How to Identify a White Supremacist – Tip #1

White supremacists, outside of Tea Party rallies, are usually not this obvious.

Go to Google and type in “define white supremacy” and this is the definition that will pop up:

“the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.”

This definition covers all shades and degrees of racism, if there be such a thing; whether racism is blatantly open or covert or otherwise subdued it stems from a belief in white supremacy. So-called liberals or progressives are not immune to feelings of white supremacy; and though it will undoubtedly be shocking to many, black people can also be white supremacists. Oprah Winfrey, for example, is a white supremacist; she clearly believes in the supremacy of the dominant white “culture” that is part of the foundation of the U.S. socio-political (and sociopathic) system. And it isn’t just the few black people allowed into the ruling class that are white supremacist; working class blacks in many cases experience self-loathing and a distrust of other black people. One black friend of mine told me a saying that was common in his neighborhood and among his peers: “If it ain’t white, it can’t be right!” Whether it be a door-to-door salesman,  insurance agent or a doctor, there existed the belief that black people were either more likely to be hucksters or else incompetent.

So, with that background we come to the actual tip referenced in the title of this piece. How many times have you heard this phrase: “I’m not racist, but . . .” followed by a racist, or rather, white supremacist comment? If you are a white U.S. American you will have heard this phrase many, many times. Whenever you hear this phrase you will now know, if you didn’t before, that the speaker is a goddamn racist – without fail. Lesson learned. Stay tuned for more tips on how to detect white supremacy.

Posted in Class War Chronicle | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The origins of the DPRK: From Division to Reunification

Originally posted on STALIN'S MOUSTACHE:

The propaganda on which we were raised had it that the Second World War came to an end through the decisive action of the United States in dropping a couple of atomic bombs on Japan. Then, US troops immediately moved to the Korean Peninsula to ensure that the freedom-loving Koreans were not subjected to the totalitarian rule of evil communists. They were not entirely successful, because the north had been overrun by the Soviet Red Army, which brutally imposed collectivisation and socialist methods on the north. They then appointed a puppet as leader, Kim Il-sung. A few years later, the United States and troops from other nations such as Australia defended the southerners from aforesaid evil communists when the latter tried to take over the whole peninsula during the Korean War. Since then, the people of the south have earnestly wanted reunification, but the totalitarian ‘regime’ of the north has…

View original 876 more words

Posted in Class War Chronicle | Leave a comment

War on Terror 2

Posted in Class War Chronicle | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Rethinking Chemical Weapons

Originally posted on what's left:

It’s highly unlikely that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons in its ongoing fight against foreign-backed jihadists, but if it had, would use of the weapons be uniquely reprehensible, and would it justify an intervention?

June 27, 2015

By Stephen Gowans

There are two problems with the way we think about chemical weapons. The first is the idea that killing with gas is more reprehensible than killing with bullets, shrapnel, and explosives. This position is both intellectually and morally indefensible. The second is our belief that chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They are not. In fact, they’re no more WMD than are bullets and machetes. [1]

Before elaborating on these points, let me address the question of whether the Syrian Army has used chemical weapons. This article is not a defense of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces, because I don’t believe the Syrian…

View original 3,024 more words

Posted in Class War Chronicle | 1 Comment

Divide and Conquer: The Sino-Soviet split and its meaning today


The Sino-Soviet split and its meaning today

Listen now: Brian Becker, a national leader of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, discusses the Sino-Soviet split that began in the 1960s with its underpinnings in differing approaches on survival against U.S. imperialist threats. The pressures of imperialism resulted in a split – first ideologically and later state-to-state – between these sister socialist nations. China moved towards the influence of U.S. imperialism and the USSR became more isolated. This history is important for progressives and revolutionaries to understand today as the United States continues its threats against Russia and its maneuvers to destabilize and overthrow the Communist Party-led government of China.

Source: Liberation Radio

Posted in Class War Chronicle | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment