The Potentiality of Storming Heaven is Pretty Fucking Slim… but Still. Pessimism of the Intellect, Optimism of the Will, Pies in 2010, 1066 And All That.
See also : Steve Wright, Storming Heaven: class composition and struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism (Pluto Press, 2002) | New AK Press Book on the Dec. 2008 Greek Uprisings, Zach, Revolution by the Book, December 4, 2009.
Ah-ah-ah, ha-ha, ho-ho!
Fly into the streets! All who are still fresh and young and not dehumanized — to the streets! The pot-bellied mortar of laughter stands in a square drunk with joy. Laughter and Love, copulating with Melancholy and Hate, pressed together in the mighty, convulsive passion of bestial lust. Long live the psychology of contrasts! Intoxicated, burning spirits have raised the flaming banner of intellectual revolution. Death to the creatures of routine, the philistines, the sufferers from gout! Smash with a deafening noise the cup of vengeful storms! Tear down the churches and their allies the museums! Blast to smithereens the fragile idols of Civilization! Hey, you decadent architects of the sarcophagi of thought, you watchmen of the universal cemetery of books — stand aside! We have come to remove you! The old must be buried, the dusty archives burned by the Vulcan’s torch of creative genius. Past the flaky ashes of world-wide destruction, past the charred canvases of bulky paintings, past the burned, fat, pot-bellied volumes of classics we march, we Anarcho-Futurists! Above the vast expanse of devastation covering our land the banner of anarchy will be proudly unfurled. Writing has no value! There is no market for literature! There are no prisons, no limits for subjective creativity! Everything is permitted! Everything is unrestricted!
~ ‘Shturmovoi, opustoshaiushchii manifest anarkho-futuristive’, K Svetu (Kharkov), March 14, 1919, p.1, in The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution, Paul Avrich (editor), Thames and Hudson, 1973, pp.52–53 [extract]
The accused have never denied the charge of misappropriating the funds of the Strasbourg Student Union. Indeed, they openly admit to having made the union pay some 5000 francs for the printing of 10,000 pamphlets, not to mention the cost of other literature inspired by the “Situationist International.” These publications express aims and ideas which, to put it mildly, have nothing to do with the purposes of a student union. One need only read what the accused have written for it to be obvious that these five students, scarcely more than adolescents, lacking any experience of real life, their minds confused by ill-digested philosophical, social, political and economic theories and bored by the drab monotony of their everyday life, have the pathetic arrogance to make sweeping denunciations of their fellow students, their professors, God, religion, the clergy, and the governments and political and social systems of the entire world. Rejecting all morality and legal restraint, these cynics do not shrink from advocating theft, the destruction of scholarship, the abolition of work, total subversion and a permanent worldwide proletarian revolution with “unrestrained pleasure” as its only goal.
Oh Noes! “Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics” — a blog established in December 2005 and apparently maintained by two British neo-Nazis named Tommy Williams and Dave Howard — has passed on. The blog is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It’s a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It’s pushing up the daisies. Its quasi-metabolic processes are now history. It’s off the twig. It’s kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile. THIS IS AN EX-BLOG!
http://covert-tactics.blogspot.com/
Why?
Dunno.
But it may have something to do with the alleged fact that Tommy Williams and Dave Howard attended the home of National Front functionary Eddy Morrison in late November (Eddy has been slightly unsteady in his precise political allegiances, having been involved in umpteen fascist groupuscules over his lifetime). Some further details are available here: BNP Life Member promotes rabid neo-Nazism, Edmund Standing, December 5, 2009.
Hoelzer Reich
In other nutzi news, the US-based clothing label Hoelzer Reich — founded by Jed Colvin and Jamie Vine — is coming under fire. See : Controversial Hoelzer Reich Clothing at TUF 10 Finale, Brent Brookhouse, Bloody Elbow, December 2, 2009.
While the company distances itself from neo-Nazism and fascism — and it, in turn has been repudiated by the UFC, at least in England — the fact is that HR has sponsored neo-Nazi reich ‘n’ rollers ‘West Wall’ in the past:
West Wall is a neo-Nazi metal band led by the former leader of the neo-Nazi skinhead group Northern Hammerskins [ie, Ed Wolbank, a former member of US reich ‘n’ rollers Bound for Glory*]. Hoelzer Reich’s website contained photos of the band in their shirts which the brand explains as the band buying the shirts and mailing them photos which were then posted and removed once it was realized who they were. However, in an interview the lead singer of the band said that they were sponsored by the brand. Add that to the fact that up until recent days the label’s blog stated West Wall as their favorite band and the fact that HR’s myspace page featured a playlist of West Wall songs and it becomes hard to think that the posting of the band in HR shirts was a simple mistake.
Check out West Wall, Before God & Bound For Glory on the web here.
