Friday, July 30, 2010

The End of (Military) History? The US, Israel, and the Failure of the Western Way of War
by Andrew Bacevich, Tom Dispatch

"In watching the flow of events over the past decade or so, it is hard to avoid the feeling that something very fundamental has happened in world history." This sentiment, introducing the essay that made Francis Fukuyama a household name, commands renewed attention today, albeit from a different perspective.

Developments during the 1980s, above all the winding down of the Cold War, had convinced Fukuyama that the “end of history” was at hand. “The triumph of the West, of the Western idea,” he wrote in 1989, “is evident… in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism.”

Today the West no longer looks quite so triumphant. Yet events during the first decade of the present century have delivered history to another endpoint of sorts. Although Western liberalism may retain considerable appeal, the Western way of war has run its course.
For Fukuyama, history implied ideological competition, a contest pitting democratic capitalism against fascism and communism. When he wrote his famous essay, that contest was reaching an apparently definitive conclusion.

Yet from start to finish, military might had determined that competition’s course as much as ideology. Throughout much of the twentieth century, great powers had vied with one another to create new, or more effective, instruments of coercion. Military innovation assumed many forms. Most obviously, there were the weapons: dreadnoughts and aircraft carriers, rockets and missiles, poison gas, and atomic bombs -- the list is a long one. In their effort to gain an edge, however, nations devoted equal attention to other factors: doctrine and organization, training systems and mobilization schemes, intelligence collection and war plans.

All of this furious activity, whether undertaken by France or Great Britain, Russia or Germany, Japan or the United States, derived from a common belief in the plausibility of victory. Expressed in simplest terms, the Western military tradition could be reduced to this proposition: war remains a viable instrument of statecraft, the accoutrements of modernity serving, if anything, to enhance its utility.

Grand Illusions

That was theory. Reality, above all the two world wars of the last century, told a decidedly different story. Armed conflict in the industrial age reached new heights of lethality and destructiveness. Once begun, wars devoured everything, inflicting staggering material, psychological, and moral damage. Pain vastly exceeded gain. In that regard, the war of 1914-1918 became emblematic: even the winners ended up losers. When fighting eventually stopped, the victors were left not to celebrate but to mourn. As a consequence, well before Fukuyama penned his essay, faith in war’s problem-solving capacity had begun to erode. As early as 1945, among several great powers -- thanks to war, now great in name only -- that faith disappeared altogether.

Among nations classified as liberal democracies, only two resisted this trend. One was the United States, the sole major belligerent to emerge from the Second World War stronger, richer, and more confident. The second was Israel, created as a direct consequence of the horrors unleashed by that cataclysm. By the 1950s, both countries subscribed to this common conviction: national security (and, arguably, national survival) demanded unambiguous military superiority. In the lexicon of American and Israeli politics, “peace” was a codeword. The essential prerequisite for peace was for any and all adversaries, real or potential, to accept a condition of permanent inferiority. In this regard, the two nations -- not yet intimate allies -- stood apart from the rest of the Western world.

So even as they professed their devotion to peace, civilian and military elites in the United States and Israel prepared obsessively for war. They saw no contradiction between rhetoric and reality.

Yet belief in the efficacy of military power almost inevitably breeds the temptation to put that power to work. “Peace through strength” easily enough becomes “peace through war.” Israel succumbed to this temptation in 1967. For Israelis, the Six Day War proved a turning point. Plucky David defeated, and then became, Goliath. Even as the United States was flailing about in Vietnam, Israel had evidently succeeded in definitively mastering war.

A quarter-century later, U.S. forces seemingly caught up. In 1991, Operation Desert Storm, George H.W. Bush’s war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, showed that American troops like Israeli soldiers knew how to win quickly, cheaply, and humanely. Generals like H. Norman Schwarzkopf persuaded themselves that their brief desert campaign against Iraq had replicated -- even eclipsed -- the battlefield exploits of such famous Israeli warriors as Moshe Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin. Vietnam faded into irrelevance.

For both Israel and the United States, however, appearances proved deceptive. Apart from fostering grand illusions, the splendid wars of 1967 and 1991 decided little. In both cases, victory turned out to be more apparent than real. Worse, triumphalism fostered massive future miscalculation.

