I thought I would contribute a short criticism of the current Iraq massacre inquiry currently taking place in the UK.  This is a short selection from Italian Socialist Dario Fo’s famous play The Accidental Death of an Anarchist.  The characters are discussing the role of scandals.  The “Maniac” character is a Minstrel/Harlequin type character which is very common in comedia dell’arte, and and they are used to expose the truth plainly and through the use of humor.  The other character is the “Journalist,” who was supposed to represent the reformist Italian Communist Party, whom Fo used to criticize for not being radical and revolutionary enough. Here is the extract:

“Maniac: It means: ‘Whether they want it or not, I shall impose truth and justice. I shall do what I can to make sure that these scandals explode in the most public way possible; and you need not fear that, in among the rot, the power of government will be undermined. Let the scandal come, because on the basis of that scandal a more durable power of the state will be founded!

….Journalist: So in other words he’s saying that even when there aren’t scandals, they need to be invented, because it’s a good way of maintaining power and defusing people’s anger.

Maniac: Correct. A liberatory catharsis of tension…You remember the ‘Profumo’ scandal in England? A minister of defence, caught up with drugs, prostitution, and spying…!!! Did the state collapse? Or the stock exchange? Not a bit of it. If anything they came out of it stronger than before. People thought: ‘The shit is there, so let it float to the surface…’ Were swimming in shit – even swallowing some of it – but nobody comes round telling us that everything’s fine and dandy, and that’s what counts!….

Scandal is the fertilizer of social democracy! In face I’d go even further: scandal is the best antidote to the worst of poisons – namely when people come to realize what’s really going on. When people begin to realise what’s going on, we’re done for! But look at amerikkka – a truly social-democratic society. Did they ever try to censor the true facts about the massacres carried out by amerikkkan troops in Vietnam? No they did not! It was on the front pages of all the papers – photos of women butchered, children massacred, villages destroyed. And do you remember the scandal of the nerve gas? The amerikkkans had manufactured enough nerve gas in the u.s. to wipe out the entire population of the world three times over. But did they try to hide the fact? Not a bit of it! In fact, when you turned on the TV, there they were. Trains. ‘And where are those trains going?’ ‘To the seaside.’ ‘And what are those trains carrying?’ ‘Nerve gas. It’s going to be dumped at sea…A few miles off the shoreline!’ So that supposing there’s a little earthquake one day, the containers will crack, and the nerve gas will come bubbling up to the surface, glug-glug-glug, and we’ll all die. Three times over!

They’ve never tried to hush up these scandals. And they’re right not to. That way, people can let off steam, get angry, shudder at the thought of it…’Who do these politicians think they are?’ ‘Scumbag generals!’ ‘Murderers!’ And they get more and more angry, and then, burp! A little liberatory burp to relieve their social indigestion.

Journalist: But excuse me – you say amerikkka is so free, but what do you have to say about the calculated murder of terrorists, with their families, and the burning of an entire black area in Philadelphia?

Maniac: I was talking about the ‘right of liberatory burps’, not the ‘right to life’….the important thing is to have a good scandal!…So that the Italian nation can march alongside the amerikkkans and the english, and become a modern and social-democratic society, so that finally we can say: ‘It’s true – we’re in the shit right up to our necks, and that’s precisely the reason why we walk with our heads held high!”

So, when I wrote this post a week ago, I was mocking all of the opposition parties, especially the liberal ones and the Muslim Brotherhood.  But right away, the new “general guide” of MB had to go and prove how well founded my satire was!  Just read what Muhammad Badee’ (the new “general guide”) had to say yesterday about the direction of MB:

إننا نؤمن بالتدرج في الإصلاح، وأن ذلك لا يتم إلا بأسلوب سلمي ونضال دستوري قائم على الإقناع والحوار وعدم الإكراه؛ ولذلك نرفض العنف وندينه بكل أشكاله؛ سواءٌ من جانب الحكومات أو من جانب الأفراد، أو الجماعات اأو المؤسسات.

