no "good" ever comes of it.
people are considered as tools, mere pawns of a top heavy bloated
gov't that still makes wars, disempowers the poor, distributes wealth
in various schemes, and finds ever new and changing ways to push
everyone around.
freedom takes a backseat (actually freedom gets tied up and locked in
the trunk of the car) to the whims-du-jour of the leaders.
> > > because that's the way we are, a system that lets us all participate in
> > > the governing of our countries
>
> > it's supposed to let us participate. the reality is that the big shots
> > say who gets to play and who gets purposely ignored by the media.
>
> > > > you'd also be *very much* hard pressed
> > > > to even try to act as though "movies are all rightwing". most
> > > > hollywood creations are quite leftwing, but please don't let the truth
> > > > get in the way of your slobbering pro-commie rant.
>
> > > Nearly all the action movies are pro-violence, and that usually means
> > > right wing, but not always. They are just trying to make violence a
> > > part of our culture so it will be easier to get kids to join the army
> > > and kill innocent people for them, and stuff like that.
>
> > i figured that much out 20 yrs ago when they aired "g.i. joe"
> > cartoons. of course you say that as though only the political
> > rightwingers have a monopoly on violence. it's a shameful and
> > intentional ignorance of history, particularly stalinism, and other
> > socialist dictatorships.
>
> The media has ignored racism and racist stereotype on native
> American Indian and Asian-American because the media and Hollywood
> is run by the white racists and Zionist mafia.
"zionist mafia"? how racist of you. this is the part where you get
exposed for the hypocrite that you are. it comes with the socialist
mentality and "situational ethics" you leftists espouse. you're also a
racist for calling me a redneck. my neck is quite black or "african
american" neck if you are actually dumb enough to fall for the
censored language schemes of political correctness.
Hollywood was the
> projector of the White American racism and promoting Zionism.
> Socialism has no place in Hollywood or any media. They were too busy
> stereotyping Native American Indian as the savager killer of killing
> "innocence" White American settlers such in John Wayne movies.
> Shall I go on this?
you should go. if nothing else than to save yourself further
embarrassment. but i'm guessing that you are a glutton for punishment,
so you may stick around if you like, little mr. racist man. it's
quite easy to show up your complete lack of any facts when debating
the likes of you.
> > > >> The USA is no longer a republic, it's now a military junta, only the
> > > >> media hasn't had the courage to tell anybody yet.
>
> > > > you got at least that much right. of course even a broken clock is
> > > > right twice a day.
>
> > > He's been more or less right on with everything.
>
> > less right. very much less right.
> Tried to watch '3:10 To Yuma' and the
> > > >> last 10 minutes were so dumb I had to turn it off.
>
> > > > why? peter fonda wasn't dressed up like karl marx drunkenly spouting
> > > > the 19th century's greatest side splitting comedy work (the communist
> > > > manefesto)?
>
> > > It has it's problems, but for the day and with what they knew at the
> > > time, it was a great step forward.
>
> > a "great step forward" for tyranny. over 100 million plus souls
> > murdered in the name of socialism. no peace came from it and most
> > certainly the people were less free than before socialism was forced
> > on them.
>
> Learn history right, dumbass. It called "Great Leap Forward."
> STOP spitting nonsense, lying, propaganda through your sappy
> crappy redneck mouth!
No 100 million souls killed in Russia or
> China. Mao socialism caused 33 millions chinese souls. over 50
> Russian killed during WWI and WWII war. over 10 millions Native
> American Indians killed directly and indirectly by the European
> invasion.
the public schools math programs failed you, eh? add them up and quit
being so evasive. is this why you have to resort to swearing at me and
spitting your "nonsense"?
> > how many more times must it be *proven to you* before you get it that
> > socialism simply does not work?
>
> How many more time must be proven to you before you get it
> that your sappy crappy redneck view does not work?
freedom works. it always does. are you afraid that if people are
empowered through true liberty (not that baloney emperor george
spouts) that they will be harder to hoodwink and control by your
socialist masters?
my ancestors were slaves and you want to enslave them as well as all
people. now you want to cry about it and swear at me because it's so
easy to expose your failed attempts at control of all people. i'm
assuming that you're an adult. do something decent for once in your
life and act like it really matters to be an adult and behave like
one.
if you had anything in your shallow repository of what masquerades as
wit, you'd answer this one question:
if socialism will make anyone in the world better off, it must
conclude that it believes in the rights of mankind and not just
temporary privileges that it can yank away from men at the slightest
whim. it stands to reason (at least among reasonable persons) that a
garden variety socialist must believe in a *real* right that a
libertarian such as myself would not believe in.
since you have a scarcity of clues as to how the world actually is
supposed to function when it comes to freedom a real "right" would not
come at the expense of the rights and/or freedoms of others. here
comes the question, now pay attention:
what right(s) would you believe in that a libertarian such as myself
would not believe in?
i'll bet you $100 donated to the charity of your choice that you can't
name even one real right that you would believe in that i would not.
in fact if you lose you don't have to pay. how's that for a deal? just
name one real right that doesn't come at the expense of the rights of
other persons.
i'll be happy to pay if i lose. i'm just that confident that your
philosophy is that of enslavement, mass poverty, and immense cruelty
to people as opposed to mine of liberty is one of peace, freedom and
prosperity for all mankind.
how you like them apples, wiseguy?
aardvark
Aardvark
> "skepticl1" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:349935b9-788a-41c4...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 May, 23:36, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Red Cloud" <mmdir2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > would make a realistic enemy for Indy? to me this is just a great movie.
> > Its
> > a shame people have to let politics ruin the best movie of 2008.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Your sites are set in the dirt. Have you noticed the movie posters
> with Harrison Ford? His face is aging and he's begining to look like
>
> >Adolph Hitler. Ford made a movie about what a 'great victory' the
> >Imperialist had at a city named Falluja. Fuck him.
>
> So what if he's old? oh and btw he faught the Nazi's. He even said he hates
> Nazi's. Have you watched any Indiana Jones movies? Have you even seen this
> one?
nazis are socialists. the name "socialist" is in their party monniker.
all socialist leaders such as stalin, lenin, etc. eventually mass
murder their own people "for the greater good". they even goosestep
kinda the same way.
i think that your average socialist or even your garden variety
communist gets a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside their soulless beings
when they fondly (and secretly, of course) dredge up the disgustingly
ugly image of a nazi inside their equally empty heads. there's not a
dime's worth of difference between the two types of sick philosophy,
anyway.
aardvark
Seon Ferguson
"Aardvark" <zen...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:6e2e5fb4-357c-4a5b...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Lol your post gave me a good laugh. Of course socialists have souls, we all
do no matter which side of politics we choose to belong to. Its not like we
were born and God went "uh oh he's going to be a socialist I better not give
him a soul"
But your dead right about Communism and socialism. I don't think modern
socialists love Hitler as much. Most people think there's a difference
between each political view so Commies wont be fond of Hitler as he was on
the "opposite side", just Stalin or mao or one of those other Communist
dictators (and don't try to tell me Stalin wasn't a Communist)
Fred
These are simply lies.
--
Peace,
Fred
Fred
> nazis are socialists. the name "socialist" is in their party monniker.
No, Nazi's are fascists, the opposite of socialism. Nazi's are extreme
right wing and socialists are left wing. Bush is a Nazi, for instance.
> all socialist leaders such as stalin, lenin, etc. eventually mass
> murder their own people "for the greater good". they even goosestep
> kinda the same way.
>
Stalin was a break-away and turned against the principles of communism,
which is different from socialism, by the way.
--
Peace,
Fred
Fred
This is identical to Aardvark's posting. No matter how many times you
say it, it remains untrue.
--
Peace,
Fred
Aardvark
they are truths until (lottsa luck to ya pal) you actually dredge up
something to refute them. i won't hold my breath until you do so, of
course. you're not very good at selling your failed philosophy of
socialism, are you mr. fred?
if you think you are so right, then name an occurrence where in the
dank recesses of any socialist land, freedom is actually put forth in
actual practice to the people, instead of the liberty-destroying goofy
desires of the powers-that-be.
go ahead, genius...i dares ya.
how you like them apples, dude?
aardvark
Aardvark
stalin was a socialist tyrant and you've yet to prove to me where he
strayed from socialist ideals. i'm not familiar with the political
philosopy of "break-away". wikipedia gives me nothing on this which
leads me to think that you:
(1) again don't know what you're talking about.
(2) shoot at a nice libertarian such as myself without taking the time
to aim, first.
(3) in your typical socialist style, post more lame supposition with
no proof whatsoever to back it up.
(4) you act out and act up a lot as you actually think about what
you're going to say and how well you'll be believed, very little.
like them apples? i gots plenty more,
aardvark
Aardvark
that's because it *is* aardvark's posting. you stink at this debating
thing, fred. i'm beginning to think that you actually like being on
the losing side of an arguement.
have i uncovered a masochistic streak in you, dude? i came here to
debate the issues, mister. i'm not here to help you get your jollies
out of being kicked around. if that is the case then please feel free
to post any of your future ill-informed blatherings to the
alt.commie.pervs newsgroup. they may find a way to appreciate it more
there.
here's an apple, munch away, fred.
aardvark
Seon Ferguson
Same here the problem is most people on usenet are childish and resort to
name calling or flaming. Its like were back in the 3rd grade or something.