On the Golan Heights, in Gaza, and throughout the West Bank, proponents of a Greater Israel -- disregarding Washington’s objections -- set out to assert permanent control over territory that Israel had seized. Yet “facts on the ground” created by successive waves of Jewish settlers did little to enhance Israeli security. They succeeded chiefly in shackling Israel to a rapidly growing and resentful Palestinian population that it could neither pacify nor assimilate.

In the Persian Gulf, the benefits reaped by the United States after 1991 likewise turned out to be ephemeral. Saddam Hussein survived and became in the eyes of successive American administrations an imminent threat to regional stability. This perception prompted (or provided a pretext for) a radical reorientation of strategy in Washington. No longer content to prevent an unfriendly outside power from controlling the oil-rich Persian Gulf, Washington now sought to dominate the entire Greater Middle East. Hegemony became the aim. Yet the United States proved no more successful than Israel in imposing its writ.

During the 1990s, the Pentagon embarked willy-nilly upon what became its own variant of a settlement policy. Yet U.S. bases dotting the Islamic world and U.S. forces operating in the region proved hardly more welcome than the Israeli settlements dotting the occupied territories and the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) assigned to protect them. In both cases, presence provoked (or provided a pretext for) resistance. Just as Palestinians vented their anger at the Zionists in their midst, radical Islamists targeted Americans whom they regarded as neo-colonial infidels.


No one doubted that Israelis (regionally) and Americans (globally) enjoyed unquestioned military dominance. Throughout Israel’s near abroad, its tanks, fighter-bombers, and warships operated at will. So, too, did American tanks, fighter-bombers, and warships wherever they were sent.

So what? Events made it increasingly evident that military dominance did not translate into concrete political advantage. Rather than enhancing the prospects for peace, coercion produced ever more complications. No matter how badly battered and beaten, the “terrorists” (a catch-all term applied to anyone resisting Israeli or American authority) weren’t intimidated, remained unrepentant, and kept coming back for more.

Israel ran smack into this problem during Operation Peace for Galilee, its 1982 intervention in Lebanon. U.S. forces encountered it a decade later during Operation Restore Hope, the West’s gloriously titled foray into Somalia. Lebanon possessed a puny army; Somalia had none at all. Rather than producing peace or restoring hope, however, both operations ended in frustration, embarrassment, and failure.

And those operations proved but harbingers of worse to come. By the 1980s, the IDF’s glory days were past. Rather than lightning strikes deep into the enemy rear, the narrative of Israeli military history became a cheerless recital of dirty wars -- unconventional conflicts against irregular forces yielding problematic results. The First Intifada (1987-1993), the Second Intifada (2000-2005), a second Lebanon War (2006), and Operation Cast Lead, the notorious 2008-2009 incursion into Gaza, all conformed to this pattern.

Meanwhile, the differential between Palestinian and Jewish Israeli birth rates emerged as a looming threat -- a “demographic bomb,” Benjamin Netanyahu called it. Here were new facts on the ground that military forces, unless employed pursuant to a policy of ethnic cleansing, could do little to redress. Even as the IDF tried repeatedly and futilely to bludgeon Hamas and Hezbollah into submission, demographic trends continued to suggest that within a generation a majority of the population within Israel and the occupied territories would be Arab.

Trailing a decade or so behind Israel, the United States military nonetheless succeeded in duplicating the IDF’s experience. Moments of glory remained, but they would prove fleeting indeed. After 9/11, Washington’s efforts to transform (or “liberate”) the Greater Middle East kicked into high gear. In Afghanistan and Iraq, George W. Bush’s Global War on Terror began impressively enough, as U.S. forces operated with a speed and élan that had once been an Israeli trademark. Thanks to “shock and awe,” Kabul fell, followed less than a year and a half later by Baghdad. As one senior Army general explained to Congress in 2004, the Pentagon had war all figured out:

“We are now able to create decision superiority that is enabled by networked systems, new sensors and command and control capabilities that are producing unprecedented near real time situational awareness, increased information availability, and an ability to deliver precision munitions throughout the breadth and depth of the battlespace… Combined, these capabilities of the future networked force will leverage information dominance, speed and precision, and result in decision superiority.”

The key phrase in this mass of techno-blather was the one that occurred twice: “decision superiority.” At that moment, the officer corps, like the Bush administration, was still convinced that it knew how to win.

Such claims of success, however, proved obscenely premature. Campaigns advertised as being wrapped up in weeks dragged on for years, while American troops struggled with their own intifadas. When it came to achieving decisions that actually stuck, the Pentagon (like the IDF) remained clueless.


If any overarching conclusion emerges from the Afghan and Iraq Wars (and from their Israeli equivalents), it’s this: victory is a chimera. Counting on today’s enemy to yield in the face of superior force makes about as much sense as buying lottery tickets to pay the mortgage: you better be really lucky.

Meanwhile, as the U.S. economy went into a tailspin, Americans contemplated their equivalent of Israel’s “demographic bomb” -- a “fiscal bomb.” Ingrained habits of profligacy, both individual and collective, held out the prospect of long-term stagnation: no growth, no jobs, no fun. Out-of-control spending on endless wars exacerbated that threat.

By 2007, the American officer corps itself gave up on victory, although without giving up on war. First in Iraq, then in Afghanistan, priorities shifted. High-ranking generals shelved their expectations of winning -- at least as a Rabin or Schwarzkopf would have understood that term. They sought instead to not lose. In Washington as in U.S. military command posts, the avoidance of outright defeat emerged as the new gold standard of success.

As a consequence, U.S. troops today sally forth from their base camps not to defeat the enemy, but to “protect the people,” consistent with the latest doctrinal fashion. Meanwhile, tea-sipping U.S. commanders cut deals with warlords and tribal chieftains in hopes of persuading guerrillas to lay down their arms.

A new conventional wisdom has taken hold, endorsed by everyone from new Afghan War commander General David Petraeus, the most celebrated soldier of this American age, to Barack Obama, commander-in-chief and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. For the conflicts in which the United States finds itself enmeshed, “military solutions” do not exist. As Petraeus himself has emphasized, “we can’t kill our way out of" the fix we’re in. In this way, he also pronounced a eulogy on the Western conception of warfare of the last two centuries.

The Unasked Question

What then are the implications of arriving at the end of Western military history?

In his famous essay, Fukuyama cautioned against thinking that the end of ideological history heralded the arrival of global peace and harmony. Peoples and nations, he predicted, would still find plenty to squabble about.

With the end of military history, a similar expectation applies. Politically motivated violence will persist and may in specific instances even retain marginal utility. Yet the prospect of Big Wars solving Big Problems is probably gone for good. Certainly, no one in their right mind, Israeli or American, can believe that a continued resort to force will remedy whatever it is that fuels anti-Israeli or anti-American antagonism throughout much of the Islamic world. To expect persistence to produce something different or better is moonshine.

It remains to be seen whether Israel and the United States can come to terms with the end of military history. Other nations have long since done so, accommodating themselves to the changing rhythms of international politics. That they do so is evidence not of virtue, but of shrewdness. China, for example, shows little eagerness to disarm. Yet as Beijing expands its reach and influence, it emphasizes trade, investment, and development assistance. Meanwhile, the People’s Liberation Army stays home. China has stolen a page from an old American playbook, having become today the preeminent practitioner of “dollar diplomacy.”

The collapse of the Western military tradition confronts Israel with limited choices, none of them attractive. Given the history of Judaism and the history of Israel itself, a reluctance of Israeli Jews to entrust their safety and security to the good will of their neighbors or the warm regards of the international community is understandable. In a mere six decades, the Zionist project has produced a vibrant, flourishing state. Why put all that at risk? Although the demographic bomb may be ticking, no one really knows how much time remains on the clock. If Israelis are inclined to continue putting their trust in (American-supplied) Israeli arms while hoping for the best, who can blame them?

In theory, the United States, sharing none of Israel’s demographic or geographic constraints and, far more richly endowed, should enjoy far greater freedom of action. Unfortunately, Washington has a vested interest in preserving the status quo, no matter how much it costs or where it leads. For the military-industrial complex, there are contracts to win and buckets of money to be made. For those who dwell in the bowels of the national security state, there are prerogatives to protect. For elected officials, there are campaign contributors to satisfy. For appointed officials, civilian and military, there are ambitions to be pursued.

And always there is a chattering claque of militarists, calling for jihad and insisting on ever greater exertions, while remaining alert to any hint of backsliding. In Washington, members of this militarist camp, by no means coincidentally including many of the voices that most insistently defend Israeli bellicosity, tacitly collaborate in excluding or marginalizing views that they deem heretical. As a consequence, what passes for debate on matters relating to national security is a sham. Thus are we invited to believe, for example, that General Petraeus’s appointment as the umpteenth U.S. commander in Afghanistan constitutes a milestone on the way to ultimate success.

Nearly 20 years ago, a querulous Madeleine Albright demanded to know: “What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?” Today, an altogether different question deserves our attention: What’s the point of constantly using our superb military if doing so doesn’t actually work?

Washington’s refusal to pose that question provides a measure of the corruption and dishonesty permeating our politics.

Monday, July 26, 2010

by Malik Isasis

Main Entry: ne·gro·phobe
Pronunciation: \ˈnē-grə-ˌfōb\
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Date: 1900

: one who strongly dislikes or fears black people

In the film, Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio's character Dom Cobb goes into the dreamscapes of his victims and extract information for a rival corporation. In order to get back to the United States, where he is charged with the murder of his wife, he takes a job that involves an inception, to plant an idea, rather than to steal one. In exchange, his name will be cleared.

Eighteen months ago with the election of President Barack Obama, Fox News turned its ire on black people and begun its own inception program by turning up the paranoid delusions of the Republican base, tapping into the lizard brain of racism amongst its audience.

Day after day, week after week, Fox News' plants manufactured stories that have a a way of making it into the mainstream--Mexicans are over running the country, Muslims in Iran are moments away from making a bomb, and Black folks are going to kill their white babies. No doubt, Fox is trying to start a race war, by inciting white fear. There is nothing more dangerous than white fear, since white folks hold the institutions of power: government, banks, etc. and those in the media portend to equate so called black racism with that of white racism, which is synonymous with institutions of power is utterly ridiculous.

Negrophobia is really a projection; projection, defined in the realm of psychology, as responses that are assumed to reveal inner feelings, motives, and conflicts. If negrophobia is a projection, I'd like to discuss what those projections are. A person suffering from negrophobia is a racist, and holds the belief that if a black person (or any person of color) get into a position of power, that person will exact revenge on past racial oppression because it's what they would do. Whatever a negrophobe says about racism, is the inverse of what they mean. Take a look (or listen) at this clip.

Whatever Rush said, just flip it, and you'll get the rightwing agenda. They hide in plain sight. Here is another:

Just flip what Michael Savage said, and you'll get his true agenda.

Negrophobes have been on a mission, to completely nullify the word "racist" and by calling every black person in power, a "racist" it takes the meaning out of it so it means nothing. They want the word racist to be like the car alarm in the neighborhood that we all ignore now, because it means nothing. White noise.

Fox News and other rightwing media are trying an inception, to create a race war that will turn white against any persons of color. The only people who stand to benefit are the negrophobes who steal from the government's coffers and maintain their power as we all fight for the scrapes.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

by Malik Isasis

When it comes to discussing anything about racial matters this country becomes completely paralyzed. There is a Pavlovian reaction amongst the white supremacists who truly believe that being called a racist, is actually more worse than actually being one. Fox News for the past several weeks have been race baiting, pulling Obama into the fray of racial politics with trumped up stories on the New Black Panther Party, the building of a Mosque near Ground Zero, Arizona Immigration Law and now, Shirley Sherrod.

Ms Shirley Sherrod, an African American woman, was fired from her federal job at the United States Department of Agriculture after a cleverly edited video tape of a speech she'd given at an NAACP back in March 2008, made her seem as if she was a "racist" as she was telling a parable about her experience, but the way the tape was edited, it made her seem she denied a white farmer help in keeping his farm. The tape was put out by political hitman, Andrew Breitbart, at Big, a rightwing cesspool of misinformation.