[We believe in gradual reform, and that will not be accomplished except through peaceful methods, and constitutional struggle, based on persuasion and dialogue and non-coercion. And therefore, we reject violence and we condemn it in all of its forms, whether from governments or individuals or groups or organizations.]

Now I really did not make this up, but it is good to show how useless and reformist MB is, at least on a leadership level. But given their belief in “gradual reform” and “constitutional struggle (نضال دستوري)” they really should change their name to: The Party of Moderate Progress within the Limits of the Law.

OK, I was planning on writing about this months ago, but I forgot, and then I was talking to a comrade about “charity” and also it is an especially relevant subject now after the earthquake in Haiti, so I figured I would actually write a post this time…

Charity is many things:

1) Cheap public relations for corporations, the rich, and imperialist governments i.e. they pay a little money to a charity, or else start a charitable organization, and then they get a lot of good articles written about them, and some people may think that they are not criminals whose entire wealth was and is illegitimately gotten, and that they should be fucking killed in the street for having this wealth, not praised for giving a little of it away. For instance, in this latest disaster we have seen grade-A hypocrites like fucking child-murder clinton, and stupid ass bono, make “appeals” for donations when they have millions of dollars in wealth which does little except: sit in the bank uselessly, or is used to buy expensive cushions for their delicate asses, or obscenely expensive food for their delicate tummies, i.e. the money is used to keep up these rich fucks’ extravagant lifestyle, which they justify, I presume, by imagining that they are more important and deserving than the majority of the people in the world. My response to these hypocrites and criminals using charity for public relations is: give up all your money, which you don’t need or deserve in the first place, and then you can talk about “charity” and doing “good.”

2) Good Business, i.e. someone starts a charitable group, they hire themselves (obviously), or appoint themselves the chairwoman/man of the board. They may also put some of their friends or relatives on the “board” or otherwise add them to the payroll. Then of course they will hire some normal employees, and then they give themselves and whoever they want large salaries, and sit on their asses collecting money for “the poor” or whatever else, while the money really just pays them a big salary, with little to no money actually going to the advertised target.

3) A drug to relieve pressure, i.e. “if we feed some of the poor, or use charity to give them just enough food to live and function somewhat normally, they will thank us and be somewhat contented, so that they won’t be mad or rebellious,” i.e. just like the use of drugs, television, sports, etc…, to distract people and let some of the pressure out of the pressure cooker which is capitalist society. Of course not saying this is all bad, I mean if charity is used to fulfil an immediate need, like helping the Haitians after the earthquake, or feeding starving people, this is obviously a very good thing. But that does not mean that it is always done with good intentions, mostly it is just done for good publicity and propaganda. But in the end, the real solution for poverty is an end to imperialism and capitalism, and the best solution for Haitians would obviously be a revolutionary government which refused to follow the dictates of the imperialists, and which aimed to create a socialist society.

4) A brutal crime, i.e. if you have ever heard about amerikkkan food aid to Africa, just one among many of such cases, you will know what I mean. The amerikkkan goverment basically does this: they buy up extra food in the domestic market (often times it is so-called “over” production, i.e the food that corporations normally destroy to keep prices high), and then ship in overseas and call this “aid.” That is where the amerikkkan food aid comes from, it is propaganda which isn’t even slightly charitable in reality, but which only fits with capitalist and imperialist policies.  This however is not the worst of it. The food aid destroys local agriculture, and has the effect of keeping the population literally starving, because the food aid is brought in, not bought in the place of need, and so with a massive influx of food, local agricultural production is kept at a pitiful level, such that it can’t even close to supply the populations food needs. It is another one of the sick ironies of capitalism that food aid doesn’t actually feed, it starves, and this is what many international organizations even admit, including the UN, which is normally so eager to kiss the ass of any amerikkkan.

In conclusion, I think it is obvious that charity is not the solution to any problem, at most it is a temporary means to keep people alive and to help people out (although often enough it has detrimental effects, as I outlined above). But charity is at base reformist, and is not a useful method AT ALL for really solving any problem, all it does is band-aid it until the next crisis comes along. That being said, we should realize that the solution is REVOLUTION, a complete end of imperialism and capitalism, and a real redistribution of wealth, and anything less than that will never create a truly equal and just society.

This issue I will be writing about here is the role of parliamentary politics, “liberal” democracy, and reformism in the struggle for a socialist society. For someone who is critical, like me, of leftist, socialist, and communist parties taking part in “democratic” elections, the easiest place to look for examples of the political selling out that results is by far Europe. Many countries in europe have had parties in power who claimed to be socialist, such as the ruling party in Spain, and even the current ruling “communist” party in greek cyprus. But take a look at any of these parties, and all they do is continue the capitalist policies, and often imperialist policies, which are inherent under liberal “democracy,” and the only difference between them and out and out reactionary parties is that they claim to be working under the banner of socialism, while in reality doing nothing but defiling the name of a revolutionary ideology. These parties don’t even claim to be revolutionary, they are openly reformist, and their thirst for power leads them to continually betray the principles on which their parties claim to stand.

Trotsky describes these european parliamentary “socialists” very well in his autobiography when he describes his encounters with the leaders of the Austrian Social Democratic Party:

“I listened with intense, and one might almost say, respectful interest to their conversation in the “Central” café. But very soon I grew puzzled. These people were not revolutionaries. Moreover, they represented the type that was farthest from that of the revolutionary. This expressed itself in everything – in their approach to subjects, in their political remarks and psychological appreciations, in their self-satisfaction – not self-assurance, but self-satisfaction…I was surprised to find that these educated Marxists were absolutely incapable of applying Marx’s method as soon as they came to the big problems of politics, especially its revolutionary turns…

“In informal talks among themselves, they revealed, much more frankly than in their articles and speeches, either undisguised chauvinism, or the bragging of a petty proprietor, or holy terror of the police, or vileness towards women. In amazement, I often exclaimed, “What revolutionaries!”

The other region which has a fairly long history of parliamentary “socialism” is Latin America, although it does manifest itself there is somewhat better form than in europe. Without doubt there are several outstanding leaders (at very least in contrast to other world leaders) there who are the products and beneficiaries of the parliamentary road to socialism (which inevitably leads nowhere). The most well known of these socialist/parliamentarian leaders being Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales (currently in power), Manuel Zelaya (removed from power in a 2009 military coup) and the greatest symbol of parliamentary socialism in Latin America: Salvador Allende (killed during the 1973 military coup led by Pinochet). Now, as socialists, I think it is very important to support these governments against their enemies, both the foreign imperialists, local puppet leaders, and the domestic and expatriate bourgeois. This does not mean, however, that criticizing them is off limits. Of course these leaders are far from perfect, and criticism is essential if we want to achieve true socialism and not sell out our principles for seats in a parliament.

So: Where are these governments going? What security do they have that they won’t be deposed by a coup? Or that the “liberal” democracy they have founded their rule on won’t be used (as it normally is) to sell the election to the highest bidder?

In regards to the question of security, Chavez has already had a military coup launched against him, which he thankfully defeated, and Zelaya was deposed by another military coup, and it doesn’t look as if he will ever return to power, and Allende was killed during Pinochet’s coup. The only lesson some socialists draw from this is that military coups are bad, as if we did not know that before. The much more important point to make, however, is that reformist/parliamentary socialism will never work. We need a revolution, not an election, and if there is no revolution, but rather a selling out to the structures of state that the capitalists themselves have built, there will be little to no protection from military coups and no reliable security on which to base and support the restructuring of society.