Like any good business — cf. The Birmingham Hotel and Hold Fast Body Art in Melbourne — Hoelzer Reich understands that, while it may be funs to flirt with fascism, beyond a certain level, honest confessions of racist political sentiment can be damaging to the brand, and hence profitability. It’s also standard practice, when sprung, for more intelligent businessmen to go into damage control mode, seeking to eliminate previously more-or-less open support for disreputable groups and projects; the shit-for-brains, on the other hand, tend to go out of business.
It’s also worth noting that of the thousands of nutzi musos making a racket in the ’80s and ’90s, some small number are now trying to go ‘legit’: that is, to make muzak and perform it without, for example, imploring their audience to go out and kill some Jews. In doing so, they invariably — and necessarily — seek to transform their img. Examples of this include bands like ‘Tattooed Motherfuckers’ in the UK and ‘T.H.U.G.’ in Australia.
The moral of the story is that if you’re a tweenage, or teenage, or 20-something, or 30-something bonehead, don’t be surprised if your devotion to the Master Race doesn’t come back to bite you in the arse later on in life.
And the silver lining? Watching with amusement as their pals jump in to defend them.
*Bound for Glory: A popular Minnesota-based hate band that formed in 1989; perhaps the most important U.S.-based hate music group. The band is led by Ed Wolbank, at one time the director of the neo-Nazi Northern Hammerskins in St. Paul, Minnesota. The band members also formed their own production company, Bound for Glory (BFG) Productions, which they recently sold to Panzerfaust Records [LOL].
From the Department of The Young Need Discipline! and in scenes drawn from Mick Armstrong’s upcoming blockbuster 40 Kiwi Anarchists Must Be Stopped! comes…
Violence erupts on Greek riot anniversary, Elena Becatoros (AP): “At Athens University, masked protesters broke into the building and pulled down a Greek flag, replacing it with a black-and-red anarchist banner… Concern was heightened by reports that far-left groups and anarchists from New Zealand have traveled to Greece to join the marches.” LOL. See also: Riots and police brutality on first day of Alexandros Grigoropoulos murder anniversary, libcom.org. The Greek Disease has also spread to Germany, where The Kids have (supposedly) attacked a cop shop in Hamburg. See also : AFP and Reuters video.
Also worth watching is the vid in which Greek police run over some troublemakers:
According to taxipali: “At Syntagma square motorised police forces (Delta team) charged the march from Ermou street. After the charge the Delta-team thugs dismounted and threw rocks at the protesters. As a cause of the police orgy in violence, an elderly member of the Worker’s Revolutionary Party-Trotskyist (EEK) has been reported to be in serious condition due to head injuries: Ms Koutsoumbou, a veteran prisoner of the anti-dictatorship struggle, was hit by a Delta force motorbike during the mounted charge on the crowd. According to Savas Michail, leading member of EEK and major radical philosopher, Ms Koutsoumbou is in intensive care having received far worse hits than during her tortures by the colonels’ junta.” (The EEK is a member of the ‘Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International’, est.2004.)
Moar vid here — but it’s all Greek to me. After The Greek Riotsgots English, and timeline. Curiously, it is noted that “All you internationals in the Greek streets tonight, please take special care, the cops are trying to detain as many internationals as possible to try prove the conspiracy theory that thousands of foreign anarchists invaded the country for tonight.”
This is an utterly ridiculous theory. Everyone knows that 40 Kiwi anarchists are responsible for every violent clash with authorities. What’s more, they’re armed with Potions of Invisibility, making them extremely difficult to capture.
“Please don’t expect any “impartial” reports (as if these could ever exist). This is an anarchist take on the situation in the country. A democracy that wages war on migrants and anarchists; a democracy armed with fascist thugs, with molotov cocktails and hand grenades; a democracy producing the silent death of the concentration camp (a silence reproduced and amplified by the media machine) is a democracy worth fighting against. Let’s make some noise.”
“The great majority of the police, seemingly ever-patient and self-controlled, stood for hours as kids baited and yelled, shoved and provoked. A handful of officers used well-placed elbows while batons were raised only in response to the vandalism.” ~ G20 protesters strike at London’s heart, Paola Totaro, The Age, April 2, 2009
A rather odd article by Octavio Alberola, calling Chomsky a clown… Chávez’s clown. There are two direct criticisms in the text. First, on the occasion of his visit to Venezuela in August, Chomsky apparently remarked that “it moved him to meet the men who have inspired this situation”; the second is that, while in the country, Chomsky allowed himself to be photographed alongside Uncle Hugo. A third, implicit criticism is that Chomsky has apparently failed to note the many failings of Chávez’s regime (and before this that of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Castro’s Cuba). See also : Noam Chomsky Meets with Chavez in Venezuela, James Suggett, Venezuelanalysis.com, August 28, 2009.
