US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary :: Globalization
Election Postmortem - the Al Zarqawi and 'Gay Marriage' factors
03 Nov 2004
Modified: 10:38:21 PM
Millions of right leaning 'Christians' did not vote in the last election, but according to preliminary reports, they turned out in record numbers this election, and while voting down 'Gay Marriage' they also took the opportunity to vote up both Bush and the Iraq War. You do have to give that Karl Rove some 'credit' where 'credit' is due...
margaret.jpg
Threat to hand Hassan to Zarqawi
http://www.itv.com/news/world_628858.html

Zarqawi does his bit for the pro-War movement by beheading Hassan, leading to international outrage, and perhaps a huge increase of troops in Iraq, as well as giving a green light to the carpet bombing Iraqi cities, as Pentagon planners use the beheading videos as an excuse for 'collective punishment' and a justification for mass killing of civilians in Iraq.

The Vietnamese were a hell of lot smarter than that dumb twat known as Al Zarqawi and his associates, who it would seem, are doing more to justify and legitimize the Bush War in Iraq than thousands of words about 'WMD' or 'freedom and democracy' ever could. I have watched with disgust over the last few months as the political ineptitude of the Muslim version of the religious right played right into the hands of the extreme right in America. Right Wing blogs have been disseminating the Zarqawi videos to millions of viewers, such videos often given a place of prominence on the front page, to remain their for months, if not for an eternity, while the religious right fulminates on the evils of Islam, showing their typical log in the eye hypocrisy, given how these evils are identical to the atrocious evils propogated by their own book, the Bible. (So in our culture it would be the case the mental illness writings of a collection of untreated psychiatric patients has somehow come to be regarded as our society's most sacred book, and thus we find officials placing their hands upon those genocidal butchering and those beheading tracts to be sworn into office while marriages and births are faithfully recorded in the ledgers so conveniently provided as the preface to those tales murder, rape, plunder and jihad.)

So then the Zarqawi factor has to be included in any calculations about the recent American election, and given the prominence given to Zarqawi by the right wing and the religious right, they do recognize his importance, and the Pentagon has also found Zarqawi to be useful since all its recent bombing raids in civilian areas are justified using the name 'Zarqawi'. He's real helpful that dumb asshole, a real political and military genius. At least Osama bin Laden makes sense at times and sounds intelligent when he isn't playing the role of a mullah with the Koran, and if I was Osama I think I would be turning down the offer of an alliance by that Zarqawi, and just washing my hands of that primitive moron.

Now we can assume that despite the crocodile tears shed in public over Margaret Hassan, who will now be handed over to be dealt with by that political moron known as Zarqawi, we can only assume that without admitting it of course, there would be many powerful forces actually looking forward to the release of the Hassan video, which will be plastered on the right wing blogs, prominently trumpeted by the crusaders on the religious right, and just might raise public support to the level required to bring back the draft and get those troop numbers in Iraq up to say, half a million like they were in Vietnam (which still didn't work). I think it would interesting to actually get inside the brain of an old troll like Zarqawi, just out of curiousity, to see what the hell he is thinking, since it would appear to be the case given that he is doing everything he can to change the public perception of the Iraq War, vindicate Bush and Blair, you have to wonder if despite his virulent jihadism and anti-Americanism, perhaps subconciously he wants Americans entrenched in Iraq for decades, with strong public support. As I said, the Vietnamese were a hell of lot smarter than this political troll, but I suppose it is inevitable that in some strange way the extreme right wing religious jihadists of Iraq should become a kind of dance partner with the extreme right wing Holy Warriors of our country. Let's just say that it is all to weird and leave it at that (apparently religious extremism rendering the thinking part of the brain non-functional, leading one to do such atrociously backwards and harmful things as we see Zarqawi doing in Iraq).

