Anti-Semites for Israel.

The younger Bushman has crawled out from under his rock to speak to speak at a fundraising dinner today with tickets going from $100 to $100,000. For the latter you can get a VIP pass for twenty guests to see the anointed one, have your picture taken with him and get a copy of Decision Points autographed. This would not be a noteworthy event if it weren't for the fact that the event is being held by the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute. If that sounds odd here's a little clarification, the Institute's stated mission is to convert world Jewry to Christianity in order to bring about the Rapture. No doubt this is in accordance with the view that the End Times will mean burning in an everlasting lake of fire for all Jews (except for 140,000 Jews who are converted to Christianity). This is just one strategy for those on the Christian Right in its Armageddonist fantasies.

We should not be surprised to find a confluence of this level of fantasy and anti-Semitism. Even if we accept their professions of love for Israel as genuine we should not buy into the assumption that the Jewish state and the Jewish people are synonymous. Faiths and cultures are far too complex generally to be confined to a body national. The history of Christian anti-Semitism is too often whitewashed in an era where Israel seems mired in perpetual conflict with its neighbours and the Palestinians. The Roman Catholic Church only rescinded its accusations of deicide against the Jews in 1965, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. European societies have long found the presence of the apparently unsettled and rootless rather troubling. No wonder then anti-Semitism often combines with anti-Roma sentiments. The solution for some European Christians was to resituate the Jews as rooted citizens, either by stripping them of their Jewishness or by relocating them entirely.

 

Even in the liberal Christian states of the 19th Century the problem was that the Jewish tradition was not easily confined to the realm of an individuals' rights and freedoms. Traditions are communitarian rather than individualist. In the past this meant effective conversions and later it led to the proposals of the Nazi Party to relocate European Jewry to Madagascar. By contrast the Muslim world had little beef with Jews as a people without a land, it was once the state of Israel was founded (and the way in which it was founded) that the problems really heated up. In this way we find that the Christian anti-Semites have a vested interest in a Jewish state as a solution to their problem. You find this with people like John Hagee, a televangelist who has even suggested that the Holocaust was a part of God's plan to turn the Jews back toward Israel. This is not an exceptional case.

 

That old mountebank Pat Robertson wrote a book of conspiratorial fantasy in which the Jews play a role in a new world order set up. Then there was Billy Graham who was caught on tape to President Nixon (another remarkable bigot) agreeing that the Jews have a 'stranglehold' on the American media and referred to a 'synagogue of Satan'. And of course, you can't forget Jerry Falwell, the spiritual godfather of the Moral Majority, who once stated that the anti-Christ is among us and that he is an adult male Jew. Yet all of these men professed support for Israel and pledged a great deal of political support for the Israeli government in wars from 1967 onwards. One of the prerequisites for the Rapture is that the Jews return to Israel. The compatibility of this restorationist agenda with anti-Semitism should not be ignored. Evidently, Judeophobia is not unique to the Old World. It's a country where hotels once bore the label 'restricted' to mean they wouldn't take in Jewish guests.

 

Given that George W Bush gave up Johnnie Walker Black for the Nazarene we may not be so shocked that he is at least sympathetic to the most fervent depths of nuttiness. This is one of the main sources of votes harvested by the GOP machine (not that Bush much needed votes). The former President is in good company as the last big speaker was Glenn Beck, the same man who tooted a horn for Elizabeth Dilling's crackpot tirades against Jews and Communists. Let alone the way he scapegoated Hungarian-Jewish banker George Soros as a 'puppet master' of the Left. In the end Beck lost his platform at Fox after he started to cost them advertising dollars and the dip in ratings. He had gone too far for Abe Foxman, but never too far for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute who gave Beck its Defender of Israel award and then chowed down on a mighty hog-roast. Seriously treif scenes.

In defence of 'anti-Semites'.

The charge of anti-Semitism is regularly levelled against anyone with the clarity of moral conscience to criticise Israel in its rejectionism of international law and aggression against the Palestinians and neighbour-states. Ken Livingstone was routinely labelled an ‘anti-Semite’ for his support of the Palestinian rights and putting a Jewish journalist on the spot for writing for a paper owned by The Daily Mail, formerly pro-Mosley and pro-Hitler now just a sour proto-fascist rag. Incidentally The Daily Mail has stuck to the line that the Frankfurt School are behind the triumphs of gay rights, dependency culture, mass-immigration and multiculturalism. In other words, all the faults of modern society (as they see it) are down to a left-wing Jewish cabal. The bogeyman of cultural Bolshevism has been replaced by cultural Marxism. This is no different to the Hitlerian claim that the source of all the world’s problems is Judeo-Bolshevism. The Daily Mail gets away with it because it is ‘pro-Israel’ and Ken Livingstone is put on the spot for reviewing books on Press TV. It was more important for much of the press to slander Livingstone as a Judeophobe for his position on Palestine. 