Chomsky as Chávez’s Clown (Chomsky en bufón de Chávez)
Octavio Alberola El Libertario
October/November 2009
This article criticizes the weak and untenable posture the celebrated North American linguist and essayist holds in support of the current Venezuelan government. It was originally published in Venezuela’s anarchist newspaper El Libertario #57 [PDF in Spanish].
Contrary to what many think, the ability to believe in fairy tales and to blindly accept a fiction, no matter how fantastic or grotesque, is not the sole attribute of the dumb and ignorant. The famous writer Noam Chomsky has just proved that intelligent and cultivated intellectuals are also capable of believing and adopting conduct and political action totally dogmatic, false and authoritarian. They believe so or at least pretend to.
It is nothing new to see a highly ranked intellectual falling into such contradiction. In the Soviet Union and Maoist China we saw the irrational phenomenon of the “fellow travelers” … Those intellectuals who believed — many of them in good faith — the establishment of “socialism” and the construction of “the new man” in those countries until the facts forced them to realize what those regimes really were. Nevertheless, although in many cases such mistakes are not motivated by the search [for] some sort of reward and may seem sincere, just some anthropological weakness, it behooves to ask the why and how of such conduct. Although the easiest thing would be to think that it is simply due to beliefs that no human being — even the most rational ones — could forever avoid, in Chomsky’s case it is not possible to forget that he himself fought against this tendency in the past.
That is why it is imperative to ask: how can a man, apparently capable of reasoning, of critical analysis of what happens in the world, travel to Venezuela today to sing the praises of “XXI Century socialism” without noticing the military mentality of its inventor, Commander Chávez, nor the crass populism of his so-called Bolivarian Revolution? How can Chomsky commit the same error as some famous intellectuals of the past century, some praising Stalin and some, years later, revering Mao and his “Little Red Book”? They did so because they believed that in Russia and in China they were building the “true communism” and he does so now because he believes that in Venezuela “a new world, a different world” is being created. How can he forget that later all those intellectuals were forced to confess a “mea culpa” for their ideological blindness that prevented them from seeing what was behind the Stalinist and Maoist revolutionary discourse? That totalitarianism, responsible for the death of millions of people, inspired Castro to impose for fifty years a dictatorship in Cuba that Chávez devoutly imitates.
But what is surprising in the Chomsky of the last few years is not only the apparent historical amnesia but that he is sensitive to the praises the histrionic commander bestows: “I give you the warmest welcome (…) it was time for you to visit us and for the Venezuelan people to see you and hear you directly” while he shows his gratitude for his “loving and generous words”. There is also the buffoonery of Chomsky saying how “it moved him to meet the men who have inspired this situation”.
What is most surprising about this conversion to messianic faith, similar to other famous conversions to Catholicism (Baudelaire, Peguy, Claudel, etc) is that the miracle happens after the collapse of “real socialism” of Soviet inspiration and the establishment of capitalism in China by the same communist party Mao left in power. In contrast to the young intellectual “idealists” who worshipped Stalin or Mao before these important historical events happened, Chomsky has been able to observe them in his lifetime and that makes more incomprehensible the fact that he now seems to have forgotten them. Above all, the failures of messianic revolutions confirm without a doubt all his prophecies.
It is true that for a while now we have been witnesses to the instrumentalization of Chomsky in many directions. This happens despite the fact that his ethical position, his ideological references and his political activity are contrary to what many of his followers defend and value. This is easy to see simply by reading his books. Unless today’s Chomsky is not the same who wrote: “We are in a time of corporatizing power, consolidating and centralizing power. It is assumed this is good, if you are a progressive, as a Marxist-Leninist. Three important things come from the same background: fascism, bolshevism and corporate tyranny. They all come from the same more or less Hegelian roots.” (Chomsky, Class Warfare, p.23). And let us not talk about what he wrote a while later regarding the country born out of the Bolshevik coup d’etat in October 1917 that, for Chomsky, was responsible for the dismantling of the emerging socialist structures in Russia: “They are the same brutal communists, the same brutal Stalinists of two years ago, now directed by the whites” and who are “the enthusiastic managers of the market economy”. Hence his pessimism: “Those who try to associate themselves with popular organizations and help the population to organize themselves, those who support popular movements in this way, simply will not be able to survive in such circumstances of concentrated power” (Chomsky, Comprende le pouvoir, pp.7–11).
How is it possible that he can commit the same error as the pro-Chinese “fellow travelers” who had known the same old blindness in the preceding generation — that of the old Stalinists who tardily came to self-criticism — although he was a critical witness to such blindness? What is even more serious in Chomsky’s case is that those experiences have taught him nothing even after seeing and denouncing them.
Regarding Chomsky we must ask ourselves about the mystery of the strange cohabitation of the sharpest intelligence and the most obtuse credulity in the same human spirit. Particularly so because at that time he was one of the harshest critics of the blindness suffered by many of his intellectual colleagues who along with him constituted the cream of western intellectuals: the Sartres and other great philosophers, historians, sociologists, journalists or first rate university people.