There are a number of factors that can be considered in dissecting the results of this election. The religious right keeps the Republicans on a really short leash, and during this election campaign they once again released statements indicating that their pro-Republican vote was provisional on the acceptance of their agenda. Should this not happen they would start a third party, and thus deliberately on purpose cost the Republicans the next election. They are patient, the religious right, and quite prepared to toss and election or two to the Democrats, while the Anybody But Bush 'progressives' promise their votes to the Democrats with no strings attached, scream bloody murder if anyone does not vote for the right wing policies of those Democrats (as though somehow a vote for some other party was a vote that was 'stolen' from those Democrats, as though somehow a person's vote was not their own but the property of those Democrats). In exchange for absolutely nothing, other than a promise to crank up the Iraq War and 'win in Iraq' and up the Pentagon budget and slash and burn programs to fight the deliberately created Bush deficit, the 'progressives' freely gave their vote to that corpse known as the Democratic Party, thus showing why America is going more and more right wing with each election. You see the right wing is smarter than progressives, a lot smarter, or so it would seem, especially that much maligned religious right, which in comparison to 'progressives', in spite of their notorious backwardness and superstition, nevertheless look like a political genius in comparison.

As for 'Gay Marriage', this issue emerged from the 'Gay Christian' movement, and represents a compromise with the religious right. IN fact the 'Gay Chrsitian' movement emerged from the Pentecostals, and while there is some diversity in the movement, on the whole the theology of this movement is astonishing in its conservatism, mired in the fourth century, the Nicene creed and the rest of it, and their is little in the 'statement of faith' of this 'Gay Christian' movement that would anger the most orthodox of Catholics, or even the religious right, except for that one distinctive compromise on the gay issue. As for the gay issue, it turns out that the Bible is 'misinterpreted'. It is not wrong. It is merely 'misread' and 'misinterpreted.' This results in some interesting hoop jumping, with such notorious passages as those of Paul in Romans (the writings of a pro-death penalty, pro-authoritarian, right wing authoritarian, by the way, and hardly a progressive) are subject to 'interpretation' (it turns out that either Paul was condemning 'gay curious straights' who left their normal 'straight ways' or he was condemning 'prosmiscuous gays', and not the married gays, who Paul would have liked). Actually Paul was a right wing bigot, and just said what he said about gay people because that is what he really believed, and the 'Gay Marriage' position, like the Nicene creed and every other compromise with stodgy and obsolete Christian dogmatism, is not a progressive issue, but rather another one of those compromises with the religious right. Like all such 'liberal' compromises with the religious right, it does not succeed. Calling the Bible 'God's Word' and then 'interpreting it' rather than challenging this doctrine, does not work, and in the end it only empowers the religious right, by empowering the Bible they use to instill their superstitiions, as this vote proves. It is unfortunate that 'Gay Marriage' proved to be that one issue that Karl Rove could sue to bring extra millions of religious zealots to the polls to vote for Bush and the 'have mores' he calls his base, but as far as I am concerned this ruinous collapse is a textbook example of compromised 'progressive politics', in this case a compromised 'liberal' position in the church which attempts to co-opt the issues of the religious right (outflanking them on the right you might say, by adopting every Christian doctrine except that one about hating fags) which is a mirror image of the Democratic party, also attempting to outflank the Republicans on the right, and the results have been entirely predictable. But that just goes to show you how damned hard it can be to get liberals to ACT UP and be RADICAL (so therefore liberals are liberals for a reason, since they could be leftists for example, but they reject that position and choose to be 'liberals' for a reason...the result is a perpetual gutting).

While I can understand that there are certain practical social reasons for supporting 'Gay Marriage' I believe that rather than isolating this one group, and attempting to get their health care benefits recognized and so on (and a raft of other financial benefits given to married couples) it might be a far better strategy to broaden the net. After all, should health care be driven by 'market forces'. There are millions of people ruined by American Health Care (or lack thereof) the ideology being that life is for those who have money, Social Darwinism in action, and therefore the health care of 'gay couples' should be subsumed to the broader goal. As for Gay Marriage, well I think if people want to do that, they should be able to do that, and they should also legalize 'gay divorce' since given how that works in the real world it will be a requirement after all. In the end, this issue plays into that whole business about sexual hysteria, the evils of the flesh and the body, which go unchallenged, while war and slaughter are not big moral issues (as the voting pattern - pro-slaughter, anti-sex - demonstrates so clearly, illustrating the utter moral bankruptcy of what passes for so much religion in the United States. It is this hypocrisy, and the bankruptcy of this religion of jihad and sexual oppression, that is left unchallenged in the 'Gay Marriage' debate, just as all to often 'liberal' Christians and 'gay Christians' leave the so called 'authority' of creeds and Bible unchallenged, and then wonder why they get pasted by the religious right, why the religious right determines war and peace, the presidency, dominates in the so called 'Culture Wars'. Well it goes without saying that I am pissed off by such a flaccid approach, and the fact that such compromises with hypocrisy get nowhere (often referred to as 'bridge building' and 'extending a hand to the religious right', which only results in having that hand chopped off again and again).