Also, a key point to be made about these leaders, and parlimentary “socialism” in general, they being its outcome, is that their rules’ are supported to a great extend by their individual characters and leadership. And no this is not a complement. It is not a complement, because what will happen when these leaders die? Most likely the system they have worked towards creating, far from perfect though it may be, will die as well, or will be killed by the accession to power of an “ally” or “fellow” party member of the said leader, who will then proceed to undue everything that their predecessor had worked to build. If we focus on the individual, we will never be able to achieve socialism, as socialism is the focus on the collectivity, not the individual. When we start talking about “the leader of the revolution,” you can be quite sure that the revolution will fail. Likewise, when we put our faith and hope for change in one person, or even several people, we will either be disappointed with the result, or have to lie to ourselves. For our revolution to succeed and survive, it needs to be based on the masses of the people, the exploited and the oppressed, and be lead by them!

Another issue with parliamentary “socialism” is its reliance on institutions and a system created by the people they should be enemies of. We are not attempting to build half-hearted-kind-of-like-socialism and use the prevailing system, a system created by and for the upper classes, to achieve our goal of a complete transformation of society. No! If we say we are socialists, then let us be socialists and say NO, unequivocally, to reformism and selling out. As we have seen with the people and groups who have gone down the road of parliamentary “socialism,” we will be able to change very little in the long run, and will be left yelling empty slogans in the streets during election time. A real change of society, a complete and utter shattering of the previous system and norms, is what we need to accomplish to truly change our world for the better. If we choose instead to engage in parliamentary politics, it means nothing less than that we are selling out to the capitalists and upper classes who want nothing more than to co-opt revolutionary movements and turn them into neutered, tamed parliamentary parties.

I have heard, comrades, that a new party has been created some weeks ago, and will surely add to the rich variety of opposition parties in Egypt which aim for the noble and ennobling task of re-organizing the government of Egypt from an aristocratic dictatorship, to a democracy of aristocrats.

Here is an official press release I received from a friend who joined the new party:

Our new party was named, after long and fruitful consideration and after conscientiously weighing all the positive and negative consequences of our linguistic duty to our to-be-formed party, we decided upon naming our noble, struggling, party, which will fight for human rights and democracy in Egypt, The Party of Moderate Progress Within the Bounds of the Law (PMPWBL)*.

What we are fighting for is very simple: Moderate Progress within the bounds of the law. What does this mean? This means we will strongly fight for the moderate and cautious, but nevertheless existent, reform of a handful, i.e. several, or in other words a number of, ministries and other entities of the current Egyptian state, entities both internal and external, many of which have a small or big, often medium, role in determining the fate, or outcome, of the average Egyptian citizen’s life, or rather his condition and livelihood. But we hasten to assure, and reassure, and in general to notify, our noble and respected fellow Egyptian citizens, that we will at all times respect the law, or in other words the constitution, and of course we should hasten to add that we will never break the criminal law, or personal status law, or any of the other just laws we have currently written down and which are printed by our press, and which the lawyers who are currently attending Cairo University for instance are reading and studying, and basically all the laws, for we respect them greatly, and feel that without laws there would be chaos and anarchy and violence, and we are not anarchists, we have great respect for the law, and we will defend it.

In other words, beloved citizens, we will work within the bounds of the law. Yet, citizens, we do believe that some of the laws currently on the books, and in the books, and which are being printed, and also the ones being studied by the students of the various law faculties in our country, need to be changed, and that is to say reformed, to adapt to our modern world, or rather to be moulded to the demands, and of course requests, of the urgencies of the implementation and bequeathment of human rights and democracy, which are of course, and predictably, and without doubt not only, and not exclusively, the main tenets, i.e. principles and pillars, or our party, but rather, and to the contrary, and further over, these things are the main demands, and near sole focus and single thing that draws attention most, from among, and between, our fellow, dear, citizens. But during, or throughout, and especially in the heart of, our struggle and fight, or pushing ahead to realize the dream, and also the reality and implementation of, human rights and democracy, we will proceed and go ahead with our plans, and designs, and commitments to our electors, in a resolute yet respectful way, that is to say within the bounds of the law.

