Skip to content

Michael Jackson Was Right

Twenty years ago, Jackson released a song called ‘They Don’t Care About Us’. Exactly who Jackson — an African-American who had infamously bleached his skin white — meant by “us” seemed something of a mystery at the time, given that Jackson himself was a mega-rich celebrity living in the fantasy world of the Neverland ranch, far removed from the everyday struggles of Black America.

Last year, however, I discovered who Jackson was talking about: me.

On 26 July, a eugenicist psychopath murdered 19 disabled people in a care home in Sagamihara, Japan. The reaction to this around the globe to this was…nothing. Nobody gave a shit. Social media was silent. Japanese authorities didn’t release the names of the victims. 

Now, this universe is a cold, dark, empty, and lonely place; but at least we have some sense of being-ness, a sense that our bodies and minds are a tiny bit of something-ness amongst the void. These people were denied that.

This episode is a disturbing one for people with disabilities, a reminder that the “normal” are utterly indifferent to our fate. We are nothing.

Sorry Folks, But Matt Bruenig Is Actually A Fascist

OK, maybe I’m indulging in a little hypabowl. But the term ‘anticapitalist, but socially conservative Catholic’ is a descriptor that fits nicely with historical figures such as Franco and Salazar.

We have been informed by several dudebros and weirdos that the Bruenig family’s hostility toward women’s reproductive rights is no big deal, because Liz Bruenig is a “nice person”. Now I’m not one to take the opinions of podcast clowns and internet fucktards seriously, but this has to be one of the lamest arguments ever put forward by anyone. I have little doubt that most of the reactionary housewives in Alabama will happily bake you a pumpkin pie, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

I would suggest that Americans who believe in reproductive rights steer well clear of these Papists. 

Neoliberalism: A History

1970s: It’ll be great!

1980s: Look, just give it more time.

1990s: SEE!?!

2008: Governments ruined it.

2017: Neoliberalism? Never heard of it…


The Tribal Instinct

Why are some “socialist” or “anarchist” Jews upset by attacks on the Jewish Establishment? This is a puzzle to me. Some examples:

  • Mark Ames once lavished praise on bigoted Jewish ethnic activist Deborah Lipstadt. When I called him out on this, he made vague references on social media about “holocaust deniers” making comments at his site. I made no comments about the holocaust, I merely embarrassed him for his hypocrisy (Ames frequently calls others “racist”).
  • Occupy Wall Street activist Daniel Sieradski got upset with me for being mean to Jewish billionaires.
  • Why does Corey Robin consider “white privilege” to be a legitimate subject of discussion but not “Jewish privilege”?

I find it strange that these men are so attached to their ethnic identity that they consider attacks on Jewish elites as attacks on themselves. I don’t have any delusions that wealthy and powerful people of Western European backgrounds are one of my kind — I could drop dead tomorrow, and Kerry Stokes wouldn’t give a shit. So why does the tribalist mindset still motivate these people?  


Who Is Greg Palast?

If you ask Greg himself, he might say ‘fearless investigative reporter, grassroots progressive activist, enemy of the Koch brothers’; and if you were to read Palast’s articles, this sounds about right.

But there’s a problem.

Greg Palast is not merely the sum of his written works — he appears on other media, and those other media have a rather dubious background.

Palast has made numerous appearances on Infowars, home of fat-faced right-wing freak Alex Jones. Why? My answer would be the Stratfor connection. I’ve long suspected that Jones’ kooky performances are a kind of online Venus flytrap created to lure internet wackos into a single, easy-to-monitor cyberspace — but that’s just a theory.

What is not a theory is Palast’s connections to Mossad. These have been exposed by none other than Christopher Bollyn, whose controversial appearance at Brookln Commons was the subject of a previous post here. Palast being a relative of David Kimche could actually be disregarded, if Palast’s views on Middle Eastern affairs weren’t aligned with the those of the Israeli government.

When America’s Mongo-in-Chief bombed a Syrian airbase after an alleged sarin attack, you might have thought that erstwhile “progressive” Palast would be none too thrilled with this act of US imperial aggression.

Think again.

Not only does he support the military action against a long-time enemy of Israel, Palast even managed to crack a boner over Hillary Clinton! Whatever gets you through the night, Greg.

Sadly, a lot of wide-eyed young people will turn up to public events to watch this bloke speak, without knowing the full story. If they knew the truth, maybe they’d find someone better to listen to.



A Solution To All Our Problems

A remarkable scientific discovery was announced today: there are seven (yes, SEVEN) “Earth-like” planets revolving around a single star, named TRAPPIST-1. Even better news is that at least three of these planets are in the habitable zone.

We don’t know what atmospheres (if any) these planets have, but if these three could support life, then we can gift them to some this planet’s more quarrelsome residents. For example, you could have:

*A planet for the Sunnis

*A planet for the Shi’ites

*A planet for all the people who think we should import large numbers of Muslims to Western countries

Of course there would be plenty of objections to this idea. Getting rid of the Muslims and Islamophiles won’t rid us of the Catholics, the Baptists, the Orthodox Jews who create dramas when they are seated next to women on an airplane, or the depressingly large number of fuckwitted atheists around today.

To this I say: “Be patient! There is no shortage of stars out there. Some day, one day, we will find an interstellar home for all of this planet’s fucktards, then we shall live in peace!”



Can A Religionist Be Politically Progressive?

A continuation of a Twitter conversation

Of the three Abrahamic religions (spoken of in general terms for the sake of brevity), the easiest to dismiss with regards to this question is Islam. This ideology contains no internal moral dialectic; that is, there is no method to decide, by argument, if an action is right or wrong — there is simply “Islamic” and “non-Islamic”.

With Judaism, the situation is more complex, though few would argue that Orthodox Judaism is a progressive ideology. The Reform version of the Jewish religion is more an outgrowth of nineteenth-century liberalism, composed it seems mainly of those who retain some sense of Jewish identity while being assimilated to the general population.

Christianity has severe problems reconciling itself to any progressive doctrine. To take the example of the Roman Catholic Church, not only do you have an organization with an atrocious human rights record that has opposed every effort of human beings to improve themselves, you have a leader who is “infallible” — a creature that shares 98% of its DNA with a chimpanzee is incapable of error! Apart from this, Christianity is by definition a non-materialist philosophy, which puts it in direct contradiction with Marxism. There is no getting away with this: the Christian religion is not concerned with this world. There can never be a true reconciliation between materialist socialism and the ethereal doctrines of any Christian church — there is no argument here.

The treatment of these topics have been too brief, I admit; Marxism, for example, is not the be-all of progressive politics, obviously. Another point to ponder is this: At what point does a religion move so far from its original premises that it is unrecognizable as an ideology? Are Reform Jews “real” Jews? My answer would be ‘no’, though I expect to be hammered for that position. There is no group more correct in its interpretation of the Koran than ISIL. I’d rather be a devil on the side of Truth, than an angel on the side of untruth, as Feuerbach might say.