Fred
> On May 26, 5:52 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliams.ca> wrote:
>> On Monday 26 May 2008 05:52, Aardvark wrote:
>>
>> > nazis are socialists. the name "socialist" is in their party
>> > monniker.
>>
>> No, Nazi's are fascists, the opposite of socialism. Nazi's are
>> extreme right wing and socialists are left wing. Bush is a Nazi, for
>> instance.
>>
>> > all socialist leaders such as stalin, lenin, etc. eventually mass
>> > murder their own people "for the greater good". they even
>> > goosestep kinda the same way.
>>
>> Stalin was a break-away and turned against the principles of
>> communism, which is different from socialism, by the way.
>>
>> --
>> Peace,
>> Fred
>
> stalin was a socialist tyrant and you've yet to prove to me where he
> strayed from socialist ideals. i'm not familiar with the political
> philosopy of "break-away". wikipedia gives me nothing on this which
> leads me to think that you:
>
"Break away" is not a political philosophy. When someone breaks away
from a group, like socialists, it means they have adopted other ideas.
> (1) again don't know what you're talking about.
> (2) shoot at a nice libertarian such as myself without taking the time
> to aim, first.
> (3) in your typical socialist style, post more lame supposition with
> no proof whatsoever to back it up.
> (4) you act out and act up a lot as you actually think about what
> you're going to say and how well you'll be believed, very little.
>
> like them apples? i gots plenty more,
>
When people run out of arguements, they start attacking the person they
are arguing against, These are generally inane attempts to deflect the
argument from the real issue.
It's not about me.
Socialism: -A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a
complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and
equitable distribution of property and labour.
This definition is not what Stalin was about. Stalin abandoned Lenin's
internationalist policies and tried to establish a diplomatic deal with
the Western powers. In this sense he was a virtual traitor to
communism. In 1943 Stalin dissolved the Comintern without any
discussion or vote, some say to please his Western friends.
>
> aardvark
--
Peace,
Fred
Aardvark
> On Monday 26 May 2008 07:26, Aardvark wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 5:52 am, Fred <f...@fredwilliams.ca> wrote:
> >> On Monday 26 May 2008 05:52, Aardvark wrote:
>
> >> > nazis are socialists. the name "socialist" is in their party
> >> > monniker.
>
> >> No, Nazi's are fascists, the opposite of socialism. Nazi's are
> >> extreme right wing and socialists are left wing. Bush is a Nazi, for
> >> instance.
>
> >> > all socialist leaders such as stalin, lenin, etc. eventually mass
> >> > murder their own people "for the greater good". they even
> >> > goosestep kinda the same way.
>
> >> Stalin was a break-away and turned against the principles of
> >> communism, which is different from socialism, by the way.
>
> >> --
> >> Peace,
> >> Fred
>
> > stalin was a socialist tyrant and you've yet to prove to me where he
> > strayed from socialist ideals. i'm not familiar with the political
> > philosopy of "break-away". wikipedia gives me nothing on this which
> > leads me to think that you:
>
> "Break away" is not a political philosophy. When someone breaks away
> from a group, like socialists, it means they have adopted other ideas.
i gets that, fred. you have yet to even make a half hearted attempt to
show me that vlad the impaler lenin deviated from the failed ideals of
socialism when he started killing his fellow countrymen.
your twisted logic on this reads as such:
(1) bad mr. vlad murdered his people to the tune of millions
(2) socialists aren't supposed to murder their own
(3) although you didn't/won't prove he deviated from his failed
socialist ideals that you said so makes it so
(4) he made back door deals with "the west"
(5) this makes him a non-socialist
ayn rand (the name likely gives you a chill,eh?) said that "a=a". for
those unable to read for content this means: what is, simply is. all
the wishing and hoping that things are different, life is still what
it is and lenin was a socialist.
> > (1) again don't know what you're talking about.
> > (2) shoot at a nice libertarian such as myself without taking the time
> > to aim, first.
> > (3) in your typical socialist style, post more lame supposition with
> > no proof whatsoever to back it up.
> > (4) you act out and act up a lot as you actually think about what
> > you're going to say and how well you'll be believed, very little.
>
> > like them apples? i gots plenty more,
>
> When people run out of arguements, they start attacking the person they
> are arguing against,
yeah, you should quit doing that, fred.
These are generally inane attempts to deflect the
> argument from the real issue.
i've kept it on the road mr. fred. howzabout you, comrade? your
hypersensitive feelings aside, you really do have a big problem
presenting your case.
> It's not about me.
is it instead about your ego?
> Socialism: -A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a
> complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and
> equitable distribution of property and labour.
you get that daffy definition from wikipedia? pull it out of a hat?
sounds like a biased & pro-socialist source. nice try though.
> This definition is not what Stalin was about. Stalin abandoned Lenin's
> internationalist policies and tried to establish a diplomatic deal with
> the Western powers.
think globally, kill (millions) locally. what a freakin' guy.
In this sense he was a virtual traitor to
> communism.
avast me hearty! but did he stop being a socialist? that's the line
you've been trying to push through this thread.
you've been spritzing me in your typical socialist debater's way, with
your little dime store squirt gun while telling me it's raining
outside.
In 1943 Stalin dissolved the Comintern without any
> discussion or vote, some say to please his Western friends.
that's what's known as a putsch. they tend to have them from time to
time when the 10 year plans don't produce even a tiny bit of what big
socialist gov't promises to the people.
shouldn't you know this already, fred? you seem very ill-informed to
be someone who claims to debate socialism. isn't socialism hard enough
to sell to folks without such gross ineptitude on your part attempting
to peddle it?
> Peace,
> Fred
real peace, (the kind they don't have in a socialist nation)
aardvark
oldwifetale
These are simply truths. Socialism (another *label* for communism)
destroys traditions, destroys individual freedom, and urges the
'greater good' to strive for mediocrity. And those are its 'nicer'
aspects. It isn't enough to say "these are simply lies." Show how they
are lies by addressing the points aardvark has made - with facts
rather than utopian ideals that only work 'on paper'.
Fred
Then why did you ask?
> you have yet to even make a half hearted attempt to
> show me that vlad the impaler lenin deviated from the failed ideals of
> socialism when he started killing his fellow countrymen.
>
Vlad the Impaler was neither socialist nor communist. Why bring him
into it?
> your twisted logic on this reads as such:
> (1) bad mr. vlad murdered his people to the tune of millions
That's a ridiculous statement.
> (2) socialists aren't supposed to murder their own
Nor anybody and socialist governments don't. In the past, criminals
have been executed and imprisoned. This goes on in capitalist
countries as well.
> (3) although you didn't/won't prove he deviated from his failed
> socialist ideals that you said so makes it so
Lennin did not deviate very much, although he had his own style.
Stalin did deviate grossly by committing crimes against the people and
denying them a say in the government. Such actions are
counter-revolutionary and in truth can be called treason.
> (4) he made back door deals with "the west"
> (5) this makes him a non-socialist
It certainly does
>
> ayn rand (the name likely gives you a chill,eh?)
Just a sick feeling in my stomache. Nothing from this point will make
any sense in your posting, so I stopped reading here.
--
Peace,
Fred
skep...@aol.com
> "skepticl1" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are a few independants like Alex Jones blaring about the rise of
Fascism in the USA and we've had 3 Michael Moore films during the Bush
Junta. Movies are brainwashing. Movies are controlled by the rich. How
it works is that Daddy Warbucks hands out millions and the rich
instruct, we want movies about how 'hip' torture is. And there has not
been a few 'Wolfcreeks' or 'Hostels' there have been a hundred movies
which include torture scenes that is on top of the grotesque violence
dripping from Capitalism's movie propaganda complex. Movies are NOT
the cute idea of the writers or directors. They are top down
propaganda. For every Moore or Jones there are ten thousand movies
promoting the status quo. In the real world the US constitution has
been shredded we don't live in the liberal era republic that Gore
Vidal talks about. We like in a dictatorship. It's always been the
dictatorship of the rich anyway. Now the gloves are off. The United
Snakes is waging war on the world using the methods of the Nazis. But
if you get you information for Hollywood, you would think that's a
good thing. TV is no longer a crediable source of information. Just
stop and think for a moment Seon. We have shows like 24. A show
celebrating the US gestapo. Doesnt' that send a chill? Wake up
everybody! I get terribly upset the every six or eight months or so I
attempt to watch a Hollywood propaganda movie. I tried watching the
HBO series Deadwood and Rome. It was non stop propaganda that people
are mean, history is worse than we ever knew and that there's no hope
in the world. Hours of horrible people, the most vile people
imagiable, doing cruel acts. Remember when there were Hollywood movies
with a conscience. Like 'Cool Hand Luke' with Paul Newman. Or 'Little
Big Man' with Duston Hoffman. Now we have remakes of movies like 'King
Kong' and the tennor in Hollywood is that the latest remake was more
racist than the original 1937 film and THAT was Hilter's favorite
movie. Or try to watch 'I Am Legend' which George Bush (The Modern
Hitler) could have masturbated to.
skep...@aol.com
> In article <3b4befb9-eeeb-44f3-8fa5-e3af61b2d1e7
> @w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skepti...@aol.com says...