The elementary standards of morality and human decency go out of the window in such cases. This is most evident in extreme instances of vilification. For example, Masada2000 have produced the Jewish SHIT list which amounts to a list of 7,000 Jews who are Self-Hating Israel Threating complete with black-and-white sinister photographs. The ambulance chaser Alan Dershowitz – a good lawyer for guilty clients – went as far as to accuse Norman Finkelstein’s late mother of being a Nazi collaborator while she was in Auschwitz. He then went on to conjure up a campaign against Finkelstein that culminated in him being denied tenure at DePaul University. No doubt the Catholic university would’ve been labelled ‘anti-Semitic’ if it had done otherwise. The most recent shocker was when a poem by Günter Grass was banned by the Israeli government, simply because it points out (what we all know) that the Israeli political-military class wants a fight with Iran. Even Mossad and Shin Bet have confirmed that Netanyahu is a dangerous figure, but it’s still too much to say so in the West where criticism of Israel is still unwelcome.

As Gore Vidal notes it was Irving Kristol, the fairy godfather of neoconservatism, who wrote “If one had informed American Jews fifteen years ago that there was to be a powerful revival of Protestant fundamentalism as a political as well as religious force, they would surely have been alarmed, since they would have assumed that any such revival might tend to be anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. But the Moral Majority is neither.” This conveniently ignores the anti-Semitism rife on the Christian Right. The evangelicals are supportive of Israel only to bring on the Rapture and see to it that the Jews (except for 140,000 who are automatically ‘saved’) along with the Muslims and other assorted heretics are sent straight to hell. It was Herzl who had foreseen that the anti-Semitic nations would become the political allies of Zionism. Today the anti-Semites who are ‘pro-Israeli’ can be let-off, while any opposition to Israeli policy from gentiles is a sign of a Brownshirt and from Jews it’s a symptom of neurotic self-loathing.

It was Ronald Reagan who said “Israel is the only stable democracy we can rely on as a spot where Armageddon could come.” The subject of Vidal’s scorn was another leading neoconservative Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter. The neoconservative ‘democratic revolutionaries’ are typically ex-leftist apologists for American military might and the cause of a Greater Israel. Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a liberal mugged by reality. It could well be said that these mugged liberals discovered the useful side of the politics of hate: whether it be feminists, blacks, fags or quiche-eating liberals the dice have to be rolled if you’re a betting man. And betting men like Kristol and Podhoretz have no problem taking the side of some of the most rancid anti-Semites on the planet. Gore Vidal pointed out that the Israel lobby has had to keep in line with American foreign policy for the sake of military aid to Israel. This has meant that the old liberal positions simply won’t do and the American Jewish Committee had to shift further rightwards.

The scathing ink of Gore Vidal’s pen never shirked away from controversy. He was not one of the politically correct minded liberals. This fearlessness came across in his provocative insinuation of ‘dual loyalties’ among the ex-leftist Jewish intellectuals who comprised neoconservatism at the time. It is the political-military establishment of the US and Israel to which the neoconservatives are most loyal, not the love of any country in particular. He stands with Israeli peaceniks, the very people that the neoconservatives despise.He describes the Israeli settlers as ‘predatory’ in the same way that the white people who settled and cleansed the Americas were ‘predators’. This isn’t ‘moral equivalence’ as Gore Vidal knows full well that the founding of America involved the deaths of millions of Native Americans. He merely acknowledges Israel is in the same line in its state-founding violence. Nearly 1 million Palestinians were dispossessed to found Israel and now constant violence is used to further expand the nation-state.

There’s a line that you cannot cross when it comes to criticism of Israel, then you instantly become an anti-Semitic defender of radical Islamism.In the attack on Gaza in late 2008 over 1,400 Palestinian civilians, one-third of them children, were killed by Israeli bombs and bullets. There was no target out of bounds, hospitals, mental health centres and ambulances were attacked. Even schools were doused in white phosphorus and the illegality of such an action does not rouse the conscience of the apologists for barbarism. In the words of George Orwell "The nationalist does not only disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." It all falls under the umbrella of ‘self-defence’, but if the use of white phosphorous is justified in these terms in ‘defence’ of Israel then would it follow that the suicide-bombers of Palestine are justified by their claim to ‘defence’? It should be noted that the Palestinian claim to self-defence is surely stronger than the Israeli claim, for the reason that the Israeli government is the primary aggressor.

Chaim Weizmann used to say that the danger to Israel was not the ‘extremists’, it was the ‘moderates’ who posed the real threat. It is the case that the Israeli establishment prefers anti-Semites to moderate reformers, it can dismiss the opposition if they are salivating at the prospect of slaughtering Jewish children. This is precisely the reason that the Israeli government protected Sheikh Yassin for a long time. Yet he was a major proponent of Islamic nutdom as well as anti-Semitic delusions. In the early days of the first intifada the Israeli government actually sponsored Islamism to undermine Arab nationalists and the secular Left. Strikes at universities on the West Bank were broken up by busing in Islamists. It went as far as to actually fund Hamas in order to undermine Arafat’s base of support. The PLO had to be destroyed because it proposed a pragmatic solution in 1976: a return to the borders before the 1967 war, 22% of the land goes to the Palestinians and 78% to the Israelis complete with recognition of Israel. The US blocked the settlement even though it had the support of virtually the entire world including the Arab states and the PLO.

Power, Faith & Unbelief.