It is indeed a mystery since there were few intellectuals who later didn’t have to confess being wrong and admit that Chomsky was right, showing how this blindness had driven them to commit that very grave error in the past. How could Chomsky have forgotten this? It is also true that the old Stalinists’ blindness — a thousand times confessed and analyzed in articles, interviews and books -– didn’t serve as lesson for young western Maoists, who 20 years later repeated the same error, with the same arrogance as their predecessors. The first thing for them was blind adhesion to what was presented as an emancipating revolution. In Chomsky we see the opposite: first came the denunciation, the objective, rational analysis, rigorously critical, and then the blindness…
Shortsighted Anti-Imperialism
It is true that Chomsky’s anti-American imperialism was rather discreet with regards to the growing authoritarianism of the Sandinistas during their turn in power in the 80s in Nicaragua and the Castro dictatorship during several decades. And this is so in spite of the fact that among the victims of the latter are many who shared a lot with the militant pro-Cuban anti-imperialists of Latin America.
Could it be that this obstinate anti-imperialism, the fact that in his view the most important thing is to denounce the injustices prevalent in the USA as well as the injustices generated by this country on a global scale, drives him to stake his position on what happens in the American continent in such a confusing manner? Although Chomsky still considers himself “anarchist-libertarian” it’s clear that for him ideological considerations must be relegated to the background and a kind of gradation must be made between injustices according to the degree of global danger posed by the targets of his criticism. The problem is that such political relativism allows many Marxist-Leninists, demagogues and politicians, whose only concern is the conquest of power, its execution and conservation, to get shelter in Chomsky’s anti-imperialist arguments instead of caring about helping the people to organize themselves. It’s a serious problem because Chomsky does and says nothing to dissuade them. On the contrary, maintaining such immoral discretion with such perseverance and allowing himself to be photographed besides the Castros and the Chavezes he becomes an accomplice of the clownishness and the authoritarian, dictatorial deviations of these modern day oligarchs, no matter how convenient or discreet his praises might be.
Unfortunately, this obstinacy in keeping such Manichean discretion (considering that these demagogues’ access to power is less of a danger than the destruction caused by Yankee imperialism in the world) is not only inefficient in preventing such destruction (these demagogues continue to do business with the empire’s multinational corporations) but also contributes to demobilize people and make even harder the task of those who do struggle against worldwide domination by Capital and the State.
It is possible that, given his age, Chomsky can’t recognize it: but it is impossible to think that he isn’t aware of the distance that separates him from all those who believe his arguments against the Yankee empire and who, in turn, are very reticent, because of self-interest or comfort, to denounce the dominating ways of these supposedly revolutionary demagogues.
Octavio Alberola combines theory and activism. In 1955 he organized in Mexico in solidarity with the Cuban struggle against the Batista dictatorship, later directly supporting the preparations for Castro’s landing in the Isle. In 1962 in France he coordinated Interior Defense, a secret group formed by agreement between the CNT, the FAI and the Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth in order to re-activate the struggle against Franco’s dictatorship, being responsible for sabotage, attempts, printing clandestine propaganda and helping people fleeing Spanish fascism. Today he works on the revision of the Delgado and Granado trial, in the Support Group for Independent Libertarians and Syndicalists in Cuba (GALSIC), among other activities. He is the author of “El anarquismo español y la acción revolucionaria (1961-1974)” and “Miedo a la memoria”.
Note from the publishers of El Libertario: In our issue #51, accessible [www.nodo50.org/ellibertario”>here in Spanish], we have published another article on this subject: “Chavez y Chomsky. El caudillo y el libertario” by N. Triffon, translated to Spanish from the French original published in Le Monde Libertaire, weekly paper by the French Anarchist Federation in its issue of December 21 2006.
Translation: Luis Prat.
Oh yeah: Uncle Noam’s got another bloody book coming out, this time consisting of ‘dialogues’ with Lois Meyer and Benjamín Maldonado Alvarado, and including commentaries by a number of “organizers and intellectuals from indigenous communities of resistance”. It’s published by City Lights and it’s called New World of Indigenous Resistance: Voices from the Americas.
• The ubiquitous Guy Rundle has written a review — Why the left failed to make a drama out of the crisis — of the ubiquitous Slavoj Žižek’s latest opusFirst As Tragedy, Then As Farce for the bizarro sp!ked review of books.
• In the November 2009 issue of Arena magazine, Alison Caddick asks is ‘A New Left Forming?’. If it is, it sounds rather like the old left. (See also : “A dose of libertarianism would enhance our democracy” — and if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle., October 20, 2009.)
• In other exciting news, NOT BORED! has translated a statement — Why we will no longer respect the judicial restraints placed upon us — by 10 cheese-eating surrender monkeys named Aria, Benjamin, Bertrand, Christophe, Elsa, Gabrielle, Julien, Manon, Mathieu and Yildune aka‘The Tarnac Ten’.