Fox News smelled blood in the water and began promoting "Reverse Racism" on every show, linking Obama to a conspiracy to oppress white people. Fox News understands that Obama cowers from anything having to do with race, and so they get a free hand at discrediting him.

Fox News was so hungry to destroy Obama, and black people, that they didn't bother researching the tape. Here is Fox News, salivating at an opportunity to re-shine the turd that is the Tea Party:

Here is the truth:

Surprisingly, most of corporate media have not been going along with Fox's agenda to defend the Tea Party by any means necessary. Just like the ACORN story Fox manufactured, the Shirley Sherrod story is also fiction, to race bait, poor angry whites.

Obama being the coward he is, still supports his Agriculture Secretary Bill Vilsack's decision to fire her. Obama threw Ms Shirley Sherrod under the bus, where she still lay, unemployed. Rightwing, wins again, and Obama slowly, and painfully revealing that he has no interest in being anything other than weak, and lame in the face of adversity.

Monday, July 19, 2010

The Dehumanization of Occupation

Monday, July 12, 2010

How Fox News Madly Stokes Racial Division and the Rest of Mainstream Media Goes Along
by Malik Isasis

White Supremacy is the belief that members of the Caucasian race are superior in all ways to other groups or races in the world. In the history of the United States, white supremacy has existed as a means of justifying and preserving the nation as a white Christian country. The history of white supremacy is closely tied to the presence of slavery and the emergence, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, of the theories and categorizations of groups and nations into races. In the United States the presence of slavery and its continuance and growth in the South served as a strong foundation for white supremacy. Also important was immigration, first of the Irish and later of eastern and Mediterranean Europeans, which heightened the belief in the superiority of whiteness, defined as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

It must be political season, because the Republicans and its political operatives are hitting every low-hanging racial piñata from—illegal immigration: Mexicans, War & Terrorism: Arabs and Muslims, and a separatist movement: a la The New Black Panther Party, and America’s favorite whipping boy, and old stand by, Blacks. There’s nothing like, politically beating up on black folks. As if four centuries of rape, pillage, American apartheid, genocide, and countless other crimes against humanity against African Americans just wasn’t enough.

White supremacists keep coming back to the well to fill up their false sense of superiority. People of color are violent, lazy, petulant, racist, overly sexed, and a White Man’s burden; there is just no other message you can take away from media coverage of people of color in this country.

White supremacists in the past used code words in disseminating racist thought, e.g. urban, low-income, uppity, American values, but since the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the dog whistle of etiquette has been thrown out of the window. The corporate media and the white supremacists they employ, like in the days of yore, gloriously flaunt their hatred of people of color over the public airwaves.

Back in April of 1994 there was a genocide in Rwanda, Africa. The genocide was the result of a number complex issues such as civil war and strife and neocolonialism by the Europeans. Tutsis and Hutus, genetically the same were divided politically by Europeans (German and Belgian specifically), with the Tutsi the minority tribe being appointed a more superior racial type than Hutus, a numerical majority, thus began the seeds that would blossom into a full blown genocide once the European colonists Germany, and Belgian uprooted.

For 100 days, a million people were murdered, shot, raped and hacked to death with machetes. It was called the most efficient and coordinated genocide in human history, but in America there was a perverse obsession with the O.J. Simpson Murder case (for which thousands of hours were dedicated), and during the genocide, the corporate media garnered more sympathy for the silver back gorillas who were being slaughtered in the cross-fire than their human brethren. 10,000 black, African bodies floated down the Nyabarongo River hundreds miles to neighboring countries, as America watched O.J. Simpson.

The reasons the genocide was so efficient was the media: world media turning a blind-eye, and the local radio disc jockeys telling the murders where to find people hiding, broadcasting their whereabouts. The radio stations stirred the hatred and fueled the holocaust that was Rwanda, which brings me back to Fox News and its war on intelligence. The huge social digression of American culture is unsettling, and what’s more disturbing is how Fox News gets away with their divisive discourse.