Play on the rug BDK while the adults have a conversation about the
cinema.
skep...@aol.com
> In article <30d67097-35c9-46c5-9a1e-e3db32566898
> @y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, skepti...@aol.com says...
Here's one for the record books. "I'm a lefty, and I haven't voted
REPUBLICAN in a very long time." (Snort!) OK, those are some great
credentials there sonny.
skep...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If FREEDOM means participation in power, then Maoist China was the
most Free place in human history. Socialism brings equality, and
distribution of wealth more fully than it ever has been under other
systems. Things that you enjoy in the USA like the New Deal and an
eight hour work day came about because of Socialism as a competing
economic system on the other side of the world. The world is
Capitalist now. Look at the millions dying because of Imperial wars.
Look at the explosion of world starvation. Today there are more
chattel slaves than any other time in history, because the Soviet
Union, which set a standard, collapsed from within and was defeated by
the vile Capitalists. Today the world is a nightmare. You claim you
are Black. In the USA the world is a harder place for Black people to
live in than when there was a Socialist China, kicking off with a
Cultural Revolution, that inspired the world. You have directly
benefited from Socialism Aardvark.
skep...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Subj: Differences between "Hitler's Germany" and "Stalinist Russia"
In Bob Avakian's book "Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That?" he
writes:
speaking to the profound differences between "Hitler's Germany" and
"Stalinist
Russia":
"[T]hroughout this period, Germany was and remained nothing other than
a
bourgeois imperialist state, though it ruled at home not in the
"classical"
form of bourgeois democracy but through a fascist--an openly
terroristic--form
of bourgeois dictatorship. (As opposed to the phony voting form of
bourgeois
dictatorship like we have in the U.S.--Skeptic) And, on the other
hand,
throughout this period the Soviet Union was and remained a socialist
state, a
dictatorship of the proletariat, although serious errors--it is not
an
exaggeration (or gratuitous) to say grievous errors--were made in how
this
dictatorship was carried out and the socialist system defended and
extended."
"This takes us back to the fundamental point underscored earlier: with
all the
peculiariteis of Nazi Germany (including the "deviations" from
"classical"
capitalist economic policies), the underlying production relations,
the
division of labor, and the dynamics of accumulation were all those of
capitalism, particuarly capitalism in its imperialist stage; whereas
in the
Soviet Union in the same period, with all the difficulties encountered
and
mistakes made in carrying out and carrying forward the socialist
transformation
of society, the underlying production relations, the division of
labor, and the
accumulation process were those of socialism..."
Next, the article goes into fundamental criticism of Stalinist
Russia,
"...certain real errors committed in "the Stalin period": a too
extensive
reliance on the secret police, rather than primary reliance on the
conscious
activism of the masses, to identify and suppress
counterrevolutionaries; the
mixing up of two fundamentally different types of contradictions
(those between
the people and the enemy and those among the people themselves), so
that the
target of repression became too broad and a certain "chill" set in
among the
people, actually undermining their ability to carry forward the class
struggle
against the old, and particularly against newborn, exploiters; some
excesses in
the struggle for the collectivization of agriculture; and along with
this--and
particularly as part of the inner-part struggles that were a crucial
aspect of
the overall struggle in society--some rather crude rewriting of
history..."
In the west there has been attempts to deny the fact that there were
fundamental antagonism between "Stalinist Russia" and "Nazi Germany"
or between
the Soviet communists and the Nazis. When in fact the roots of the
Second World
War lay in the redivision of the world in 1918. The interwar period
was just
that--a truce which would, of necessity, be broken. Avaikian goes on
to write,
"...The British strategy for dealing with Germany found initial
expression in
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains "appeasement" policy. The purpose
of
Chamberlain's 1938 Munich agreement to give the Sudetenland to Germany
was, in
fact, to push the Germans to the east and into confrontation with the
Soviet
Union...There was, however, never any question, either on the part of
Britain
or the U.S., of lettng the German imperialists swallow the Soviet
Union: they
wanted the Germans to choke on it." Roosevelt proclaimed that he
wanted Germany
to bleed Soviet Russia white.
Subj: Michael Parenti: Fascism the False Revolution
In his speech 'Fascism the False Revolution', Michael Parenti looks at
some of
the neglected aspects of Fascism and he talks about the relevance to
what is
happening today. He talks about how the history of Fascism has been
sanitized
and distorted by Western theorists. Parenti mentions how the wealthy
classes in
Italy supported Benito Mussolini and how he was able to project
himself on the
national scene as the acknowledged leader of Fascism in Italy. He was
the head
of ex-Army officers and other 'toughs' who were used as a kind of anti-
labor
militia.
"They specialized in attacking unions, peasant farm cooperatives,
Socialists,
Communists and Anarchists. The large indusrtials and land owners were
set on
maintaining profit levels, by slashing wages and raising prices. The
State in
turn provided big owners with massive subsidies and tax exemptions. To
finance
this corporate welfarism the populous would have to be taxed more
heavily, and
social welfare expenditures would have to be drastically cut. Does all
of this
sound familiar (to what is currently going on in the U.S.?)
"But the government weren't completely free to apply these harsh
measures
because many Italian workers and peasants had organized in a
communistic ways
with their own unions and fairly strong political organizations, with
demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, factory take overs, the forcible
occupation
of farm lands. They won substantial concessions in wages, work
conditions and
in the right to organize. The workers and peasants were able to mount
a defense
of their standard of living. To roll back that standard of living and
to get
the economic changes that the Plutocrats and tycoons wanted the
ruling
interests had to abolish the democratic rights that helped workers and
peasants
defend that standard. The solution was to smash their organizations
and
political liberaties with Fascism.
In Germany there was a very similar pattern of complicity between
Fascists and
Capitalists. German workers and farm laborers had won the eight hour
day,
unemployment insurance, the right to organize. But heavy industry and
big
finance were in a state of nearly total collapse. Business wanted to
cut wages,
business wanted tax cuts and massive state subsidies to revive profit
levels.
During the 1920s the Nazi storm troopers were subsidized by business
and were
used to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930 a decision was
made by the
German tycoons. That decision was that the Vimar Republic no longer
served
their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. The
tycoons greatly
increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto
the
national stage.
"You can read book after book about Fascism and Nazism and find almost
nothing
said about the economic policies of these regime, of the things I just
told you
about. There is also a vast literature about who supported the
Nazis...very
little is ever written about who the Nazi supported when they came in,
who the
Fascists supported when they came in. Because that would be much more
revealing...Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized
State power?
In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor
unions and
strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were
confiscated. Farm
cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners. Big agri-
business farming
was heavily subsidized. In Italy child labor was re-introduced. In
both Germany
and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut
drastically. In
Germany from 25% to 40% in cuts. In Italy 50% wages were cut. In both
countries
minimum wage laws, over time pay and factory safety regulations were
abolished.
Taxes were increased for the general populous but lowered or
eliminated for the
rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly
reduced
or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to
their
business patrons by handing over to them, publicly owned and perfectly
solvent
steel mills, power plants, and steamship companies. Privatization its
called.
Privatization. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to
refloat
or subsidize heavy industry. Cooperate welfarsim we would call it
today...As in
all reactionary regimes public capital was raided by private capital.
The
result of all of this? In Italy during the 1930s, the economy was
gripped by
recession, a staggering public debt, widespread corruption, but
industrial
profits rose...In Germany unemployment was eased somewhat, because of
the
massive arms program. But generally poverty increased. If you cut
wages 25% to
40% poverty is going to increase no matter how many jobs you create.
But from
1935 to 1943 the net income of German cooperate leaders rose 46%. In
both
countries, the conditions of labor deteriorated greatly. Speed ups,
dismissals,
imprisonment for workers who complained about unsafe or inhumane work
conditions. Longer hours for less wages.
"You know looking at this years ago, I used to say the Fascism never
really
succeeded in solving the irrational contradictions of Capitalism.
Today I
believe it was never intended to solve the irrational contradictions
of
Capitalism, at least not for the populous or for the people. Now I'm
of the
opinion that it actually in a way did succeed in solving the problems
of
Capitalism, but only for the Capitalists. Fascists offer a
reactionary
solution, not a social solution to the contradictions of Capitalism.
It forces
all the burdens and losses onto the working public.
"Well come on Parenti is that all Fascism is, a conspiracy to save
Capitalism?
Well that might not be all that it is, but that's quite an important
part of
it. So can we talk about that once in awhile? Its the part that Hitler
himself
kept referring to when he talked about saving the industrialists and
bankers
from Bolshevism. Mussolini also designated himself Italy's savior from
the red
tide.
"Communism was and the left in general was never strong enough to take
State
power in either country. But they were strong enough to interfere with
profit
rates, and the capital accumulation process. This was threatening
enough for
the moneyed interests."
"Fascist doctrines stress monistic values, oneness, ein folk, ein
riech, ein
furher, one people, one state, one leader. The people are no longer to
be
concerned with class divisions. The must see themselves as part of a
harmonious
authoritarian whole. A view that is very supported by the socio-
economic status
quo. This very much in contrast to a left agenda. Which advocates a
sharpened
awareness of class injustice and class struggle. The articulation of
popular
demands and the self generated participation of popular forces.