• Speaking of terrorists, in November Serbian authorities announced that six local anarcho-syndicalists arrested in September — Sanja Dojkić, Tadej Kurepa, Nikola Mitrovic, Ivan Savic, Ratibor Trivunac and Ivan Vulović aka‘The Belgrade Six’ — are being charged with the crime of ‘international terrorism’, a charge which imposes a maximum penalty of 15 years jail. The six are accused of spray-painting some graffiti and throwing a Molotov cocktail at the Greek Embassy in Belgrade on August 25 (the Moli damaged a window).
It’s bloody tense in Higgins, and the outcome is far from being certain.
Leading the pack at the moment is Steve Raskovy (One Nation) with 199 votes; followed by Peter Brohier on 221; then Robert Isaacs (Liberal Democrats) on 310.
Updates to follow!
In the meantime, an interview that Cam recorded with a secret Liberal Party source last Friday 27/11/09 for the SUWA show on 3CR 855 AM is available for your listening appreciation here.
1. RASKOVY, Steve One Nation 199 / 0.31 / +0.31
2. BROHIER, Peter Independent 221 / 0.35 / +0.35
3. ROBERTS, Isaac Liberal Democrats (LDP) 310 / 0.49 / +0.49
4. TOSCANO, Joseph Independent 510 / 0.80 / +0.80
5. MURPHY, Stephen Independent 1,085 / 1.70 / +1.70
6. COLLYER, David Australian Democrats 1,453 / 2.28 / +1.07
7. PATTEN, Fiona Australian Sex Party 2,078 / 3.26 / +3.26
8. MULHOLLAND, John D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party 2,452 / 3.85 / +3.85
9. HAMILTON, Clive The Greens 20,751 / 32.54 / +21.79
10. O’DWYER, Kelly Liberal 34,707 / 54.43 / +0.82
What does it all mean? Obviously, that the voting public of Higgins are (like the Liberal party) half-Liberal, one-third Green, a little bit democratic, and not very sexy. Oh, and congratulations to RASKOVY, Steve on coming last first!
Today, I saw a dog,
Yes, a dog.
Talking to a pig,
Yes, a pig.
They were on the pavement,
Discussing Trotsky.
Not brotsky or crotsky or drotsky or frotsky.
But Trotsky.
US British historian Robert Service done written a new book on Trotsky. Apparently, the news outta Leningrad Harvard isn’t good, and Trotskyists everywhere are taking up their metaphorical cudgels to go into battle for the dead Marxist. Thus:
[AWL] Review of Robert’s Service’s biography of Trotsky, November 12, 2009: “Trotsky towered over the early years of the 20th century. He faced terrible adversity and fought with tremendous power. Service’s book, despite his pretentions, has little to offer anyone who wants to understand the real Trotsky. No doubt it will put off a few gullible souls. But there is far too much of interest in Trotsky’s marvellous life to be soiled by this tired and pathetic slander”;
[CWI] Service with a snarl: Academic refuses to answer questions, The Socialist, November 18, 2009 / A ‘dis-Service’ to Leon Trotsky, Peter Taafe, The Socialist, October 13, 2009: “The most nauseating aspect of this book is the highly personalised attack on Trotsky”;
[SEP] In The Service of Historical Falsification: A Review of Robert Service’s Trotsky, David North, November 11, 2009: “There is one final issue that needs to be raised, and that is the role of Harvard University Press in publishing this biography. One can only wonder why it has allowed itself to be associated with such a deplorable and degraded work. It is difficult to believe that Service’s manuscript was subjected to any sort of serious editorial review… it provides its imprimatur for a slanderous and slovenly work. Is Harvard today, in a period of political reaction and intellectual decay, atoning for its earlier displays of principles and scholarly integrity? Whatever the reason, Harvard University Press has brought shame upon itself. One suspects that at some point in the future, with the recovery of morale and courage, it will look back upon this episode with great regret.”
Robert Service completes his masterful trilogy on the founding figures of the Soviet Union in an eagerly anticipated, authoritative biography of Leon Trotsky.
Trotsky is perhaps the most intriguing and, given his prominence, the most understudied of the Soviet revolutionaries. Using new archival sources including family letters, party and military correspondence, confidential speeches, and medical records, Service offers new insights into Trotsky. He discusses Trotsky’s fractious relations with the leaders he was trying to bring into a unified party before 1914; his attempt to disguise his political closeness to Stalin; and his role in the early 1920s as the progenitor of political and cultural Stalinism. Trotsky evinced a surprisingly glacial and schematic approach to making revolution. Service recounts Trotsky’s role in the botched German revolution of 1923; his willingness to subject Europe to a Red Army invasion in the 1920s; and his assumption that peasants could easily be pushed onto collective farms. Service also sheds light on Trotsky’s character and personality: his difficulties with his Jewish background, the development of his oratorical skills and his preference for writing over politicking, his inept handling of political factions and coldness toward associates, and his aversion to assuming personal power.