"Monotheism is easily the greatest disaster to befall the human race." – Gore Vidal

Gore Vidal agreed with George Bernard Shaw that the subjects which interest civilised men can be narrowed down to politics and religion. Not just in Creation but in his 'inventions' Kalki and Messiah. The religious instinct in man fascinated Vidal, especially as he saw the late 20th Century as a period of the deterioration of the traditional religions. Meanwhile he had preempted the rise of the death cult in America in his 1954 novel Messiah. In the bourgeois fetish for the cultures of the past Vidal found great hopes for our civilisation in the Stoics of Rome and the Confucians of China. The great mistake of humanity, in his view, was monotheism in its claim to universal truth and he held Christianity in particular disdain. In his novel Julian the focus is the Roman Emperor Julian who sets out to undo the union of Christian dogma and state-power in order to revert back to the plurality of Paganism. This exemplifies the liberal side of Gore Vidal, his loyalty to secular humanism.

It is typical of Gore Vidal in his 'reflections' to blend history, religion and politics in fiction for the reason that the court historians are so awful that the novel is now the only medium that can redeem history. In Creation the protagonist is a member of the Zoroastrian faith, perhaps the earliest monotheism, and witnesses the murder of Zoroaster. Cyrus is on the side of monotheism in the book, as well as the established powers in Persia and holds the masses in contempt. This is in contrast to Vidal's own political views, which could be taken as a hybrid leftism. In the book the political leaders of the time, particularly Thucydides and Pericles, are juxtaposed against one another as conservatives and democrats. The chaos of China is presented as a land which may conceive of the totalitarian impulse, while at the same time Confucian politics are received in a very positive light. Cyrus Spitama identifies himself with the conservatism of Thucydides as well as of Confucian hierarchical order and practical moral values.

In Creation Gore Vidal takes us on a tour of the ancient world, from Persia to Cathay and back, with Cyrus Spitama as our guide. Spitama is embedded in the ruling class of the Persian Empire, whilst also being descendent of Zoroaster and a follower of the Wise Lord consequently. Many of the major philosophical and religious ideas of the time are explored in the book, in Ancient Greece Cyrus encounters many philosophers and delivers his tale to his nephew Democritus. It was appropriate given the affinity Vidal had with the atomist principles espoused by Lucretius and Democritus. The vision was of a cosmos as a kind of soup of atoms bumping up against one another. The book culminates in the exposition of the atomist philosophy by Democritus. In another sense the relationship between Cyrus Spitama and Democritus mirrors the relationship between Gore Vidal and his grandfather Thomas Gore. Specifically the passing of the elder's wisdom to the young man.

The focus on the Persian Empire rails against the Western vanity, the tendency to see itself as a great fusion of Hellenism and Judeo-Christian values. Creation begins with Cyrus leaving the Odeon as Herodotus goes over his own version of history. The portrayal of Ancient Greece is just as one of many great powers rather than the centre of the world. The warring forces of China in the days of Confucius as well as the rival kingdoms of India feature prominently. The relativity of Greek glory to the lessons of the Buddha and Confucius, Mahavira and Lao Tzu. It's more than a novel, it is a work of comparative religion and philosophy crafted to persuade the reader not to be so arrogant in his modern assumptions. This is not to say that Vidal isn't writing from a position beyond commitment. Vidal was a lifelong atheist and opponent of monotheism. If anything he wants to enlighten us of the possibilities beyond the desert God of Abraham. The novel was timed well with the rise of Reaganism and the emergence of the Christian Right.


For Gore Vidal the threat of the Christian Right is equivalent to the threat of Le Pen in France, in other words it is fascistic and anti-democratic in nature. The accumulation of obscene piles of wealth in a few private hands matches the concentration of power in American society. This creates a systemic need to block democracy at every turn. Vidal would remind us that the political system in the United States is not at all democratic. First of all, there is only one political party with two right-wings - the Democrats and the Republicans - which is the party of property. Chomsky has spoken in these terms too, except he called it the business party. There is a structural need within capitalism which can be differentiated in terms of a base and a superstructure. The economic base depends upon the ideological superstructure for its legitimacy. The relation of the base to the superstructure is not just dependency, there is a tension between the pluralism and relativism of the market against the sociality of institutions and tradition.


The management of this tension can found in the revival of political religion in the new world. The Christian Right was born out of the attempts made throughout the 70s by conservatives to regroup after the losses in the last decade. The Nixon administration left America disillusioned with politics, only for great hopes to arise with the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976. The failures of the Carter administration to achieve significant change cleared the way for Reagan in 1980. Nowadays it is almost compulsory for American Presidents to be Christian: No unbelievers allowed! But it wasn't always this way. Crucially it was Carter who had made religion an issue in his openness about the faith to which he subscribed. This could be taken as a long-time result of the Christian revival of the 1950s. Really it was the 1960s which convinced many Christians that the shared fabric of society - its traditions, institutions and moral values - was about to be destroyed in its entirety. This is less a story of a Christian Right than the story of the New Right.

The debacles of the early 60s such as the Cuban crisis and the assassination of JFK the Establishment was shaken to its foundations. Everywhere there seemed to be collapse as the issues of civil rights, racism and imperialism became the moral battleground in the American body politic. The obvious opponent for Gore Vidal was William F Buckley, l'enfant terrible of American conservatism, and they would cross swords repeatedly in debates at party conventions in the late 60s. Around this time Paul Weyrich infiltrated the student Left and was astonished by the level of planning and tactics that he witnessed. He realised that the conservatives were wrong in their assumption that the people would support them because they were right about the issues. In actuality what was needed was a movement capable of rolling back the achievements of the Left. It would be a counter to the counter-culture. The key was the mobilisation of the religious, who were largely apolitical.