Aardvark, the Soviet Union was Hilter's greatest enemy, the Red Army
Defeated
Hitler's Armies. Leonard 27 million Communist died ridding the world
of
Fascism in WWII it was the greatest sacrific in human history. While
the U.S.
involvement in Europe was NOT a fight to the death, it was just a
scramble to
get a seat at the table in order to divide up the spoils of war. The
USA's
Armies could NEVER have fought the battles that the Red Army fought
against
Hitler. They didn't have the will, they U.S. didn't have the political
ideology
to get their troops to fight battles like the Battle of Berlin with a
million
causalities on (both sides all together.) The Red Army defeated
Hitler, all
other involvement from the other allies was tertiary.
"In May of 1940 Hitler struck West, wiped out France and much of the
British
Army at Dunkirk. Then he attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. Stalin had
expected
it sooner or later. In 1939 Stalin had said, "We have 10 years. In 10
years we
have to do what Britian did in 100 years." And there came the forced
industrialization. Soviet Russia built a whole new industrial base
east of the
Urals. An industrial base which eventually out produced Hitler in
tanks, planes
and artillery. 80% of the German casualties were on the Eastern front.
The
scale and ferocity of the fighting was unparalled in the West, or in
any modern
warfare ever. There was nothing in the Western front that could
compare with
the battle of Stalingrad, involving millions of troops. The battle of
Leningrad, with two and half million Soviets died. The battle of
Kirsk
involving tens of thousands of tanks. The battle of Warsaw which took
two
months. The battle of Berlin, with three million Soviets troops were
arrayed
against one and one half million German troops, with almost a million
casualities by both sides." Most discussions in the west about World
War II
focus on the Western war which is about one fifth of the actual war
and ignore,
the scale and horror and heroism of the Eastern front. Most
dicusssions in the
West about the eve of World War II, give us the usual blather about
the
Hitler/Stalin pact and say little about the active collaboration of
the right
wing Tory Government, about the Hitler/Chamberlian pact. Just as
little today
is said about the active collaboration of a right wing US government
with
Fascists throughout the third world and with Nazis in the Republican
Party and
in Bush's own campaign. The Fascists are O.K. because they defend
private
property and corporate investment. It's the Communists that are the
menace,
according to those who own the world. Those of us who want Democracy
might want
to think about this a little more seriously."
"...As it turned out, the main way the U.S. and British allies worked
to defeat
Germany was through the Soviet Red Army. Military history here is very
clear.
Even Whiston Churchill admitted in March 1943 that for the next six
months
Great Britain and the United States would be "playing about" with half
a dozen
German divisions while Stalin was facing 185 divisions. Overall the
Soviet
Union suffered 20 million war-related deaths, including 7.5 million
who died
directly in battle. By contrast, the combined British, French and U.S.
battle
deaths totalled under 750,000--less than 10 percent of the Soviet
figure.
Simply put, the Soviet Union was responsible for the defeat of
Germany."
Aardvark The Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany. The Germans were
Capitalist.
The USSR was socialist. It was a fight to the death. Socialism beat
Capitalism
in this one.
49ERS: BOSS OF THE BAY
Next 49er/Raiders match up: 2010
skep...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seon, communists and socialists don't claim that anyone has a 'soul.'
Socialists are athiests. The 'soul' is a religious concept. There is
no God. When you die you cease to exist and your body rots. There is
no magical place that you fly around to. That's why we have to make
this world a world for all people to be equal and there's justice.
(Please read my last post--scroll up--about the profound differences
between Capitalist Germany under Hitler, and Socialism in the USSR and
China). Scandanivia is not socialist, it is Capitalist.
Fred
> If FREEDOM means participation in power, then Maoist China was the
> most Free place in human history.
It was for a wile the most "classless" society in hostory. Everybody
was of the same class, meaning no one was mush wealthier than anyone
else. The "most free place in history" I think should go to modern
day Cuba. With their "Mass Organisations" meeting in every community
across the country at least weekly and often more frequently when there
are issues to deal with, they have the most participatory government of
which I know.
> Socialism brings equality, and
> distribution of wealth more fully than it ever has been under other
> systems.
Well, the socialism that I know of brings a minimum standard of living
and recognises things like health care, decent food and housing as
human rights. We have the technology and the power to provide that
easily, and we should do it.
> Things that you enjoy in the USA like the New Deal and an
> eight hour work day came about because of Socialism as a competing
> economic system on the other side of the world. The world is
> Capitalist now. Look at the millions dying because of Imperial wars.
> Look at the explosion of world starvation. Today there are more
> chattel slaves than any other time in history, because the Soviet
> Union, which set a standard, collapsed from within and was defeated by
> the vile Capitalists. Today the world is a nightmare. You claim you
> are Black. In the USA the world is a harder place for Black people to
> live in than when there was a Socialist China, kicking off with a
> Cultural Revolution, that inspired the world. You have directly
> benefited from Socialism Aardvark.
Well said.
--
Peace,
Fred
skep...@aol.com
Fred Stalin was a geniune Socialist.
Gary asked:
<<Explain something to me if you will, Skeptic.
You seem to be more than just an apologist for Joseph Stalin.
Also, you seem to be a firm believer in the Communist Manifesto.
You are aware that Stalin himself thought it was bunk, aren't you?>>
I am a defender of Joseph Stalin but also a critic, I don't know where
your got
the idea that Stalin was opposed to the Communist Manifesto, probably
from a
right-wing Libratarian source.
Gary my main point on Stalin is it is necessary to maintain the
fundamental
distinction between Maoist criticism of Stalin and the unprincipled
and in many
cases totally unfounded slanders of the reactionaries against Stalin
and
"Stalinism." The Maoist criticism is fundamentally different from
theirs -- the
Maoist criticism is a revolutionary criticism, made from the
standpoint of the
proletariat, not from the standpoint of the bourgeoisie, the
imperialists and
reactionaries. We make unsparing criticism of Stalin's mistakes and
shortcomings because this is in accord with reality and it is
necessary to make
this criticism in order to serve the proletarian world revolution; and
we
continue to uphold Stalin's historical role overall for exactly the
same
reasons.
Iit is correct and necessary, from an historical standpoint, to uphold
Stalin's
role overall to counter the slanderous attacks of the reactionaries
against
Stalin, and to vigorously respond to their attacks on communism in the
form of
attacks on "Stalinism." But, at the same time, it is also correct and
necessary
to learn from not only the achievements but the very serious errors
of
Stalin-and more than that, to really strive to avoid repeating such
errors.
A repeat of the "Stalin Experience" is not what the international
proletariat
needs-that is not aiming high enough. Things advance in spirals. The
historical
experience of the Soviet Union and the international communist
movement under
Stalin's leadership, with its positive and negative aspects, is part
of the
synthesis we have achieved, it is part of the concentrated summation
of that
experience that is integrated into our ideology, Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism.
Everyone knows that Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Communist Party
of the
Soviet Union is controversial.
He led the Soviet revolution, and the world communist movement, for
almost
thirty years, towering over the politics of the world and deeply
influencing
the development of revolution and socialism.
The anti-communist gospel describes him as a "monster" and
"murderer."
The experience of the Soviet Union is first profoundly falsified and
distorted
-- and then this distorted history is given as "proof" that communism
is a
nightmare (and that capitalism is preferable to radical change).
RCP chairman Bob Avakian writes:
"It is necessary, in summing up the stage that has ended and the
historical
experience of socialism so far, to speak once again to this question.
I made a
rather extensive analysis of the positive contributions as well as the
serious
errors of Stalin in Conquer the World. But right now, especially, with
the
changes going on the revisionist countries and the increasing
repudiation and
attacks there directed at Stalin and "Stalinism" from many different
quarters,
it is necessary to return to this and to make clear what it is we
uphold and
won't renounce and what we cannot uphold and must criticize in terms
of
Stalin's role as the leader of the Soviet Union and in the
international
communist movement over a decisive period of thirty years, from the
early 1920s
until his death in 1953.
"Mao used the formulation that Stalin's achievements were 70 percent
and his
errors 30 percent of his overall role. The essence here is not the
quantitative
analysis-- not the percentages, 70 percent positive, 30 percent
negative -- but
the overall assessment this suggests: Stalin mainly should be upheld,
but he
did make errors, including serious errors."
First on the positive side -- the reasons why it is correct to uphold
Stalin
overall -- his contributions to the international communist movement
that
outweigh his negative side:
Following Lenin's death in 1924, Stalin led the Soviet Union in taking
the
socialist road in opposition to right and 'left' opponents whose lines
would
have led to openly abandoning the goal of socialist transformation or
in any
case would have led to socialism being overwhelmed and defeated by the
forces
of capitalism, inside the Soviet Union and internationally.
Stalin led in the complex and acute struggles to carry out
collectivization of
agriculture and to socialize the ownership of industry, putting the
economy on
a whole new foundation. This was something that had never been done
before.
While some significant mistakes were made, the fact is that, contrary
to the
slanders of the defenders and apologists of the old order, this
monumental
upheaval was marked by the enthusiasm and initiative of millions and
millions
of people in the countryside, especially the poor peasants, who were
radically
transforming centuries-old relations of oppression and casting off
thousands of
years of enslaving, mind-numbing tradition.