Although Trotsky’s followers clung to the stubborn view of him as a pure revolutionary and a powerful intellect unjustly hounded into exile by Stalin, the reality is very different. This illuminating portrait of the man and his legacy sets the record straight.
Kinda sorta. Actually, Uncle Joe is using the Higgins by-election (December 5) to draw attention to other matters. His policies are set out in his campaign literature. They include:
1. establishment of a “people’s bank”;
2. improved workers’ compensation;
3. a treaty between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians;
4. Mabo Day (June 3) to be declared a public holiday;
5. adoption of the Eureka flag as the national flag of Australia;
6. reform of the housing sector (in the interests of low-income earners);
7. an end to public subsidies of private skools and health care providers;
8. decriminalisation of drug use;
9. reform of immigration policy (with preference being given to family reunions as opposed to skilled migration);
10. increased taxes on polluters (as opposed to financial compensation — with such compensation as exists being aimed at workers, not employers);
11. constitutional reform (allowing for citizens’ initiated referenda);
12. use of superannuation funds to subsidise the establishment of workers’ co-operatives in non-polluting, socially-useful industry and;
13. legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
But serious… I just stumbledupon Capitalism: a love story (Anti-German Translation, November 27, 2009). It has a crack at filmmaker Michael Moore and wealthy gadabout Noam Chomsky. According to A-GT, Uncle Noam is ‘an anti-capitalist warrior with stocks in the military-industrial complex’.
Or something.
As evidence, AG-T cites a four-year-old essay by some bloke called Peter Schweizer. The essay — or a version thereof — is contained in Schweizer’s book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (Doubleday, 2005).
Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives–their property, their privacy, and their children–they jettison their liberal principles and adopt conservative ones. If these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, Schweizer asks, how can they work for the country?
Schweizer’s scribblings on Chomsky the liberal hypocrite were re-published in the Canadian newspaper The National Post (published by convicted fraudster ConradBlack — currently incarcerated at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Florida) as ‘Noam Chomsky’ (March 21, 2006: “Chomsky talks an anti-capitalist game, but what does he practice? Market economics at their most profitable”) and in the house zine of the Hoover Institution, the Hoover Digest, under the title ‘Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist’ (No.1, 2006).
The article is entertaining, but crap. Thus Schweizer fails to provide any source documentation for his claims (but, presumably, these are provided in the book version); his line of argument is tendentious in the extreme.
Oh look, that old piece of trash – and that’s the best you can do? Here is the unedited version of my letter that was published in the National Post in response to that hit piece they published, along with selected comments that I received from Chomsky (in bold) as feedback before revisions. The published letter was heavily edited of most content critical of The Post:
“I would like to thank the National Post for providing such a fine example of Noam Chomsky’s thesis which places the operation of mainstream media under corporate ideological control.
Perform a search on the Post‘s website for “Chomsky” and one will find a considerable lack of content pertaining to the man who was recently recognized as the world’s leading public intellectual.
This being the case, many questions may be raised by the fact that the Post suddenly felt the urge to fill space with an excerpt from a book that was published in October 2005. While the author of the book, Dr Peter Schweizer’s PhD may have provided him with the credentials to work for the Hoover Institute, a right wing think tank, he could apparently use some help when it comes to performing an internet search.
Apparently, we should be shocked that the company that records Chomsky’s speeches actually attempts to receive remuneration for its product [A reference to the fact that in 2000 Alternative Tentacles, in collaboration with AK Press, re-issued Free Market Fantasies: Capitalism In the Real World]. Had Dr. Schweizer gone to the first site listed when typing “Chomsky” into Google, he would have found an up to date collection of Dr. Chomsky’s speeches, all offered free of charge. Had he gone to the second site, he would have found a vast collection consisting of virtually every single recording ever produced by Dr. Chomsky.
While gleefully announcing that Chomsky’s website has (gasp) a copyright warning, Schweizer smugly points out that the site “does give you the opportunity to ‘sublicense’ the material[“]. However, Schweizer apparently found it unnecessary to include the full quote, which is: “(a)ny requests to reprint, translate, repost, or sublicense any of this material should be directed to” the site[‘]s webmaster. A statement which makes it sound much less likely that Chomsky would request compensation from a smaller entity.