As Adam Curtis notes "The fundamentalists were driven by pietism - the belief that a true Christian should not only devote their life to god, but also turn their back on the secular political world. They should live the good life through their own actions - and forget about politics." The New Left had actually laid the groundwork for the entrance of right-wing Christians into the political realm. The issues of gay rights, abortion and sexual discrimination mobilised the Christian Right because the liberalisation on these social issues threatened the way that they led their private lives. Then Jimmy Carter abolished the charity status of the religious schools. For many it was the last straw, enough was enough. Paul Weyrich reached out to Jerry Falwell, the product of this backroom deal was the Moral Majority. Falwell pulled some strings in order to pull together numerous right-wing preachers in America. The aim was now not just to convert, but to register the converted as Republican voters in what would later be known as the culture wars.

The network of preachers were soon spreading anti-Carter propaganda and then an obvious alternative revealed himself to the newly political Christians. It was Ronald Reagan, the old hero of libertarians, who had been trashed by Gore Vidal in a debate with Buckley. Vidal had condemned Reagan in 1967 as an aging actor with little knowledge of the world outside the United States. This is on top of viciously draconian policies were hardly friendly to blacks and the poor. Before a crowd of Christians, at a mass rally, Reagan said that if he were stranded on a desert island he would only want the Bible to read. The election could've been won without the Christian vote. It was about a movement that could be used to influence and shape the political discourse. The right-wing hegemony turned the debate towards social and cultural issues on which the liberal Left had to be marginalised. Meanwhile the Right could implement an economic agenda as the leading political issues were moral.

Republican Reptiles for 2012.

Rick Santorum joined the Republican Presidential race on a socially conservative ticket which is opposed to abortion and gay rights. It is worth mentioning that the former Senator for Pennsylvania enraged gay rights activists in 2003 when he compared homosexuality to paedophilia and bestiality. For Mr Santorum the state has the right to ban any behaviour deemed to be antithetical to the "healthy, stable, traditional family". Ironically, Rick Santorum has a "Google problem" which equates his surname with gay sex. The man also clinged to the theory that there were weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq until long after the Bush administration dumped the suggestion. The Santorum brand of conservatism was rejected by voters in 2006 when he lost his seat in the Senate. In the race to the White House in 2012 Santorum lacks connections to the Tea Party, though his conservative outlook is attractive to the Christian Right, he also lacks a 'big persona' which will only mean his "Google problem" will be exacerbated further on the campaign trail.

Mitt Romney has made it clear that he is running for 2012 with his usual lack of sky-high charisma and witticism, which would work well on Fox News if Romney had not passed a suspect health-care reform in Massachusetts. Even though the conservative position used to be for the individual mandate, the Republican opposition to "Obama-care" has been a strictly opportunistic strike against Obama. As the costs of health-care in the US have driven the car industry to bankruptcy the debate over the health system was re-opened in 2008. The fight which took the dynamic of Republicans against Democrats was more like a clash between the interests of health insurance and the car industry, which easily transcended the boundaries of party-affiliation. Even as Romney has lurched further to the Right he is still viewed with suspicion, for he is a Mormon and the Christian Right will not go in for someone who thinks that Jesus Christ was the brother of Lucifer.

Despite all of this, Mitt Romney is a serious contender and it is no surprise he is running as he has basically been in campaign mode since he failed to win the GOP nomination in 2008 and, in doing so, pissed $40 million of his own cash into the wind. On an amusing side-note the announcement was made with a scenic backdrop in New Hampshire which has been subsidised with $1 million from the federal government. Similarly, New Gingrich has presided over a multi-billion dollar boondoggle in Georgia which produces F-22s at tax-payers' expense even though military spending in the US amounts to 50% of military spending in the world. Though it would appear that Gingrich is finished after the controversy over his comments regarding "right-wing social engineering", so the Newt no longer looks conservative enough in a race in which purity matters even more than usual. Then there are the disagreements which have led his campaign team to go AWOL.

Typically, Sarah Palin out-shined the dull Mitt with the credentials she garnered from the McCain-Palin ticket and the links she has established with the Tea Party movement. Combine that with the books, the reality TV show and the work Palin has done at Fox News there is a ready source of support once she has declared she's running. So she can afford to come in late, perhaps just as Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are looking especially weak. We might not have long to wait for her announcement in that case. At the same time it might be the case that she has outlived her run as the populist symbol of American motherhood. Especially as Palin was linked with the Tucson shooting, from which Giffords has only just recovered. We also have to keep in mind that it is Corporate America which matters most in American elections and right now Sarah Palin only has a 4% rating, she has been surpassed by Michelle Bachmann at around 8% and the forerunner is still the damp Mitt at 33.5%.