Stalin gave emphasis to the revolutionary struggle and the formation
and
development of communist parties in the East -- that is, the colonial
world --
which was a very important development for the international
communist
movement. Along with this, Stalin made very valuable contributions in
developing Marxist theory concerning the national and colonial
question and the
liberation struggles of the oppressed nations.
Stalin led the Soviet people in arduous and heroic struggle to defeat
German
imperialism, led by Hitler, in World War 2.
In the last years of his life Stalin not only refused to buckle under
to the
imperialists, who were threatening the Soviet Union with atomic
weapons, but he
continued to grapple with the problems of how to carry forward the
socialist
transformation of society and what would be the transition from a
socialist
economic system to a communist one.
All this is more than enough reason to continue to uphold Stalin's
historical
role as a leader of the Soviet Union and in the international
communist
movement.
As I wrote in Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions, in noting some of
Stalin's
main historic achievements and putting his errors in historical
context:
"To bring about socialist collectivization together with socialist
industrialization and transform the Soviet Union from a relatively
backward to
an advanced country economically -- all of which was accomplished in
the two
decades between the end of the civil war in Russia and WW2 -- was a
great
achievement of the Soviet working class and people under the
leadership of
Stalin. And it had much to do with the Soviet Union's ability to
defeat the
Nazi invaders in WW2, another great achievement of the Soviet people
carried
out under Stalin's leadership.
"All the same time, in giving leadership to an unprecedented task of
such
tremendous proportions--the socialization, transformation and rapid
development
of the economy of such a large and complex country as the Soviet Union
under
the conditions where it was the only socialist state in the world
still
dominated by imperialism -- Stalin did make certain errors. To a
significant
degree this is explainable by the very fact that there was no
historical
precedent for this task, no previous experience (and previous errors)
to learn
from. On the other hand, as Mao has summed up, certain of Stalin's
errors,
including in the sphere of political economy, economic policy and
socialist
construction, arose because and to the extent that Stalin failed to
thoroughly
apply materialist dialectics to solving problems, including many
genuinely new
problems that did arise." (Mao Tsetung's Immortal Contributions, pp.
89-90)
It would be extremely wrong to negate Stalin's positive side and
refuse to
uphold his historical role overall. It would be extremely wrong to
underestimate his errors or refuse to thoroughly criticize them. As we
know,
Mao spoke of Stalin's errors representing "30 percent" of Stalin's
overall
role. But when Mao speaks of the actual content of this "30 percent,"
it is
clear that he is not talking about minor mistakes with minimal
consequences.
Aardvark
so you gots nothing? still no "rights" that you'd believe in that i
wouldn't?
> If FREEDOM means participation in power, then Maoist China was the
> most Free place in human history.
now try posting some proof to back that up. imagine that, a socialist
lying to advance his selling of the unsellable ideal of socialism.
Socialism brings equality, and
> distribution of wealth more fully than it ever has been under other
> systems.
again, no proof from you.
Things that you enjoy in the USA like the New Deal and an
> eight hour work day came about because of Socialism as a competing
> economic system on the other side of the world. The world is
> Capitalist now.
the new deal expanded government and stole our freedoms and money.
it's holdover programs from that dreadful era still steal from the
mouths of our children.
you still haven't posted proof of your rank suppositions.
Look at the millions dying because of Imperial wars.
> Look at the explosion of world starvation.
failed government central planning. please stop blaming capitalism for
the proven evils of bloated government.
Today there are more
> chattel slaves than any other time in history, because the Soviet
> Union, which set a standard, collapsed from within and was defeated by
> the vile Capitalists.
you owe every good thing you'e ever used or needed to capitalism. your
computer that you use to bash capitalism wasn't made by engels or
guevera.
Today the world is a nightmare. You claim you
> are Black.
or midwest-american if you like.
In the USA the world is a harder place for Black people to
> live in than when there was a Socialist China, kicking off with a
> Cultural Revolution, that inspired the world.
your "cultural revolution" was the opposite. history shows this.
You have directly
> benefited from Socialism Aardvark.
i made myself what i am and never needed affirmative action to break
my leg, hand me a crutch, then tell me, "without us you couldn't
walk".
how you like them apples?
aardvark
skep...@aol.com
could learn something. A Black man who sucks the ass of Ronald Reagan
is really contemptible.
<<This does not answer my question to you. How does this make it
okay
for your revolutionaries to do the very kinds of things they profess
to despise?>>
Skeptic responds:
I'm not a pacifist, I'm not non violent. Not all violence is the
same.
The violence of a person fighting back if he or she are being raped
is
different from the violence of the rapist. When China stood up and
drove out the Fascist Koumingtang, Britain and the United Snakes, the
Liberation armies used violence, but they also used high minded
principals that the oppressors couldn't use. In Socialist revolution
the revolutionaries need the enthusiasm and support of the basic
people. Mao said Revolutionary armies swim in the sea of the people's
good will and support like fish in the sea. Queen it wouldn't work
without mass support. It would be morally wrong to throw out the
abusers and exploiters of society and then let them come back and
take
over again. It will take political struggle, and some coercion. I'm
sure I could sight several examples where you would theoretically
support the idea of violence. In China men beat their wives from
years
of feudal conditioning, in a generation this was stopped by Socialist
society. And if a man wouldn't stop beating his wife then the
neighborhood women would get together and have meetings with him
trying
to persuade him to stop, but in some instances when wife beaters
would
not stop hurting their wives, the neighborhood women ganged up and
beat
his ass.
<snip>
>QB freedom of speech is America is a joke now. After Revolution the
>conditions will be a thousands or ten thousands more able to speak your
>mind and debate politics and to criticize current leadership, (with the
>power of the State behind you, unimaginable into days US). There will
>be real and unparalleled democacy for the masses of people, better than
>anything experienced in North America before.
Queen B asks:
<<You really believe the socialist governments encourage freedom of
speech, criticizing the government openly and without retribution?
You think they offer "unparalleled democracy"?
Skeptic responds:
We have a quarter of a century of history to show this. In our life
times one-third of the world was red (Socialist).
Queen says:
<<With this open mind/open arms policy, I'm amazed these nations
don't
rake in fortunes in tourist dollars! Do the travel agents know about
these paradises?>>
Skeptic responds:
Cuba, China and USSR had robust tourist industries.
>There will be dictatorsip
>over the old exploiters and those organizing to overthrow the new
>system. This only make sense right? You don't expect the people to take
>over and let the old exploiters come back do you?!
<<But that could only happen if it's the will of the people, right?
You
know, since everyone would be free and happy and healthy and
informed.>>
Skeptic responds:
Look at the accomplishments of the Socialist. In China they fought
and
defeated the most oppressive of oppressors, the vile United States.
Vietnamese Socialists stomped a mud hole in Uncle Sam's ass. Mao's
tactics in the US slaughter in Korea whipped US armies like no other
war in history. Today the US Marines still study Mao's strategies
with
dread and hidden admiration. Stalin and the Red Army completely
conquered Nazi Germany.
Queen says:
<<It doesn't make sense to me to say that you can only defeat evil by
becoming more evil. "The people" means everyone, right? Exploiters
are people too. *S* What sense does it make to just turn the tables
and oppress a different group and call it progress?>>
Skeptic responds:
Mao's China was not evil. Feudal China, had women so oppressed their
feet were bound, prostitution was everywhere, Great Britain and the
United Snakes imported tons of opium from Britain's growing fields in
India and they had 7 million Chinese people enslaved with drugs. Mao
cured this health problem in five years and ended all prostitution in
China by changing people's political attitude not to exploit women.
Literacy and life expectancy jumped sky high. This is progress.
Maoist
China was the free-est country and the greatest development of a
society in human history.
Queen B says:
> This is
>dictatorship of the people
That phrase makes no kind of sense, outside the covers of Orwell's
1984. Next you'll be trying to tell us "War is peace!"
Skeptic responds:
What we live in in the USA is the Dictatorship of the Rich. Our only
solution is to have the Dictatorship of poor people. There is no
other
effective way to reorder society in a positive way.
Queen B Says:
Oh wait...
>which gives the masses the right and the
>ability to change the world and participate in soicety in an all around
>way. Communist leadership will unlesh diverse thinking and action from
>the bottom up and everywhere else. It will also foster dissent,
>including oppoisition to the government itself, and provide the means
>and resources for such viewpoints to be heard. Elections will have a
>role as one mans of selecting and developing leadership, and keeping it
>accountable to the masses. But one thing that wil not be up for vote is
>whether soicety should go back to capitalism. A revolution to
>completely change soicety requires firm and visionary leadership to
>enable the masses to hold on to power. Imagine the division between
>ruler and ruled, and between leaders and led, finally being overcome.
Is this the kind of fantasy lit you use as rolling papers?>>
Skeptic Responds:
The Black Panther Party put Mao's line into the vernacular of the
street by saying: "You can't wage Revolution on a blunt."
Queen B says:
"You can be free...as long as you don't try to attempt to get free of
our freedom."
Skeptic responds:
You can only compare the two societies with examples of freedom or
oppression. Just try to protest against the USA. In Iraq when people
protest the USA, US soldiers with 50 Caliber machine guns mow down
protesters. In the United States, the USA uses dogs, water cannons,
bear repellent pepper spay, tassers, etc. against protesters. Just
try
to affect change and you will see how phony bourgeois democracy is.
Compare this with China during the Mao years.