Don’t know what this is, but if it is the site chomsky.info, first of all, I have nothing to do with it (or any other site), as [Schweizer] could have found out with 5 minutes inquiry. It’s put up (with my permission) by others. I’ve never seen it. I do refer people to them when they want to find something, and I’ve never heard of anyone being charged anything at all for reprinting, unless it is from the original publisher, who may have reprinting arrangements (which have nothing to do with me). That aside, almost all of my talks are recorded and videotaped, and usually distributed widely (with my permission, and never any remuneration). As for Schweizer’s [fairy] tale about honoraria, that’s just what it is: an invention. And he knows it. I know that from personal correspondence where he made the claims and had to concede that he had not a particle of evidence. The briefest research would have enabled him to discover that when I give talks somewhere, I never ask for an honorarium, [Schweizer writes: “Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at US$12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.”] and if there is one (which is rare), I ask them to donate it to some appropriate organization, and if they can’t do that (say a university, which is not permitted to do so), then I donate it myself. These are only a few of the gross fabrications.
I am unable to attest to the accuracy of any of Dr. Schweizer’s allegations with regard to Dr. Chomsky’s retirement provisions, nor the steps Chomsky has taken to prepare for his family’s security following his death. I would imagine that the National Post would be equally hard pressed to provide assurances as to the accuracy of Schweizer’s statements, considering that it lacked any critical analysis of the above noted misstatements.
I think the word “allegations” is out of place. It’s no secret that my retirement provisions go through TIAA-CREF, like virtually all faculty, or that I have trust funds for my children. And it’s not an allegation, because there isn’t the slightest reason why I or anyone else shouldn’t do it. Schweizer’s charges are on a par with some Soviet commissar denouncing a dissident because he goes to a doctor or a university while condemning the crimes of the Kremlin, or the “accusation” that we drive cars or take buses or planes while objecting to a transportation-energy system that may lead to catastrophe. Would we help prevent the catastrophe if we stayed home without heat or electricity instead of working to overcome these threats? Do peasants in Colombia driven from their homes care whether I put my money in a bank instead of under a mattress, or whether I work with others to try to prevent the crimes committed against them? Etc., etc.
In general, if I were to charge someone with living by the principle “Do as I say, not as I do,” I’d have three choices: (1) provide examples of where the person issued that injunction, say one statement; (2) withdraw the charge and apologize; (3) take the coward’s way out and slink away in silence or pretend I don’t understand. Schweitzer takes (3) — quite consciously, as personal correspondence revealed. Did his NP article or his book provide even a single example of (1)? It didn’t, he knows it, and so do the editors of the NP, if they are not complete imbeciles.
Those who are familiar with Noam Chomsky’s work know full well that he does not necessarily advocate a society without commerce or the accumulation of personal wealth. Instead, he advocates for a system of government in which each individual is involved in decisions affecting their future, as opposed to the current system where corporate interests, such as those of the Post‘s owner, overshadow those of the average citizen. In other words, Chomsky does not speak out against the ability of a professor to prepare for retirement. Instead he is more concerned with the current structure of governance that has, for example, made it possible for the tax-shelter haven of Barbados to be the third largest recipient of Canadian foreign direct investment behind the United States and Great Britain.”
Lopez: Tell me the great hypocrisy of that greatest of all public intellectuals according to one recent depressing survey: Noam Chomsky.
Schweizer: Noam Chomsky thinks he’s the Moses of this age and even those on the Left who don’t agree with him on everything accept his moral authority. But Chomsky is a socialist who practices capitalism, and an anti-militarist who has made millions off of Pentagon contracts. Wonder what his followers would think of that? Then there is his constant lecturing about “tax gimmicks” and “tax shelters” that “the rich” use to avoid paying their “fair share.” He must have forgotten about that when he set up his tax shelter.
Lopez: And he wasn’t a lot of fun when you got in touch with him, was he?
Schweizer: I give credit to Chomsky for responding to my questions. His excuses were something to behold. No wonder he teaches linguistics. It’s amazing how he twists his words. By the way, he said it was okay to criticize other rich people for setting up trusts and setting one up himself. After all, he explained, he’s been fighting for poor people his whole life.
An ‘honest’ critique of Chomsky would probably take issue with what he actually says — or the anonymous commentator’s characterisation of Chomsky’s advocacy “for a system of government in which each individual is involved in decisions affecting their future, as opposed to the current system where corporate interests, such as those of the Post‘s owner, overshadow those of the average citizen”. Some relevant discussion on this question occurred in the pages of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, ‘Reform And Revolution: Noam Chomsky on Anarcho-Syndicalism’ (#25, Summer 1999), ‘Reform And Revolution: Noam Chomsky on Anarcho-Syndicalism Part II, with commentaries by James Herod and Graham Purchase’ (#26, Fall 1999), ‘Chomsky Symposium: Jeff Stein, Mike Long, and Jon Bekken on the ASR Chomsky Interview’ (#27, Winter 1999). In which context, ‘Knowledge, morality and hope: The social thought of Noam Chomsky’, Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers (New Left Review, 187, May/June 1991, pp. 5-27) is useful, as is chomsky.info’s section on ‘Writings on Chomsky’.