Michelle Bachmann stood out in the recent Republican debate in New Hampshire and may have even upstaged Mitt Romney. She wooed the crowd with the kind of hard-hitting populist rhetoric, early on she declared Barack Obama to be a "one-term President" before promising to repeal Obama-care when she takes office. Bachmann inevitably won a warm reception as she has five children of her own and 23 foster children, which meshes well with working-people who vote out of an opposition to abortion. Just like when she compared raising taxes to the Holocaust, the Tea Party and the conservative shock-jocks loved it. But as Gingrich and Romney have demonstrated, the GOP has not had a tradition of opposition to the individual mandate or state-intervention for that matter. So it would seem that Michelle Bachmann is not a part of this tradition on the American Right, or more accurately that she doesn't wish to be associated with it, for it is an impure aspect of the conservative movement.

Bachmann is still not as prominent as some of her rivals, the attention she has drawn has inevitably led to comparisons with Sarah Palin. There have also been some interesting revelations about Palin recently. We find that she had begged Tony Hayward for a 1,700 mile BP pipeline, which would have stretched across America. This came a year after BP was responsible for the biggest oil spill in the state's history. In 2007 Palin slashed $237 million in funds for around 300 construction projects as she initiated a budget of $6.6 billion - the largest budget for the state of Alaska - before vetoing an additional $238 million in funds for 350 projects the following year. Recently it was announced that Sarah Palin is to visit Britain and Sudan, she has already been snubbed by Thatcher much to the chagrin of Rush Limbaugh and others. Thatcher represents the earlier generation of women politicians, the "iron ladies" who out-manned the men.

As Jacques-Alain Miller pointed out Palin is a break with this in that she displays her femininity and motherhood. The imagery has a "castrating" effect on male opponents, it is not that she is more manly than them but it is the use of the sarcastic put-down of male authority. She knows that the phallic authority of her opponents is just a posture which can be mocked for her gain. Note the way in which Palin mocked Obama as a "community organiser", exploiting the sterile aspects of Obama's appearance - diluted black skin, slender features and big ears etc. As Slavoj Žižek goes on, in Palin we find "post-feminist" femininity without a complex and the roles of mother, prim teachers, public figure and sex object converge. All the while Todd Palin is displayed at her side as the First Dude of Alaska, a phallic toy if anything. The implicit sting which adds insult to injury is that it is a Republican woman who has ran for the Vice Presidency and may even run for the Presidency in 2012. So it should be a surprise that the Palin effect offers false liberation.

At this point it looks unlikely that Sarah Palin will run for President as she was notably absent at the debate in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Michelle Bachmann has drawn considerable attention from the shock-jocks and support from the Tea Party. It remains questionable whether or not the Right would put forward a woman candidate. The Tea Party movement sprung out of the legitimate grievances of working-class Americans, but it was also manifested as an expression of a feeling of loss. The white man had finally lost his majoritarian status in America, along with the appearance of loss in power over the state and the privilege derived from that. The consequent anxiety and fear collides with grievances that go back decades in a classic instance of displaced class struggle. The idea that a Republican woman could ride this wave into the White House seems delusional. If anything the Tea Party functions as a bulwark against the Left, not a spring-board for a particular candidate.

Then there is the man who took over where Bush left off in Texas, who has been elected three times and has ran the state for over 10 years now. Rick Perry has not declared whether or not he is running yet. If he were to run he would automatically become a serious contender for the Presidency given his 10 years  as Governor of Texas. Perry supports the Arizona immigration act, which could have been written by the American Nazi Party. Rick Perry supported the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, which was opposed by his cold predecessor. It is worth noting that Rick Perry has signed over 200 death warrants in his time as the Governor of Texas, whereas George Bush executed 152 people in his time as Governor. In 2009 Rick Perry joined in his own special way and started to spew secessionist rhetoric in response to the stimulus spending by the Obama administration. This kind of rhetoric is still popular in Texas, where even the liberals wouldn't mind a Republic of Texas.


The rhetoric Perry came out with was welcomed by the Right and he has cultivated a rugged image with tough talk and going for jobs which culminate with the shooting of coyotes. He has courted the Christian Right and the Tea Party movement successfully, but he has also held onto his mainstream status as a conservative. So Rick Perry is capable of the rhetoric needed to rally the crazies around him, but he can do so whilst holding onto his ties with Corporate America from which he derives his "mainstream" status. Without the close links with corporate power Perry could find himself in the right-wing limbo where Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Michael Savage can be found any day of the week. It is a balancing act of bringing together the most reactionary elements of the working-class together with the political forces of capital. This is what the fusion of economic liberalism with social conservatism was designed to accomplish. The slogan of which might be "Tax-cuts for the rich, no rights for fags!"

It is possible that Rick Perry is the "dark horse" of the GOP. Just the other day Rick Perry gave a rousing speech on conservative principles at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans and it is plausible that he was posturing as a conservative heavy-weight just before he makes the "decision" when Texas wraps up legislative business at the end of the month. Perry then went on to detail a four-point prescription for the economy which began with "don't spend all the money" which followed with an emphasis on low taxes, legal reforms to prevent frivolous lawsuits; a fair and predictable regulatory climate. The crowd then showered him chants of "Run, Rick, Run!" He received the greatest applause from the audience, at an event attended by Bachmann and Gingrich. It is clear that he would immediately become the forerunner given the banality of the Republican line-up and might actually give the incumbent a run for his money.