Mao grew up in a society that was totally messed up. He saw people
dropping dead of starvation in the streets, while a handful of
exploiters grew fat and rich. He saw homeless people begging in the
streets, as imperialist armies and bankers flooded into China. He saw
young girls sold into slavery when their families could not afford to
feed them.
Some people and movements tried to ``reform'' China. But Mao was not
about begging exploiters to make things a little better. And he
wasn't
about simply loosening the chains around peoples' necks.
Mao was a TOTAL revolutionary. He didn't want to make peace with the
system of feudalism and imperialism responsible for the suffering of
the people. He hated how the rich and powerful treated the poor like
dogs--kicking and spitting on them in the streets. And he wanted
nothing less than an end to all exploitation and oppression.
Mao Tsetung was a real communist: He fought for a world without
classes
and without oppressors. He gave his whole life to the people. When
poor
peasants and workers rebelled against intolerable conditions, Mao
stood
with them and led them to take their struggle higher. He led the
masses
to wage armed struggle, to overthrow the system, and put the common
people in charge of society.
After two decades of revolutionary warfare, Mao declared victory in
1949. He said, ``The Chinese people have stood up.'' Then Mao led the
have-nots-- people who never had any power before -- to build
socialism
and revolutionize society from top to bottom.
Mao refused to become a party boss. When people right inside the
Communist Party tried to bring capitalism back to China, Mao relied
on
the masses of people to fight these new oppressors.
Mao led the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which spread this
truth to every corner of the world: It is right to rebel against
reaction!
The famous ``Red Book'' was the most popular book on the planet. And
from the Black liberation struggle to the war in Vietnam, the Chinese
people supported revolutionary movements around the world.
With Mao's leadership, people on the bottom in China became conscious
revolutionizers of society. All kinds of new things were accomplished
-- things impossible under capitalism. In factories, hospitals,
schools, farms, and in the arts -- the masses developed new socialist
ways of doing things and relating to each other. Never before in
history did the masses of working people have so much power to change
the world.
When Mao died in 1976, new exploiters came to power in China and
turned
back the clock to capitalism. But Mao's legacy lives on strong.
>Skeptic responds:
>Well, Q, take Cuba for example Doctors are paid less than janitors even
>though they have to go through years of schooling for free to become
>doctors, and Cuba has more doctors per capita than any other country in
>the world. But doctors get to do what they love and help people, while
>janitors must stick it out and a do a 'thankless' job without much
>recognition. So they get more cash despite having less responsibility
>and authority, expertise or training.
And therefore the world is beating a path to Cuba to consult the best
and happiest doctors in the world. Right?
>On the 'human nature question' There is no innate or unchanging 'human
>nature.' People's thinking, behavior, and values are shaped by the
>economic structure and corresponding institutions and culture of a
>given society. Mao remade feudal China in a generation. Ancient Greek
>society and America's 'founding fathers' regarded slavery as perfectly
>'normal.' Capitalism is organized around the private accumulation of
>profit and economic competition. Selfishness, greed, and individualism
>are rewarded by the workings of capitalism and promoted by the
>institutions of capitalist society. They are not 'hard-wired' into our
>genes, people are not inherently greedy, or cruel; racism and male
>supremacy are not 'natural' human values like they are in this aberrant
>society.
<<You are mixing apples and oranges here, but never mind. Let me
just
assign you one research question: As best we know, based on our
admittedly-flawed historical records, has there been a single span of
more than, say, a century, when there were no wars going on (based as
they are on greed, cruelty, racism, or beliefs of inherent
supremacy?)
IN OUR ENTIRE HISTORY AS A SPECIES?>>
Skeptic responds:
You are only referring to 10,000 or 5,000 years of human history
Queen
B, which is nothing in the time it takes of evolutionary development.
For the vast stretch of the 150,000 years or so human beings have
been
on the planet, societies were based mainly on cooperation. Humans
developed by helping each other. There were no genocidal wars.
Warfare
between villages was mostly symbolic and usually was not the all the
way wipe out your enemy wars of today. It was only with the
development
of agriculture and the creation of surplus wealth that it changed
that
women became property and children commodities. But 5,000 years of
written history is not enough time scientifically speaking to adapt
human evolution to making people greedy, or racist, misogynist, or
cruel.
Queen B says:
<<Of COURSE people can learn to do things differently. Of COURSE
they
can choose to be kind, peace-loving, generous, noble. Of COURSE
those
things are within us, right along with the "bad" stuff. Unless
something goes wrong, we're born with the capacity for the whole
gamut.>>
<<But go watch a day care full of two year olds negotiating play
rights
with the toys and see how many willingly and peacefully share, vs how
many go into "MINE!" mode. They weren't all taught that. In fact,
parents usually work hard to teach toddlers NOT to be selfish and to
share.
Do you think that only happens in Capitalist societies? If so,
there's no point in going any further.>>
Skeptic responds:
Here is what Felix Green wrote about possessiveness and children in
Maoist China:
I have tried to make some cross-checks about children in the
kindergartens and hospitals—places where young children would be away
from home. Bed-wetting? Very rare. Only in three- and four-year-
olds.
At the big nursery I visited today, the teacher could recall only one
instance of persistent bed-wetting at the six-year level—and this
turned out to be a girl with a physical bladder ailment.
Homesickness?
A little at first. Easily handled. Crying at night? No know cases.
Temper tantrums? Lying on the back, kicking the heels, screaming?
They
look at one another in amazement. No they have not had any problems
like that! Fights? Very rare. Their idea of genuinely naughty
behavior
seemed to be for one child to push another. At the kindergarten I
visited, and in several nursery schools, I have asked, “Do they own
anything of their own? A doll? A toy?” And the answer is no. If the
child brings something from home, it is put in with all the other
toys.
Here they have a great many toys that belong to all of them, was what
the teacher at the kindergarten told me. They don’t want anything of
their own.
But don’t they? If they do, and are angry about having to give up
their
own particular toy, where does the anger go? Where is the aggression
going? What’s happening to the normal childhood hatreds? I haven’t
the
faintest idea, and I can’t find no clue. The collective, national
aggression finds outlet through hatred of an externalized enemy,
America; but this cannot be an adequate channel for individual
frustration among the young.
Here are some other facts to throw into the melting pot: young
children
take on responsibility very early. You see a child of four caring for
a
baby of one—feeding it, playing with it, keeping it warm, carrying
the
baby for blocks, staggering under the weight. Also helping with
family
chores, cutting up vegetables—really tiny children.
China, Pp 56
>Skeptic responds:
>We could debate this point further by getting into the details of the
>attacks. There is such a thing as objective reality, it's not all
>subjective. I suspect the world is very different from what you may
>believe US society is QB.
Just as I suspect your post-revolutionary world would be very
different than you dream it would be, Septic.
>Ok, so now you're saying The New Deal was the result of Lenin's
>politics and not what was going on in the US?
>Why aren't we all living that way now then? Why didn't Russia defeat
>the Nazis and convince the world they had a better idea?>>
>Skeptic responds:
>The Red Army defeated the German Capitalist invasion, then turned
>around and as a response and so the Nazis couldn't attack again,
>completely defeated and conquered Nazi German (with little help from
>other allies). The Soviet's sacrifice was the greatest in human
>history. 27 million Soviets gave their lives defeating Hitler. The
>battles fought were by far the largest in human history and perhaps
>human kind's greatest victory. The United States stayed in the
>backwaters, doing little fighting and opportunistically gobbling up
>territory to dominate and exploit. The US couldn't fight the battles
>the Soviets did. The US doesn't have the politics to motivate their
>troops to fight those kind of life and death struggles.
Queen B asks:
<<Oh, you've got to be kidding me!! And do you also believe the
Holocaust was a sham?>>
Skeptic responds:
The USA played a disgusting role in support of the German Holocaust
against Jews in Europe. I could email you an article about it.
<<It was Russia. It was freezing. And what do you do when a nation
invades your country then? Do you stay home by the fire and wait for
them to take over, or do you fight? Not much of a choice there.
Gee, I guess the US should have just stayed home by the fire and let
the god-like Russian socialists take care of everything. After
kicking Hitler's ass, they could have given Imperialist Japan a
spanking too (and then of course, gone back home rather than
exploiting the defeated countries or gobbling up any territory.)
*rolling my eyes*>>
Skeptic Responds:
Chinese Communists did the heavy lifting against Japan's invading
forces in China in WWII. Those defeats were important in the Japan's
defeat. Listen to the History Channel and those guys are still crying
about Iwo Jima in which the USA lost a paltry 6,000 soldiers.
>Queen B:
><< What
>happened to the good old Communist ruling party? None of their
>leaders were corrupt, none of them had standards of living any better
>than the proles they "served," and everyone did their best every day
>to produce quality goods and services that were available to all.
>Right?>>
> Why did 27 million
>Soviets give their lives defeating Hitler? Because Socialism had made
>their lives so much better materially, economic and (including
>political justice) than during the times of the Czars.
<<OR MAYBE BECAUSE THEIR HOMELAND WAS BEING INVADED AND THEY WEREN'T
FIGHTING FOR SOCIALISM, BUT FOR THEIR HOMES AND FAMILIES??>>
Skeptic responds:
French men were fighting for their homeland trying to defend
Invasion.