Scholar and author Neely Fuller, Jr. described the four stages of racism (white supremacy) in his book, The United Independent Compensatory Code/System/Concept as follows:

1. Establishment of White Supremacy: The sum of all speech and/or action, by those white persons who seek to dominate those classified as non-white
2. Maintenance of White Supremacy: The sum total of all speech and/or action, by those white persons who seek to continue the practice of racism.
3. Expansion of White Supremacy: The sum total of speech and/or action by those white persons who practice racism in a manner that directly, or indirectly help promote an increase in the number of non-white persons made subject to racism.
4. Refinement of White Supremacy: The sum total of all speech, and or/action, by those white persons who practice racism in a manner that improves the methods that help make the practice of racism more efficient, and/or, more “acceptable” to the victims.

A Complicit Media

Although Fox News and its other corporate media counterparts fulfill all four stages of white supremacy, they tend to maintain and refine racist propaganda by passing it off as news and analysis. Let’s take the Tea Party coverage for example. For the past year and half during the healthcare debate, Tea Baggers from the Tea Party marched in the streets with racist imagery of President Obama, carried guns to his speeches, called him a Nazi, socialist, communist, racist, voodoo witch doctor, Kenyan, Muslim, and many other variations.

Tea Baggers stormed townhall meetings and demanded their country back from a democratically elected president and party. The corporate media protected the Tea Baggers by overstating that Tea Baggers were not racist, just angry about a government takeover (code word) of healthcare.

Check out how CNN NEWS “The Most Trusted Name In News” covered the Tea Party:

Here is some footage major news chose not to show on television:

Now here’s Fox News jumping headlong into the fray (unabashedly, with an inarticulate house negro who seems straight out of central casting):

The house negro in the footage is obviously a plant. He had no idea what the hell he was talking about, noticed how his handler jumped in to save him?


Logic would follow, that if the Tea Party=white supremacy, and Republicans are the Tea Party, then Fox News’ support of both parties renders it a white supremacist corporation.

Fox News was constructed as Rachel Maddow once put it, to destroy the Democratic Party. I would add to that by saying Fox News was also constructed to maintain the equilibrium of white supremacy, to subjugate people of color and completely obliterate their credibility on any issue. Fox News does this by having, outliers on Black, Latino, or Muslim issues debating their hosts. The outlier is usually someone or some organization on the fringe, which Fox uses to set up its straw man arguments.

If one black person represents the race, goes white supremacy theory, that person if discredited, will naturally discredit Black thought, ergo discredit a movement. This strategy was/is used in all social movements from the Civil Rights’ movement, Women’s liberation movement, to Gay Rights movement. Discredit the so-called leaders, and the movement is discredited.

The most recent example of this is the weeklong New Black Panther Party intimidation case, which got hours and hours of airtime on all of Fox’s shows. Look at this interview closely:

Tea Party members are outliers too, but get no such treatment from corporate media. Fox News manufactures issues out of whole cloth and then it finds its way into mainstream media, transforming the absurd, and fringe into the normal. Here is more background on the so-called New Black Panther Movement story.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have purposefully devalued the word racist by over using it, and using it inappropriately. If they charge Obama with being racist every day, then when they are charged with it, it has no meaning. They no longer need code words, they just say exactly what they mean, daring anyone to speak out about it.
No matter how educated or well heeled a black person; it only takes white doubt to undermine black credibility. This happened with a black Harvard professor, Henry Lois Gates, Jr, when he found himself locked out of his house and was arrested by a white cop--this happened notoriously after Hurricane Katrina, when a poll (which interviewed 848 whites and 262 blacks) found that 56% of blacks felt the government response was slow because of race, while 51% of whites felt the government response was due to ‘bureaucratic inefficiency’. So the story played out as scripted in the media, minimizing the racism that was indeed part of the government's response to the manmade disaster.

Post Rational Society

I understand why corporate media and wealthy Republicans support Republicans, but why does the average, poor and down-trotted? The answer is as simple as the question, posed. Back in the 60s the Republicans, specifically Richard Nixon, seized upon disaffected white voters who began leaving the party in droves when the Democratic Party began supporting a host of social movements, but mainly the Civil Rights Movement.