In Germany, swastika-lickers face a new legal hurdle, as the ‘Constitutional Court has determined that when it comes to glorifying Hitler’s regime, the right to assembly does not apply. According to the court, “Given the injustice and terror the Nazi dictatorship caused, this exception is inherent to the rules limiting propaganda approving the historic Nazi dictatorship”‘ (Germany censors its neo-Nazis, Rachel Mendleson, Macleans, December 3, 2009). Presumably, the ruling may be challenged; further, who determines what public assemblies ‘glorify’ the Nazi dictatorship, and how, is another question. Legal restrictions on neo-Nazi activity, while hampering it in some of its manifestations, has obviously not stopped it, and the movement has adapted its practices in response. The ruling should also be considered alongside of an earlier (August) one that ruled that “if Nazi slogans are presented in a language other than German, they are not illegal. The ruling overturned a decision by a lower court that convicted and fined a German neo-Nazi the equivalent of $6,000 for distributing clothing and merchandise bearing the slogan “Blood & Honour” in English” (Germans OK Nazi Signs, in Other Languages, Intelligence Report, Winter 2009).
Heil Victory!
In the US, poor old/rich young Bill White — former Führer of the short-lived Hollywood Nazi groupuscule the ‘American National Socialist Workers Party’ — and Internet hero (and FBI informant) Hal Turner are having their own legal difficulties.
Federal court allows white supremacist’s trial to proceed
AP
December 3, 2009
ROANOKE, Va. — An avowed white supremacist accused of threatening people is scheduled to go on trial next week after a federal judge refused to dismiss the charges.
William A. White is head of a Roanoke-based neo-Nazi group. He is charged with threatening a newspaper columnist, a mayor and several others over the Internet and by telephone.
His attorneys argued that White’s e-mails and online postings were protected by the First Amendment, but U.S. District Judge James Turk denied a motion to dismiss the charges.
White’s trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 9.
As for Hal, his trial for advocating on his blog the death of a Federal judge (or two) has been adjourned. Gawker writes: Hal Turner: America’s Most Pitiful Man | Witness Testimony Details Hal Turner’s FBI Role, dokumentationsarchiv, December 3, 2009: “Motivated partly by money, Turner provided intelligence on leaders of prominent white supremacist groups, including the National Alliance and Aryan Nations, according to Special Agent Amy Pickett, who supervised the FBI agent handling Turner during Turner’s first two years as an informant.”
In the UK, anti-Semitic bizarros Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle — the ‘Heretical Two’ — “have started appeals against the UK’s first convictions for inciting racial hatred via a foreign website” (Web racists challenge convictions, BBC, November 20, 2009). The case is important for a number of reasons, not least because of the ramifications it has for online publishing.
In Australia, a precedent was set several years ago by Joseph Gutnick, the Melbourne-based multi-millionaire and — worse yet — Melbourne supporter when he sued US-based publisher Dow Jones for defamation in 2002, and won. Anna Beyer (Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones, eLaw Journal: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 11, Number 3 (September 2004)) writes:
It remains to be seen what long-lasting repercussions, if any, Gutnick will have on online publishing. So far, Gutnick has been cited – internationally – as a precedent on at least two occasions. On 27 January 2004, a Canadian Superior Court judge, Pitt J, referred to Gutnick while giving reasons for ruling “in favour of the plaintiff’s choice of forum” in the Bangoura v The Washington Post case.
Ten days later, in the King v Lewis and Ors case, invoking (among others) Gutnick, a British High Court judge, Eady J, observed that “the common law currently regards the publication of an Internet posting as taking place when it is down-loaded”. He also took the view that an English court was the most convenient forum to deal with any English publications – however limited and technical – that relate to an English corporation.
This does not, of course, spell the death of the Internet as we know it, but suggests that Gutnick’s battle against Dow may influence the way online publishing is perceived and understood by the judiciary. Hopefully, the debate surrounding the case will contribute to a greater understanding of defamation laws in different countries among online publishers.
On the first anniversary of the police murder of Alexis/Andreas (Alexandros) Grigoropoulos on December 6, things are hotting up in Greece. Oh and the trial of Epaminondas Korkoneas (a former[?] member of the fascist Golden Dawn) and Vassilis Saraliotis — the policemen accused of shooting Andreas — has been delayed until January, 2010.
Note that little fascist shits in Greece have been doing their pea-brained best — by way of attacking migrant workers, social centres, independent media and so on — to help quash movements of resistance in the birthplace of democracy but “Our response cannot be other than the one given by society itself during last year’s revolt: The state and its dogs won’t scare us.”
In any event, let’s hope that the comrades remember US philosopher Jerry Springer’s words: “Until the fire next time, take care of yourself, and each other.”
Two Greek anarchists are making molotov cocktails. One says to the other: "So who will we throw these at then?" The other replies: "What are you, some kind of fucking intellectual?"