They didn't do it. They didn't have communist politics. Russia out
produced Capitalist Germany, in the end even created better
equipment,
but it was the motivation of the people using Socialism that was the
deciding factor.
<<People should realize that only socialist invasions are morally
imperative, eh? I hope we can all keep that in mind when "the
people"
come to our homes to "liberate" our nasty old wealth and stick a
brown
foot up our asses.
>Socialism in USSR and China were just the first baby steps of
>Socialism. Capitalism drowned Socialism in blood and exploiters in
>those societies arouse to reinstate Capitalism.
<<So you keep saying. When was it we drowned Communist Russia in
blood
again? I must have been out sick that day.>>
Skeptic Responds:
During the Russian Civil War the USA invaded Asia and moved troops
all
the way from the Pacific Ocean all the way West to around Moscow. The
USA invaded along with 14 other Imperialist countries. The Soviets
were
attacked and encircled and embargoed from the day their society came
into being. They never knew a moments peace. Capitalist Germany was
sent East where Roosevelt wanted Hitler to bleed Russia white. The
USA
invented nuclear weapons and used them on an Asian city full of
people
not once but twice. Every minute the United Snakes has terrorized and
blackmailed the world but especially the USSR and Maoist China with
their terrible weapons of mass destruction.
>Socialism IS the next step in human development. To get rid of the
>private appropriation of wealth, is on the same level as ending Chattel
>Slavery during the Feudalistic and bourgeois democracy eras.
Queen B selfishly dreams:
<<That's an over-simplification. Being made a slave against my will
is
much different than telling me I have no right to accumulate wealth
if
I want to and have the drive and/or talent to do so. >>
Skeptic responds:
Socialism will not be the same kind of "consumer society" we live in
today. For example, it will away from an environmentally destructive
"automobile culture." People in the working and Middle Class will
have
the right to live in the homes they currently occupy. But not the
people in super rich mansions, which will be used to house groups of
people communially. But segregation and speculative real estate
markets
will be ended; and decent housing for those who had been on the
bottom
of society will be a priority. People will still have possessions,
but
things like inheritance will be changed and the emphasis will be
against the personally accumulation of wealth and lording it over
others trying to show you are better than other people will be looked
down upon. People will focus on making things better for society in
general.
Queen asks:
<<Why isn't dictating that everyone has to have exactly the same
thing
as everyone else and no more, no matter what you want or what you do,
just another form of slavery? (By the way, have you read Ayn Rand?
Or
would she give you a stroke?)>>
Skeptic responds:
You don't have the right to exploit other people or lord it over them
Queen. Ayn Rand and George Orwell were propagandists who came out of
World War II. Totalitarianism was a propaganda concept falsely trying
to equate Fascism with Communism.
Queen spouts:
<<And what is the definition of wealth, anyway? I'm quite sure that
varies greatly depending upon whom you ask.
It's going to hard to have a good revolution if we can't even agree
on
definitions, don't you think? But maybe not. As I recall, Big
Brother's solution to that was to "simplify" the language and just
get
rid of the words that might allow people to think "wrong" thoughts.
<<Maybe your revolutionaries can simply erase capitalism from the
dictionary and history books. End of problem! Then we could all
take
a Soma holiday and be happy, vacuous little utopians. Zzzzzz....
Skeptic responds:
Socialism is not an utopian, Shangri-La society. It is a scientific
one. It's not vacuous, we have the success of Socialism in human
history to prove this.
Thanks for your thoughts. It's a juicy conversation and your
questions
and assertions made me think about things and I enjoy coming up with
ways to respond to your posts.
Aardvark
> Aardvark Here is a debate I had on Socialism a while back. Maybe you
> could learn something. A Black man who sucks the ass of Ronald Reagan
> is really contemptible.
how utterly racist of you to post such trash very poorly disguised as
actual debate. you know very little about what you talk about. your
many lines of cut & pasted tripe copied from questionable pro-
socialist excuses for acute writer's block, is a poor substitute for
actual facts. you possess no brilliance to dazzle me with.
as for reagan...are you kidding me? you've never seen enough money
that would have satisfied me to vote for reagan in 1980 or '84.
reagan talked big about limited government, but still grew gov't size
and scope with his failed plans. shame on you for not knowing better.
skep...@aol.com
You're ducking out of the debate I've been trying to have with you. I
hope you learned something about what I've posted so far. If you are
really Black you should learn that Capitalism cannot solve National
oppression and racism. If the US government tried to address these
issues it would rip apart the very fabric of its exploitative society.
Capitalism and racism are intimately linked.
Uprooting National Oppression and White Supremacy
The history of the development of capitalism in the U.S. is a history
of the most savage oppression of the Black, Native American, Chicano,
Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, Asian, and other oppressed peoples. Today
this
oppression continues and, in many ways, has intensified. For these
reasons, the proletarian revolution in the U.S. must urgently take up
this question for solution.
The proletariat aims to achieve a classless communist society where
all national and �racial� antagonisms are overcome and the division
of
the world into nations is superseded by a world community of freely
associating human beings. But to bring that about, injustices must be
dealt with and the causes of national oppression must be removed. The
rights of oppressed nationalities must be upheld, and great-nation
chauvinism and white supremacy combated. An important feature of the
socialist transition period, of the continuing revolution under
socialism, is the achievement of equality between all nations and
peoples. This is the necessary path to the ultimate abolition of all
national antagonisms and boundaries, and the very existence of
separate nations altogether.
Why Imperialism Cannot Do Away with National Oppression
The conditions faced today by the oppressed peoples in the U.S. are
truly barbaric. They meet with discrimination at every turn, solely
due to the color of their skin or the language that they speak. As
members of the proletariat (and in their majority the oppressed
nationalities are proletarians), they get either the lowest-paid,
most
dangerous, and most back-breaking jobs, or else no jobs at all. They
get the worst housing, the worst of bad health care, and the worst
education and other social services. To take one horrendous example,
the infant mortality rates of most of the oppressed nationalities are
double that of whites, and in some areas triple! Their cultures and
languages are suppressed, mutilated, and ridiculed.
In recent years, the imperialists have literally filled the prisons
to
bursting with youth of the oppressed nationalities. (If the Black
population of the U.S. were a separate country, it would have the
highest incarceration rate of any in the world!) At the same time,
the
imperialists have flooded the neighborhoods and schools of the
oppressed nationalities with brutalizing, murdering racist thugs in
blue uniforms.
All this and more is daily life for the masses of the oppressed
nationalities. And it is these conditions that the proletariat in
power must and will eliminate.
The capitalists today have thousands of laws on paper outlawing
discrimination, but still discrimination thrives and intensifies.
This
is because they have a greater law in command��the law of maximizing
profit��and under this law all of society is kept in a twisted state.
Such deformities fully conform to their interests.
The oppression of Black and other oppressed peoples in this country
is
not only a matter of racism but, even more fundamentally, of the
oppression of nations and national groups. This oppression is
essential to the functioning of the capitalist system in the U.S. It
is built into the foundation and whole framework of capitalist
society
in the U.S. and the whole structure of U.S. imperialist rule and
domination in the world.
National oppression is profitable for the imperialists. The people of
the oppressed nationalities are in their majority members of the U.S.
proletariat, and are super-exploited due to the national oppression
they suffer�that is, the capitalists use the systematic segregation,
lack of opportunity, and discrimination against these workers to pay
them extra-low wages and thereby get extra-high profits. The
capitalists also use the existence of this superexploited section of
workers to drive down the conditions of the working masses overall.
In addition, the imperialists use the whole structure of white
supremacy and the corresponding mentality that it breeds among
whites�including even those who are poor, powerless, and exploited�as
an important part of the �social glue� that keeps the whole system
together. Many white proletarians are seduced into thinking that they
have a stake in maintaining privileges that result from white
supremacy and thus in defending the status quo against their true
class brothers and sisters. In this way, white supremacy sows deep
divisions within the working class itself and seriously weakens its
struggle.
For all these reasons and more, the imperialists could not do away
with national oppression and white supremacy, even if they wanted to.
As Bob Ava�kian, Chairman of the RCP, has written, �socially as well
as politically, any at�tempt to really sever this national oppression
from the fabric of U.S. society and reshape the society without this
oppression would completely �unravel� and tear apart the whole social
fabric as it now exists, as it has been historically developed under
capitalist rule. Obvious�ly, while we, representing the revolutionary
proletariat, welcome this, the imperialist ruling class absolutely
does not and cannot.�
Immediate Measures of the Proletariat on Coming to Power
The proletariat has no interest whatsoever in maintaining any aspect
of national oppression; on the contrary, it has the most profound
interest in destroying white supremacy root and branch, and
developing
true equality of nationalities.
In socialist society, inequalities�or any remaining aspects of
them�are both leftovers of the old society and breeding grounds for
capitalist restoration. The proletariat in power will continue the
fight to uproot national oppression. This is necessary to maintain
and
strengthen the unity that it will have built up in the process of
preparing for and then carrying out the revolutionary struggle to
seize power. Even more fundamentally, it is necessary because of the
basic goal of proletarian revolution: the elimination of �classes and
all forms of oppression.