The Southern Strategy was designed by Nixon and the Republicans to comfort the bigotry, sexism and prejudices of Southern white men who felt disenfranchised by the Democratic Party’s tacit support of minorities’ and women’s challenge to the white male paradigm. The Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights and civil liberties in the 60s during the empowerment movements caused a mass exodus of disenfranchised Southern white men.

The Nixon Doctrine was not adopted to address the misperceptions or heal the grievances of these so-called disenfranchised but to build a voting block of white men by pitting their interests against those of people of color and women. Although all of the disenfranchised shared more, in common than not, the Southern Strategy was a euphemism for divide and conquer. This tried and true strategy worked because it fractured communities by individualizing them, if people are fighting rather than discussing their shared grief, a collective revolution is less likely. Politicians and dictators the world over understand this concept.

No matter how horrible Bush was for the country and the world, his support in the polls never faltered below 30%- 33% because Nixon laid down the foundation. The poorest of the poor of Republicans are the most dogmatic about wedge issues such as race, gay marriage, abortion, and Mexicans. The so-called wedge issues keeps the Republicans’ poor wrapped up in their xenophobia. These folks have been convinced that they are the moral center of the country. They have also been convinced that being educated is elitism, staying in and living in squalor is noble, and working two or three jobs to make ends meet is American pie.

We live in a society, an American society were politicians lie outright, and despite Youtube, get away with being a Maverick®., or Reformer®., or a Maverick-Reformer®.. This bullshit works because Americans are jackasses, and was trained to be so.

Rationality has nothing to do with voting Republican because voting Republican has been transformed into a belief system similar to that of religion, where evidence is not necessary to believe in the convictions, because it’s all based in emotions and irrationality. For example, when a major conglomerate ships its company overseas for cheaper labor, the Republicans can convinced their base that it is the Mexicans who are stealing their jobs, contrary to reality. After nearly 40 years of indoctrination, Republican and media tested words like Elitist®, Value Voters®., San Francisco Liberal®., The Most-Liberal Democrat®., American Values®., Tax-Cuts®., HardWork®., and many others, trigger a response in the reptilian brain of the Republican voter that keeps them from accepting reality, which is why Republicans have dominated national politics for 30 years with help from their greatest ally, the corporate media.

So now when you hear these dumb asses shouting, "USA! USA! USA!" to their own demise, you know why.

Friday, July 09, 2010

by Malik Isasis

BREAKING NEWS: Sarah Palin has tweeted—no-no, she wrote something on Facebook, correction, Sarah Palin has just released a video on Youtube, so let’s over analyze every single word. The corporate media get themselves in a tizzy whenever Sister Sarah vomits her political commentary somewhere into the Social Networking sphere. Sarah Palin, the former, half-governor (she quit after two years to make some guap (that’s money for you uncool kids)) and Senator John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate has done it again, convinced the corporate meat puppets in making a mountain out of a molehill. The media has convinced Sarah Palin that she is more important than she really is.

Sarah Palin is an empty vessel, a wooden horse of Troy for the financial class, and like her comrade President George W. Bush, she is not curious—lacks education on the things in which she discusses, instead, she speaks in generalities, circular logic and filibusters critics with a rash of run-on sentences. She should have been discredited after the 2008 presidential election for her lack of knowledge on governance—basically being a fraud, but the corporate media protects her by giving her Tweets, Facebook notes, and Youtube videos more authority than that of elected officials (see Death Panels), often using it as fodder to discredit President Obama or the Democratic Party.

It’s clear to anyone who has eyes, and ears with a little common sense that Sister Sarah is mining her fame for guap, and she like other Republicans are corporate whores, ready to be rented out by pretending she is one of the people with her roadside show of awe-shucks, you’re darn toodin’ bullshit. Sarah Palin is an anti-intellectual corporate investment, just as President Bush had been before her. President Bush paid out big dividends during his eight years in office with his privatization of the federal government schemes, which I like to call the wealth re-distribution ponzi scheme—e.g. no bid contracts, etc.

Like other Rightwing whores Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin’s sole purpose is to line her own pockets with dumb-down, anti-intellectual political screeds, which spreads paranoia and irrational fears to under educated white folks who will vote against their own interests if they think it will hurt blacks, or Mexicans, or Arabs, or poor people.

Mom awakening? Mama Grizzly Bears? WTF?

“For a political figure used to an off-the-cuff style, Palin's video has a professional and polished feel that could strengthen and broaden her emotional appeal among female voters.” -Washington Post

Palin's polished new video encapsulates the brand of independent, feminist yet traditional, brand of conservatism Palin stands for and is pushing through 2010 candidates like Heil and South Carolina's Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley. -CBS NEWS

The former Republican vice presidential nominee has remained firmly in the national spotlight since resigning her post as governor one year ago, thanks to television appearances, a national book tour, speaking engagements, and social media outlets. -CNN

Sounding teary, Palin discusses the need to "turn things around" for "kids and grandkids." One video segment shows an elderly woman in a wheelchair attending a Tea Party rally with a sign reading, "Don't Tread on Me" attached to her chair. -FOX News

Why hasn’t Sarah Palin been outed as a political fraud with absolutely nothing to say besides recycled slogans? Palin mentions nothing about what she is for, what exactly is this video about besides mixed-metaphors? I understand Republicans masturbating to her image, but why does the corporate media protect this imbecile?

Oh, right. Empty Vessel. Corporate Trojan Horse.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

The House Negro who is being sent to the field
by Malik Isasis

Michael Steele, head of the Republican National Committee is now learning that the “R” that signifies his allegiance to the Republican Party is no antidote for the white supremacist lashings he is receiving about the back for his comments on the Afghan war and occupation; and the corporate media, left, right and center are piling on like children at a playground.

Steel said, "This was a war of Obama's choosing…This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." Steele is an intelligent man, it is clear that he was playing to the lizard brain Republican supporters at a fundraiser (these quotes were taken from a video recording at a fund raising event), just as other Republicans do at these events--say anything no matter how outrageous or untrue--remember Senator George Allen, Republican who at a fund raiser, called a man of East Indian heritage, Macaca? Macaca is French for macaque, a monkey. Steele was just following protocol. He knows that Bush and the Republicans begot the Afghan war and occupation in 2001 with President Obama and Democrats now sustaining it. So, why is the corporate media lemmings rushing to topple him?

Other Republicans have said much more offensive things—take for instance Republican Joe Wilson who shouted during President Obama’s national speech on health care, “You Lie!” He initially apologized, but found out he was a hero amongst the Right, so went on to use his "You Lie!" as a fund raising opportunity, stating that he will
not be muzzled.

What about Sarah Palin? who claimed during that same time period, that the elderly would be put in front of Death Panels? The corporate media legitimized both these Republicans, but especially Palin’s nonsensical claim of Death Panels, which helped fuel anti-healthcare rage among the Rightwing populace. Check out these Republicans slamming first black Supreme Court Justice and Civil Rights Leader, Thurgood Marshall during the Kagan Hearings:

It is unbelievable--actually, it is very believable that Republicans were allowed to get away with their racist trite; the ugly face of white supremacy rears its ugly head, nearly everyday in the corporate media on matters of immigration and terrorism. Here is Thurgood Marshall’s real biography.

Let me be clear, I hate Republicans, and I especially don’t like black Republicans, it is intellectual dissonance--oxymoronic, to be an African American and support a party that fundamentally despises you for your heritage.

Michael Steele is being victimized by the white supremacists, who shrewdly put him into the position to capitalize on President Obama’s popularity and to be seen as a diverse party. The Republicans’ House Negro is disposable, unlike the truly ignorant and uninformed Sarah Palin. Now, Steele is feeling alone, being punished for dumbing himself down, and saying nonsensical things to attract money into the party. This script has played out before, when the House Negro is of no more use to his master, he is thrown out into the hot blazing sun with the rest of the Field Negroes he’d help oppress.

Welcome to the field, Michael Steele.