As President Rick Perry might repeal the "Obama-care" reforms as a populist gesture, deregulate further and impose greater anti-union legislation where it is necessary. In regards to taxation it remains unclear whether Perry is a part of the Goldwater tradition, which cuts spending in order to cut taxes. As the Bush tax-cuts have been renewed the spending cuts will be enormous and may even be bigger than the cuts seen under Clinton. This is true regardless of who is elected in 2012. It is also true that the next term will still be dominated by the fiscal stratagem known as "starve the beast". The justification for which comes in the form of trickle-down thinking, tax-cuts will lead to the investment necessary to create jobs. It will also be defended on the grounds that it will lead to less spending. In actuality the tax-cuts will lead to another enormous deficit in years to come and will only function to facilitate even greater cuts in the long-term. This is the reason we will probably see the privatisation of social security within a few years.

The Price of Haitian Liberty.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Pat Robertson recently claimed that the earthquake Haiti suffered was for the best, because it will lead to greater development and change in Haiti. The prominent Christian fundamentalist also claimed that the earthquake was a result of a Faustian pact, made between by the Haitian revolutionaries in order to liberate their country from the French. The implication being that chattel slavery was a practice blessed by God which only the Devil could undo. Robertson pointed to the consistent pattern of tragedy and failure in Haiti as evidence for a "curse" as a consequence of such a pact. It is unsurprising that this came from a man who once agreed with Jerry Falwell that 9/11 was the fault of the ACLU, as well as lesbians and abortionists, and later called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Despite all of this, his statement reflect a general attitude in the Western media. In the media, Haiti is often discussed as if it is cursed, the earthquake is just one of many tragedies to strike the island over the last two centuries. But the country's history, which tells a quite different story, is rarely explored for the sake of public consumption.

The Republic of Haiti may seem an insignificant country in 2010, the economy is in tatters and society has been decimated by crime, the political system is corrupt and often resorts to violence to get it's way. Too many people have forgotten Haiti was the first independent Black Republic. A nation-state which had been liberated by slaves from white supremacy, in a revolution based on the same ideals espoused by French revolutionaries - liberté, égalité, fraternité. The Revolution that began in 1791, and with the leadership of Toussaint L'Ouverture, had snatched Hispaniola from the hands of the wealthy colonialists and slave-masters by 1804. The goal was to turn the island into an autonomous state of free and equal citizens, working together for the good of society, that would not be exploited. Unfortunately, after over 200 years of political turmoil, Haiti is now branded a "failed state" by the hegemons of the United States and Europe. The accomplishments of the Haitian revolutionaries were undermined by a series of dictators, but external forces hold some responsibility, to say the least, for the "difficulties" Haiti has endured.

The "Curse" of Black Jacobinism.

In using the sword against their oppressors, the slaves of Haiti had "become" Jefferson's universal human beings. Despite this, the colonial powers did not just accept Haiti as a sovereign nation equal to their own. The Vatican avoided signing a concordat with the first Black Republic until 1860. The American government refused to even recognise Haiti until 1862. The French soon punished the Haitians for deposing their masters. The former slaves had to compensate their former masters, and in the end Haiti had to pay 150 million francs - the equivalent of $21 billion - in reparations to French slave-masters. This in itself is an appalling perversity. The Haitians had to pay to avoid an embargo, the same kind which the US imposed on Cuba after the fall of Batista. In order to repay such an enormous "debt", Haiti had to lend money from banks in France, Germany and America. The aim of all this was to destroy the positive example of Revolutionary Haiti and crush the spirits of slaves everywhere. By 1900 Haiti was spending 80% of its national budget on repayments. The US first "intervened" militarily in Haiti in 1915, occupying and effectively ruling the country until 1934. During the American occupation, revolts by the people were crushed with extreme force and several politicians were executed or exiled from the island. The colonialists were successful in their wish to destroy the "contagious" example that Haiti might have become. Finally, in 1947 Haiti had managed to pay off 60% of the "debt". Over the next nine years, Haiti was plagued by instability, disasters both natural and man-made, the theft of relief funds and military coups. It was in 1956, that a new leader, who would leave Haiti sinking with debt and dead bodies, was elected.

In 1956, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier took office as the President of Haiti. He would rule for 15 years, leaving thousands dead and the country driven further into ruin. Duvalier had been elected on a black nationalist platform, characterised by populist rhetoric against the mulatto elite. The Haitian state itself was always effectively dominated by powerful elites, the 200 years since the Revolution has not changed that. The country has a long history of despotic regimes going right back to the Revolution. The most horrific and infamous of which was the Duvalier regime, under which a kleptocratic family dominated Haiti for 30 years. This brutal dictatorship sustained itself through violent repression, using a oprichnik-like militia known as the Tonton Macoutes to terrorise the masses - to not just crush opposition, but to crush the possibility of an opposition.