So the proletarian dictatorship will move quickly against the
institutions and legacies of national oppression. Dis�crim�i�nation,
for example, will be immediately and forcefully banned in employment,
housing, and all other areas. The army of police�which rains down
systematic terror in the ghettos and barrios and other areas where
the
oppressed nationalities live�will be destroyed. Just punishment will
be handed out to its hired thugs, and in its place will be armed and
organized revolutionary militias made up of the masses in these
neighborhoods and areas.
Segregation in neighborhoods, schools, and the like will be banned
and
inte�gration promoted. Racist/segregationist groups will be broken
up,
and those like the KKK and Nazis who have initiated attacks on
oppressed nationalities will be immediately and mercilessly crushed.
The leaders of such groups will receive the ultimate punishment. And
if, for example, somebody in a workplace jumps up and starts some
racist mouthing off, although he will probably not be jailed, unless
he is actually part of organizing a reactionary movement, the masses
of all nationalities will be mobilized right then and there to wage a
sharp struggle against all this and to isolate and defeat such
reactionary poison.
The new socialist state will take immediate and special measures to
change the situation of social inequality. For instance, as opposed
to
the way in which capitalism enforces systematic discrimination and
essentially closes off whole spheres of society to the oppressed
nationalities, the new proletarian state will provide the resources,
support, and leadership required to overcome all inequalities between
nationalities and all barriers to full and equal participation in
every sphere and on all levels of society. This will have nothing in
common with the hypocritical tokenism of the bourgeoisie, but will be
based instead on recognizing the crucial importance of fully
overcoming the legacies of discrimination and national oppression and
backing this up with the power and moral force of the proletarian
dictatorship.
It will require struggle to win the �masses of all nationalities to
see the absolute necessity for these measures in order to develop�and
even to keep�the victories of the revolution.
For instance, in tackling the task of rebuilding neighborhoods after
the seizure of power, Party members and other class-conscious people
will not only struggle with others who do not grasp the urgent
necessity for this but will set an example in practice, in self-
sacrifice and voluntary labor, in order to see to it that the
neighborhoods at the very bottom are rebuilt and improved first. If
this policy is not actively applied, then the basis for proletarian
power would be seriously undermined, because the oppressed people
would rightly feel that things were no different than before�with the
oppressed still on the bottom.
Over the long-term, the state will give preference in resources and
assistance to the less developed and backward areas, in coordination
with and on the basis of the overall development of society. And in
the immediate situation after the seizure of power, the policy of
�raising up the bottom� will be applied across the board.
The Black National Question
Black people in the U.S. are not simply a �racial group� (or an
�ethnic group�) but are an oppressed nation. Their roots are in
Africa, but they developed into a separate and distinct nation based
on their historical experience in this country.
The key moment in welding together this African-American nation
occurred after the U.S. Civil War. The Black ex-slaves, who had
fought
and died for their freedom, attempted to secure basic civil rights
and
land at the end of that war. But the bourgeoisie betrayed its
promises
and, after a few short years of Re�con�struction, violently disarmed
the Black masses, depriving them of all rights and forcing them to
labor in serf-like oppression in semi-feudal conditions on the
plan�tations, this time as sharecroppers. The white plantation
owners�many of them former slave-owners or their de�scen�dants�used
lynch mobs, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and other means to maintain this
oppression.
In these conditions, Black people were welded into a nation, with all
the essential characteristics of a nation: common territory, common
language, common economic life, common culture and psychological
makeup. More particularly, they were forged into an oppressed nation,
separate from and dominated by the oppressor, European-American
nation, in the area of the �Black Belt South� (so-called because of
the color of its soil�an area that runs in an arc from parts of
Mary�land through northern Florida and as far west as East Texas, and
that includes significant parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,
Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, the Carolinas, and Virginia).
This national oppression underwent further development, particularly
in the period of two great waves of Black migration: from the World
War 1 years until the Great Depression, and again during and after
World War 2. Due to a number of factors, particularly changes in
southern agriculture and the needs of urban industry, millions of
Black people were pushed off the land and pulled into the northern
cities. In great numbers they were transformed from peasants into
proletarians�still subjected to national oppression (in many new
forms) and concentrated in the most exploited sections of the working
class.
These changes, together with the building resistance of the Black
masses north and south, along with a wave of anti-colonial and
national liberation struggles around the globe, gave rise in the
1950s
to the civil rights movement and then, in the �60s, to the Black
liberation struggle. Once again, just as it was after the Civil War,
the question was posed very decisively: can Black people and will
Black people be integrated, or assimilated, into this society on the
basis of full equality? And once again, this system betrayed Black
people and gave its thunderous answer: NO! THIS WILL NOT BE DONE.
Today Black people are still brutally oppressed under capitalism, and
equality is nowhere to be found. In the wake of the 1960s, a small
(but significant) section of Black people �made it� into the
comfortable section of the middle class (though they, too, suffer
from
�racial profiling� by the police and many other forms of
discrimination and oppression, and their economic situations are
often
very precarious). The masses of Black people have had to bend every
effort just to keep from falling further behind, and about one third
suffer much worse conditions today than they did in 1970!
Thus there remains today a common experience and common oppression as
a people for Black people of all classes, and a continued existence
as
an oppressed nation within the boundaries of the U.S. today. Because
of this whole history and present-day reality, the revolutionary
proletariat upholds the right of Black people to establish autonomous
rule in the Black Belt South, as well as other areas in which they
form large concentrations.
In addition to the right of autonomy, for the Black nation there
continues to be the right of self-determination, up to and in�cluding
secession�that is, the establishment of a separate Afro-American
Repub�lic in the Black Belt South. The proletariat does not favor
this
under now foreseeable circumstances. But upon achieving power, or in
the armed struggle to win it, if there are indeed significant forces
based among Black people raising this demand, the proletariat will
take this into account. It will approach this question in light of
the
overall situation and the importance of weakening the enemy and
strengthening the revolutionary forces�on the basis of revolutionary
principle.
Whether to support a particular move for a separate state among Black
people or to oppose it will depend on all this. But the proletarian
state and the proletarian forces nearing power will be firmly opposed
to deciding this question through the use of force, as the
imperialists do. Rather, the proletariat will rely on the masses,
especially in this case the masses of Black people, and will work to
resolve the question non-antagonistically and in a way that serves
the
larger interests of emancipating all the exploited and oppressed.
This is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online:
rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497
Aardvark
> On 26 May, 13:12, Aardvark <zen...@rock.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2:40 pm, "skepti...@aol.com" <skepti...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Aardvark Here is a debate I had on Socialism a while back. Maybe you
> > > could learn something. A Black man who sucks the ass of Ronald Reagan
> > > is really contemptible.
>
> > how utterly racist of you to post such trash very poorly disguised as
> > actual debate. you know very little about what you talk about. your
> > many lines of cut & pasted tripe copied from questionable pro-
> > socialist excuses for acute writer's block, is a poor substitute for
> > actual facts. you possess no brilliance to dazzle me with.
>
> > as for reagan...are you kidding me? you've never seen enough money
> > that would have satisfied me to vote for reagan in 1980 or '84.
>
> > reagan talked big about limited government, but still grew gov't size
> > and scope with his failed plans. shame on you for not knowing better.
>
> > how you like them apples?
>
> > aardvark
>
> You're ducking out of the debate I've been trying to have with you.
me? you've been ducking so much that if i have to deal with any more
of you i swear i'm going to serve you with orange sauce for dinner
> I hope you learned something about what I've posted so far.
yeah, the truth is totally alien to you. that's what i learned.
If you are
> really Black you should learn that Capitalism cannot solve National
> oppression and racism.
on the contrary, capitalism makes us equal. my money is no less green
than yours. and yes, your overt racism is more than obvious. we black
americans still have racist cops to deal with. we even have black
racist clergy like jesse jackson & louis farrakhan (sp?) looking to
lead us around by the nose while keeping us (and you're guilty of it
too mr. racist) in perpetual victim status.
jackson inherited the legacy of dr. king and promptly decided for all
of us that the color of a man's skin does matter (m.l king said it
didn't & i go with king on that, his socialist ideals
notwithstanding).
If the US government tried to address these
> issues it would rip apart the very fabric of its exploitative society.
> Capitalism and racism are intimately linked.
your views on an "exploitative society" are highly subjective not to
mention wrong. please don't let that stop you though, as you seem to
be having a blast making yourself look foolish and totally uninformed
as to how the world is supposed to work.
> Uprooting National Oppression and White Supremacy
>
> The history of the development of capitalism in the U.S. is a history
> of the most savage oppression of the Black, Native American, Chicano,
> Puerto Rican, Hawaiian, Asian, and other oppressed peoples. Today
> this
> oppression continues and, in many ways, has intensified. For these
> reasons, the proletarian revolution in the U.S. must urgently take up
> this question for solution.
you just want to impose a different type of slavery on blacks. if you
want to call me a liar, prove me wrong by giving me one, just one
*real* right that you, as a socialist would believe in that a
libertarian such as myself would not believe in. you're still
scratching your head trying to understand how a black man can be a
libertarian in your narrow and racist view of the world.
old school slavery is dead. get over it. quit being so dishonest as to
tell me that you hate slavery while trying to sell me on a failed idea
of socialism that will and always does, make slaves out of us all.
the rest of your foul spew is not worth responding to as you blame
capitalism for every ill foist upon us by big government and it's
endless edicts. you can't even be honest enough to blame the right
guys for what's wrong with america.