We would also, that is to say we the members of the Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law, would like to take some time to address, and disprove, and of course confront, some to the perfidious lies, the baseless distortions, and of course the treacherous baiting of some of the other parties, and of some of the writers, and also the journalists, who are currently writing at some of our nation’s papers, from whom a certain quantity, not very many of course, but a few, have been attacking our party without rest or stop or any let up or time to recover our breath.

We would like to address this now. Some people, or rather hate-mongers and deceivers, and in general hirelings and paid attack dogs, have been criticizing our party, that is The Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law, of doing and being numerous things, that is to say several things, which we will herein, and subsequent to the completion of this sentence, list and outline for our respected and dear citizens who have no need for these lies and who know that truth and righteousness are firmly a part of, and inherent in our party. First we would like to give our response to the perfidious lies and distortions, and faulty analyses which have lately been spread about our party, to the extent that we are legitimizing the ruling regime, that is to say we are providing them material for defence and legitimization, by running in elections, i.e. votes, and serving in elected bodies, which, these hirelings claim, are only for show and have no legitimacy or power and which are used, and manipulated by the ruling, prevailing, and current political, and economic regime, which is headed by our respected colleague Mr. Hosni Mubarak, who we are of course all familiar with. We deny this most vehemently, and categorically, and condemn the miserable rumor-mongerers who spread these type of wretched and abject lies. While we do believe that Mr. Mubarak’s policies are somewhat misguided, that is to say they demonstrate a certain impracticality and lack of experience, we are committed to moving our great country forward on the wings of the law to the moderate progress we all so strongly desire. We take the upright road of respect for the law and respect for our glorious country when we are struggling for the much praised, righteous goal of moderate progress. And our righteous path, the path of our fellow citizens and our great nation, being in the bounds of the law, we take advantage of the political voice and participation ability, and of course power, that Mr. Mubarak has kindly granted us, and we must use this kind favor to build upon, and of course slightly alter the glorious vision and reality which Mr. Hosni has graciously bestowed on our glorious motherland.

Although we are a new party, our boldness, courage, unstoppable will, righteousness, and sense of justice have resulted is us taking a very important and prestigious place in the Egyptian political sphere of involvement in the daily affairs of both state and society and the regulation and implementation and maintaining of the laws we all respect, and prize, and which we hold close to our hearts, although in fact they do need moderate revisions. This situation, or current condition of our party, the Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law, has led to us being reviled in some of the un-sophisticated press which publishes any disgusting filth they set their eyes on, even stooping so low, to such a disgusting level, wading in sewage, as to harm the irreproachable honor and security of our country by printing lies and fabrications about our great national leader, Mr. Mubarak. And thus, we do not feel we need to respond to these ridiculous claims and fabrications and invented stories, and cheap novels which our enemies circulate about us, and we will continue our selfless, that is not say non-selfish and sacrificing of selfness type struggle which we launched only a few short weeks ago, approximately two and a quarter, and which we will continue until we have brought our glorious motherland the much dreamed of thing which is often written of by poets, i.e. writers of poems, and what I am referring to is of course Moderate Progress, and we assure the public, our beloved citizens, that we will achieve this in, that is to say within, the bounds of the law, which we will continue printing and continue training lawyers in, and without which there would be no order, there would be anarchy, and we are not anarchists, we are moderate progritists fighting under the banner of respect for the law and aiming for the complete moderate progression of society and of the state, and of the internal and external entities therein implied.

–The executive board of decision making in the committee for political affairs and strategies, The Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law.

*I took from the Czech satirist Jaroslav Hasek the name for the party

I have written about prostitution before, but I thought it would be a good idea to introduce some brief, but excellent, excerpts from Lenin on this subject, which I have enjoyed reading, and hopefully you will too:

“Millions upon millions of women in such families [i.e. lower class families] live (or, rather, exist) as “domestic slaves”, striving to feed and clothe their family on pennies, at the cost of desperate daily effort and “saving” on everything—except their own labour.