"Papa Doc" Duvalier formed the Tonton Macoutes in reaction to a coup attempt in the late 1950s, when he had yet to consolidate his power. Duvalier immediately exploited the rift between Cuba and the US, beginning in the late 50s. The populist rhetoric targeting Haiti's mulatto elite, which "Papa Doc" had ran on, concealed a reactionary agenda. The Duvaliers were explicitly anti-communist, the subject of political repression among the poor were suspected communists. Haitians who had an education were the immediate subject of suspicion; this led to the Haitian brain drain which the country has yet to recover from. By 1969, Duvalier had introduced the death penalty for the crime of "communist activities". Officially, the US government opposed the Duvaliers, but in practice they supported the dictatorship all the way because of their vehement anti-communism. By the time of his death in 1971, Francois Duvalier had supplanted members of the elite, who were "disappeared" or forced to emigrate, with loyal supporters of his family. His son, Jean-Claude Duvalier, a.k.a. "Baby Doc", would rule the country until 1986.

The Crisis and The Change.

In the words of Milton Friedman: "Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change." This is the logic currently at work in Haiti. A crisis offers opportunities, for the United States, to reshape the Haitian government and economy. The earthquake that has devastated Haiti is the worst to hit the island in nearly two centuries. The IMF did not waste time and quickly seized the opportunity, in a matter of days, to push through a loan of $100 million. Though, such hefty amounts of funds are needed in Haiti but the country is already heavily in debt. This loan also came with conditions, such as raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage and keeping inflation low. This is just an old story on a new day, the IMF took advantage of the devastation, and the trauma inflicted upon the people, to push through further neoliberal reforms.

This is nothing new to Haiti, or any developing country for that matter. Since the end of Duvalier rule in 1986, the US government, along with the IMF and the World Bank, has continued to interfere with Haiti's political and economic system. The democratic election of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991 was soon undone with a military coup backed by the first Bush administration. The IMF proceeded to impose "structural adjustments" on Haiti throughout the 1990s. Haiti's tariffs on rice were soon chiselled down from 35% to 3%, leading to massive rice-dumping from the US. The long-term result of such cuts on tariffs resulted in an increase in dependency on American agribusiness. By 2005, the effects of trade "liberalisation" could be seen in Haiti, three out of every four plates of rice eaten in the country had been produced by agribusiness in the US. There is plenty of money to made from Haiti, sweatshops where Haitians earn less than $2 a day are not uncommon.

These are standard practices, for multinational corporations and politicians, which have been refined since the 1950s. As detailed in the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, it is corporations who send "economic hit men" into a country which has resources they covet and arrange a massive loan to that country (through the IMF or the World Bank). The loans end up going to developing infrastructure, which will benefit only a few rich people in that country as well as large corporations. The country is left with a massive debt which cannot be paid off, the "economic hit men" then negotiate to drive down the price of resources, such as oil, which can then be easily bought by corporations. This logic can be pushed further to allow countries like the US to build a military base in the country. But also to force the country to privatise electrical companies, schools, health care and, in the case of Bolivia, even water. The IMF and the World Bank might even offer to "refinance" the country's debt leading to yet more debt, with potentially higher interest rates and more radical "conditions". These "conditions", or structural adjustment policies, vary from currency devaluation, mass privatisation, deregulation and trade liberalisation (like the lowering of tariffs).

The "economic hit men" are not always successful in their pursuit of such goals. When they do fail, the "jackals" are sent in. These individuals are often trained and supported by the NSA or the CIA, they are usually used to overthrow or assassinate politicians who are in the way. During Aristide's second Presidency, began in 2001 and ended "abruptly" in 2004 after he had demanded France pay $21 billion in restitution to Haiti. At that time, the Haitian government had just put $57.4 million towards the state's debtors. The Haitian government had received $39.21 million to spend on education, health-care etc. from foreign assistance. At a time when Haiti was paying back more than it was receiving, when the country was in desperate need of $21 billion, that he was once again overthrown in another coup - this time backed by the second Bush administration through the CIA. If the "jackals" had failed in overthrowing Aristide, the final move may have been a full blown invasion by the US military.

As far as I am aware, $1.2 billion of Haiti's debt has been cancelled thus far. Though, the country still has $900 million in debt, which will be taken up to $1 billion and over by the end of this crisis. Almost half of that debt is owed to the Inter-American Development Bank, to which Haiti is scheduled to pay $10 million next year as part of the repayments. Recently, there has been even more talk of writing off Haiti's remaining debts. The Venezuelan government has written off the $295 million, in oil-related debt, Haiti owes to their country. This is a positive update, but on it's own it is not enough. It is imperative that the structure which has driven Haiti into such debts is changed, for Haitian poverty is down to neoliberal reforms. The structure and these reforms can only be reversed if the IMF and the World Bank are changed radically, which can only be accomplished by bringing about radical change in the West - particularly, the US.

Interesting links:
IMF to Haiti: Freeze Public Wages
Whitewashing Haiti's History
Haiti - The Broken Wing
Covering Haiti: When the Media is the Disaster
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert
Why the US owes Haiti billions: The Briefest History
Confessions of an Economic Hitman

The Face of New Atheism.