As for liberalism in general, it is I think already revealed as a bankrupted ideology, and I think, when you consider the trends and use some simple common sense, it indicates that an allegiance to Middle Class liberalism in the end leads to destruction and disaster. This is becoming more apparent all the time, and will become more apparent as time goes by. For example just twiddling with the status quo, introducing a quasi reform here and there (assuming even that much could be accomplished) will prove to be a disaster over the long term. Now if it were possible for 'market forces' (the dominant ideology of the time, the 'Washington Consensus', neo-liberalism, call it what you will) to continue to deliver 3 to 4 percent growth to infinity, then there might be hope that the system will just keep chugging along forever, making the response of liberalism a genuine possibility. However there is no such thing as 'infinite growth' and even 'sustainable growth' runs into the same limitations, because that cannot continue forever. Therefore it is only a matter of time before the whole system collapses, this being not a matter of 'if' but rather 'when' and 'how' (will it go through collapse as it reaches its illogical, irrational conclusion, in an orgy of futile violence and imperialism with wide spread destruction and suffering - this the potential of a flaccid status quo liberalism and its unwillingness to challenge the status quo, whether it be Christian Liberals conceding ground to old creeds and refusing to seriously question the Bible, or political liberals trying to outflank the right on the right, or pushing heavily compromised solutions such as Kyoto, and the list goes on and on and on...status quo liberalism is dead, and simple rational thought, and little mathematics would indicate that this is the case - we have a system which is not permanent, but which will have to change, and as much as status quo liberalism (note the support of that corrupted Democratic party for a good example) continues to resist change, it contributes to disasterous change in the future, when the inevitable end of the empire approaches, and the world must change in fundamental ways).

A few links
The REAL Iraq War - with all its blood and gore - your tax dollars at work
http://www.awitness.org/journal/real_iraq_war.html

Jihad in the Bible - more images of blood and gore
http://www.awitness.org/journal/holy_war_jihad_bible.html

The Apostle Paul - right wing hawk
http://www.awitness.org/journal/gnostic_sin.html

Plague Locusts in Africa - what is the 'market solution' to this problem?
http://www.awitness.org/journal/locust_plague_sahel_harvest.html

America's Forest Dieback - massive - could be the worst in tens of thousands of years, and if it continues, will happen before this decade is over
http://www.awitness.org/journal/forest_dieback.html

The 'Debate' over 'Social Security Reform' - a fine example of the corruption of so called 'debate' and 'resistance' in the United States, and just one more creative example of how to gut the 'New Deal' - the way it works is as follows - first you cut funding, deliberately, to create a crisis, then you declare the program bankrupt, shut it down, and go private - neo-liberalism at work in America...the same principle is at work in those huge deliberately created deficits, which will then justify massive slash and burn - by the way, where are those useless Democrats while this is going on? Why don't they say anything? Actually if you study the record you will find the Democrats committed to ending 'welfare' and 'reforming' Social Security as well...
http://www.awitness.org/journal/social_security_reform.html

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Re: Election Postmortem - the Al Zarqawi and 'Gay Marriage' factors
04 Nov 2004
The idea that liberalism is bankrupt is nonsense. It hasn't been tried since the 60s, when, thanks to JFK's New Frontier and LBJ's Great Society reforms, Americans prospered as never before. Thanks to liberalism's achievements, life was good for more Americans than in any other period of its history from about 1966 to 1976. Liberalism proved so successful that the conservatives had to call out all the stops to suppress its advance, which they did by killing RFK in '68. Ever since the Democratic party has avoided being associated with liberalism. What's bankrupt is the reaction against liberalism. Et tu, Brute?