It is these women that the capitalists most willingly employ as home-workers, who are prepared for a monstrously low wage to “earn a little extra” for themselves and their family, for the sake of a crust of bread. It is from among these women, too, that the capitalists of all countries recruit for themselves (like the ancient slave-owners and the medieval feudal lords) any number of concubines at a most “reasonable” price. And no amount of “moral indignation” (hypocritical in 99 cases out of 100) about prostitution can do anything against this trade in female flesh; so long as wage-slavery exists, inevitably prostitution too will exist. All the oppressed and exploited classes throughout the history of human societies have always been forced (and it is in this that their exploitation consists) to give up to their oppressors, first, their unpaid labour and, second, their women as concubines for the “masters”.

Slavery, feudalism and capitalism are identical in this respect. It is only the form of exploitation that changes; the exploitation itself remains.”

And here is an excerpt from a somewhat satirical article that Lenin wrote about prostitution:

“The fifth international congress for the suppression of the white slave [I know it is a very odd term, but apparently “white slave” means: “a woman who is sold or forced into prostitution”] traffic recently ended in London.
Duchesses, countesses, bishops, priests, rabbis, police officials and all sorts of bourgeois philanthropists were well to the fore! How many festive luncheons and magnificent official receptions were given! And how many solemn speeches on the harm and infamy of prostitution!

What means of struggle were proposed by the elegant bourgeois delegates to the congress? Mainly two methods—religion and police. They are, it appears, the valid and reliable methods of combating prostitution…

One lady from Canada waxed enthusiastic over the police and the supervision of “fallen” women by policewomen, but as far as raising wages was concerned, she said that women workers did not deserve better pay.

One German pastor reviled present-day materialism, which, he said, is taking hold among the people and promoting the spread of free love.

When the Austrian delegate Gartner tried to raise the question of the social causes of prostitution, of the need and poverty experienced by working-class families, of the exploitation of child labour, of unbearable housing conditions, etc., he was forced to silence by hostile shouts!

But the things that were said about highly-placed personages—among groups of delegates—were instructive and sublime. When, for example, the German Empress visits a maternity hospital in Berlin, rings are placed on the fingers of mothers of “illegitimate” children in order that this august individual may not be shocked by the sight of unmarried mothers!
We may judge from this the disgusting bourgeois hypocrisy that reigns at these aristocratic-bourgeois congresses. Acrobats in the field of philanthropy and police defenders of this system which makes mockery of poverty and need gather “to struggle against prostitution”, which is supported precisely by the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie….”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been reading lately some of Gramsci’s pre-prison writings, and I must say that they are very interesting.  I especially liked this essay (written by Antonio Gramsci at the age of 19/20 (i.e. in 1911) at his secondary school in Cagliari, Sardinia), and hope my children write secondary school essays as good as this!  Anyway, please read comrades, it is a good introduction to Gramsci if you have not read him before, and if you have it is still very interesting to read:

Oppressed and Oppressors

The struggle waged by humanity from time immemorial is truly amazing. It is an incessant struggle, one in which mankind strives to tear off and break the chains with which the lust for power on the part of a single man, or a single class, or even of a whole people, attempt to shackle it. This struggle is an epic that has had innumerable heroes and has been written down by historians all over the world. Men, when they come to feel their strength and to be conscious of their responsibility and their value, will no longer suffer another man to impose his will on them and claim the right to control their actions and thoughts. For it would seem to be a cruel fate for humans, this instinct that drives them to devour one another in place of bringing their united strength to bear on the struggle against Nature, the struggle to adapt it to men’s needs. Indeed, once a people feel themselves to be strong and hardened, they think of nothing but of attacking their neighbours, of hunting and oppressing them. For it is clear that every victor desires to destroy the vanquished. But men, who by their very nature are hypocritical and false, do not say outright: “I wish to conquer in order to destroy”, but say instead: “I wish to conquer in order to civilize.” And the rest of mankind, who envy the victor, but await their turn to do the same, make a show of believing in it and offer their praises.