"Well it's a gloomy, rainy old day to be here in London, but it could be worse; I could be in Saudi Arabia where men are men, and women are cattle. Can I say that?" - Pat Condell

If you've used YouTube regularly over the years since its launch, you've probably come across anti-theistic lectures by New Atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. But in early 2007 a new anti-theist popped up and it could be argued that he makes Hitchens look like a devout Muslim, I am talking about Pat Condell of course. Since February 7th of 2007, Pat Condell has posted over fifty videos on YouTube and shows no sign of stopping any time soon. The videos consist of vicious monologues usually aimed against Christianity or Islam, but he has targeted Judaism and Scientology in the past also. Pat Condell is truly the voice of New Atheism on YouTube.
Condell has released a DVD through the website of Richard Dawkins, a fellow New Atheist who shares his love for nature and liberal values, the DVD consists of the monologues Pat posted on YouTube between February '07 and February '08. He's even selling his own memorabilia, which advocates his brand of Atheism, through his own website. Pat Condell, he who criticises Pat Robertson for using Evangelical Christianity to make millions of dollars by exploiting his audience, seems rather hypocritical in this sense. However, as Condell would argue, the rantings and ravings of a man such as Robertson are far more harmful and dishonest than Condell's. It is easy to point out that capitalism transcends the materialism of Atheism and can now be found in the idealism of Theism. But I am more concerned with the disturbing qualities of New Atheism, and how Pat Condell unfortunately actualises such qualities in his videos, than how capitalism penetrates everything known to man.

"Pat Condell is unique. Nobody can match his extraordinary blend of suavity and savagery. With his articulate intelligence he runs rings around the religious wingnuts that are the targets of his merciless humour. Thank goodness he's on our side." - Richard Dawkins

The values espoused by Pat Condell are definitely of a liberal origin and there seems to be a sort of "hippyish" quality to his delivery of such values. He once said that he believes "there is more spirituality in a single flower than in all the sanctimonious sky pilots who've ever lived". Condell's liberalism can be "detected" in his optimistic view of human nature, his opposition to authoritarianism as well as to the conservative view of human nature as fundamentally rotten, and his love of freedom. Which is probably why he has stated his reason for making his videos as "because I want to live in a free world, full of free people who can say whatever they want to say and be whoever they want to be one thousand percent of the time. And where no one is allowed to shut them up, because their crackpot religious beliefs have been offended." The love of freedom and liberty he espouses, may be shared by many libertarians, seem paradoxical when combined with a contempt for anyone who doesn't share such sentiments. Condell equates religion with evil, which he accuses a "misguided and arrogant liberal elite" of fragmenting British society by tolerating, the toleration of such an evil is clearly paradoxical.
This appears to be a common trend amongst New Atheists a devout love of Enlightenment values, an almost mystical view of nature, and a disdain for intolerance, which is paradoxical in itself. Interestingly most of them appear to have been "Flower Children" of the 60s that rebelled against conservative social norms, protested against Vietnam, marched for equal rights and led a sexual revolution into the 1970s. For instance, Christopher Hitchens went to Cuba in 1968 to plant coffee beans. Hitchens later criticised Noam Chomsky for "effectively explaining away Islamic Jihadism as a function of American policy mistakes" and sided with pure neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz, on the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Condell and Hitchens both make the mistake of explaining away the ugliness of religious extremism as innate to religious beliefs themselves. It is as if they have lived as rebels long enough to have lost an enemy to fight, having seen their revolution sold and their values demolished, they go in search of a new oppressor to rebel against and sustain their identity in doing so.

"So I really don't care about anything he [God] has got to say, and if he came down from heaven right now, in a big pair of hobnail boots, waving the book of Judges in my face, I'd simply tell him what I tell every other evangelising prick I meet: "No thanks. I'm not interested in your phony salvation. I'd prefer damnation. Now piss off, I've got some sinning to do." - Pat Condell

Most New Atheists ignore the socio-political and economic turmoil, which led to the intense emergence of such destructive belief systems as Islamic extremism, which has intensified over the last century. The same century in which the US expanded it's influence into the Middle East in order to gain access to oil and the state of Israel was "formed". There is a tendency in capitalism to enforce repressive social policies to sustain undemocratic economic policies. Religion can be used to justify repressive social policies, as seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, which have crushed all political opposition, unions and labour movements. The Saudi bourgeoisie depend on the Wahhabi Islamic establishment to sustain their position of wealth, power and privilege. This compromise between the ruling dynasty and the religious establishment is the foundation of the Saudi Kingdom. All kinds of ideology are suppressed except for one, any form of dissidence is not tolerated and the population is kept under total control. In such a totalitarian environment there is predictability and security, for the elite, democracy lacks these things and is opposed by Western states because a democratic Saudi Arabia would threaten oil prices.

Religion can be used to distract and fragment people with debates regarding the teaching of evolution in schools, abortion and gay rights. Such issues are meaningless to the average CEO who is more concerned with health, education, economic issues and wages. While the masses are distracted by arguments over evolution and creationism, the ultrarich can crush labour unions, slash wages to increase profits and construct a political system which is only beneficial to themselves. As seen in America over the last 30 years, the Christian Right have "crusaded" against gay rights and abortion, while wages for most of Americans have either stagnated or decreased and working hours have increased. Social benefits have plummeted and any attempt by politicians to increase such benefits through government spending is dismissed as "socialism". Which is why the people of France live 3 to 5 years longer than the average American, because universal healthcare is mutually exclusive with socialism apparently. The New Atheists fail to notice that religion is merely the shadow of the enemy and not the substance of that enemy. The worse aspects of religion should be criticised as a function of capitalism and not as an independent phenomenon.