So it comes about that civilization has stopped in its tracks in place of further expanding and progressing; so it comes about that whole races of noble and intelligent people have been destroyed or are in the process of dying out. The liquor and opium that their civilizing masters distributed to them in such abundance have done their damaging work.

Then one day a rumour is sparked: a student has assassinated the English governor of the Indies; or the Italians have been defeated at Dogali; or the boxers have wiped out the European missionaries – and then horror-stricken old Europe inveighs against the barbarians, against the uncivilized hordes, and a new crusade against these unfortunate peoples is announced.

Yet it is a fact that the people of Europe have had their own oppressors and waged bloody battles to rid themselves of them. They now erect statues and monuments in marble to their liberators, their heroes, and raise to the level of a national religion the cult of those who died for the homeland. Just try to tell the Italians that the Austrians came to bring us civilization – the marble columns themselves would groan in protest. Yes, it is true that we have gone off to carry civilization overseas, and now you know those peoples have come to like us and thank heaven for their good fortune. But it is well known: sic vos non nobis [what's good for you won't do for us]. The truth on the contrary consists in insatiable greed shared by all men to fleece their fellows, to take from them what little they have been able to put aside through privations. Wars are waged for reasons of commerce, not civilization: the English bombarded who knows how many cities in China because the Chinese did not want to have anything to do with their opium. The very opposite of civilization! And Russians and Japanese slaughtered each other over the question of trade with Korea and Manchuria. The property of the wretched subjects is pillaged and they are deprived of any status whatsoever. Yet this is not enough for the highly civilized people of today. The Romans were content with binding their vanquished opponents to their triumphal chariots – then they made the defeated land into a province. But now the victors would like all the inhabitants of the colonies to disappear, to make room for the new arrivals.

But when the voice of an honest man is raised in protest at these outrages, these abuses, which a healthy social morality and civilization would try to prevent, people laugh in his face – for he is ingenuous, he is not acquainted with the machiavellian niceties that govern political life. We Italians adore Garibaldi; from the cradle we are taught to admire him, and Carducci has enthused us with his Garibaldian legends. If one were to ask Italian youngsters whom they would most like to be, the overwhelming majority would certainly opt for the blond hero. I remember a particular demonstration in commemoration of independence, when a friend said to me: “How come everyone is shouting ‘Long live Garibaldi’ and no one is shouting ‘Long live the king’?” I was unable to give him an explanation. In short, everyone in Italy, from the reds to the greens to the yellows, idolizes Garibaldi, but no one really understands his high ideals. When the Italian navy was sent to Crete to pull down the Greek flag which the insurgents had raised, and hoist in its place the Turkish flag, no one raised a cry of protest. That’s right: the fault lay with the people of Candia, who wanted to upset the European balance. And not one of the Italians who perhaps on that very day was acclaiming Sicily’s heroic liberator paused to reflect that if Garibaldi were alive today, he would not have shrunk from taking on all the European powers in order to help a people gain their liberty. And then we Italians protest when someone comes along and accuses us of being a nation addicted to rhetoric!

And how long will this contrast last? Carducci asked himself: “When will labour be joyful? When will love be secure?” But we are still awaiting a reply, and who will be able to give it? Many people say that men have now achieved all the liberty and civilization that is their lot, and now all they have to do is enjoy the fruits of their struggles. On the contrary, I believe that far more remains to be done. Men posses nothing more than a veneer of civilization – one only has to scratch them to lay bare the wolf-skin underneath. Instincts have been tamed, but not destroyed, and still the right of might is the only right that is recognized. The French revolution abolished many privileges, and raised up many of the oppressed; but all it did was replace one class in power by another. Yet it did teach us one great lesson: social privileges and differences, being products of society and not of nature, can be overcome. Humanity will need another bloodbath to abolish many of these injustices – and then it will be too late for the rulers to be sorry they left the hordes in that state of ignorance and savagery they enjoy today.

If you would like to read more by Antonio Gramsci, click here.