As we promised you our readers, we have added MIM Theory 14 to the old MIM etext website. We still owe you issues 1-13.

MIM Theory 14 is here (large file over a megabyte)

MIM Theory 14 earned a wide readership and frequent academic citation. Perhaps when we find the other issues, they will obtain as much interest. 


An I$raeli paper reported on a March statement by Osama Bin Laden. Most reports left out too much material from the Osama Bin Laden statement.

The paper explained:

“Among what Al-Jazeera newscasters said were excerpts from a new recording, Bin-Laden said: ‘My speech is about the Gaza siege and the way to retrieve it and the rest of Palestine from the hands of the Zionist enemy. Our enemies did not take it by negotiations and dialog, but with fire and iron. And this is the way to get it back.’

“The Saudi-born Islamic fundamentalist linked the jihad against Israel with the Iraqi insurgency: ‘The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field.’

“Bin-Laden added that those of ‘our brothers in Palestine who could not join the jihad in the land of Al-Quds [Jerusalem]’ should ‘get rid of illusions of political parties and groups which are mired in trickery of the blasphemous democracy and to take their positions among the ranks of the mujahideen in Iraq.'”(1)

We do not want anyone to offer services to Al Qaeda in the united $tates, because it will turn out to be an undercover FBI agent. However, we should understand that Osama Bin Laden’s message is an example of internationalism.

The neo-Nazis including “National Bolsheviks” do not understand this message, because they are hung up over borders. In contrast, Osama Bin Laden says to show up in ungovernable Iraq to advance the cause of Palestinians.

There is a slowly growing recognition among Western communists that the more radical Muslims are in fact offering internationalism that makes the Western communist movement look bad.  Some of MIM’s fiercest critics are slowly tacking for a different line.

Osama Bin Laden has also tried to explain to us the local conditions. What we in the West do not know for instance is that there has been no Shiite government in an Arab country for 800 years.(2) Now there is one in Iraq thanks to the U.$. occupation. So, when we suddenly see a Shiite government, then we have to wonder if that is on account of lackey service to the united $tates or Great Satan as Iran rightly calls it. Such thoughts will cause many in Iraq distress.

The Iraqi Shiites themselves will not be happy being thought of as Great Satan’s lackeys. So there is civil war brewing. One analyst has said it will be “Lebanon on steroids.”(3)

As we wrote this article, the New York Times reported on U.$. airstrikes on a portion of Iraq’s Shiites.(4) This will prove to Shiites that some among them depend on Great Satan for support.

If Iraq goes into civil war to oust all U.$. lackeys, it will be on account of a lack of proletariat in the united $tates. Even though the Amerikan people are not thrilled with the Iraq War, they are not mobilized enough to prevent a civil war in Iraq. It comes down to the conscience of Amerikan politicians.

Senator McCain can go on pretending that U.$. troops will prevent the civil war, because there is no on-fire proletariat here to make him pay for that politically. Likewise, among our supposed Marxists there is rampant confusion which amounts to a sectarian attitude toward the Iraqi people. These Trotskyist and Trotsky-influenced organizations see nothing worth assisting with, because they see only the names of the mosques the Iraqi people attend, and they do not say, “4th International.”

Even if some leaders in Iraq would like to wait on the question of civil war till after U.$. elections, there is no guarantee that a hugely destructive civil war to oust U.$. influence will not occur in the meantime. The people of Iraq are not like Amerikans–well-fed, with good clothing and a roof over their heads and expecting their politicians to entertain them a la Mark Spitzer. The people of Iraq have much more serious questions on their mind, including the status of the Palestinians.






Putting aside MIM Lite’s disappointments with the Western communist movement and its failed united front with the Third World, MIM Lite should acknowledge being part of an impressive domestic united front. It’s not that we have failed to notice.

There is a substantial libertarian impulse in the united $tates, but most of the time it fails to overcome its obstacles. For historical reasons MIM became inserted into a very unusual united front. We can see the people dug in in the trenches with us. Some of the people at the heavier pieces of artillery are going so far as to dare the enemy to attack.

In 2008, even the astrological patriotic organization copied others on how to dig in beside us. The present writer is still not sure the astrologists knew what they were copying. Also digging in with us were some writers at a patriotic youth organization that MIM Lite usually criticizes for its pretensions. There has been a widespread recognition that a certain kind of attack should not go down. Many had the sense to think of the larger implications of what would happen if MIM ended up flushed down the toilet in a certain manner. Usually the question would slip through the cracks, but this time circumstances and struggle intervened on the side of a solid united front like MIM Lite has not seen before.

Non-communists should probably ignore MIM Lite’s bile in connection to the communist movement. MIM Lite is indeed already tasting better.

What the non-communists know about MIM’s secrets is impressive. Most of the time we have suffered from declassifications that our enemies took advantage of. On the other hand, it is clear that some non-communists can fill in for MIM Lite in key struggles in a pinch. That is the extent of existing knowledge of MIM’s situation.

Good news at Alexa

March 27, 2008

A corporation dedicated to measuring web traffic, unceremoniously dumped the original MIM from political categorization at a very intimidating moment last year. We checked today and found the original MIM website back. Despite ceasing new work six weeks ago, the MIM website is ranked third in the world communist category, down from second place behind the Communist Party of China website before the closure.

The MIM website was taking in over 100,000 readers a month. We did not have much by way of recruiting to show for it, because we lack a critical mass of intellectuals trained and willing to lead with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

One of the obstinate labor aristocracy criticisms of MIM on the third cardinal principle is that income is not assets and Marxism is about control of the means of production, so therefore MIM’s analysis of so-called workers is wrong. This sort of argument is prevalent because of the ebb of the communist movement which has reduced the pool of possible leaders to draw from. These critics did not read what MIM actually said and also lack in many ways indicative of general communist problems today.

In the first place, in the real world, income and assets overlap. That is a factual matter and MIM Lite only regrets not stealing proprietary data when it had the chance to prove it in public. People experienced with social data would not really question this point, but our poorly attended communist movement does question it, as if the top 10% by income in the world were not mostly the same 10% holding the most assets.

The problem in our ranks is especially disconcerting because the leading section of imperialism, the finance capitalists know better. For the finance capitalists, income and assets are converted into each other all the time. Plebians can think about putting money in a certificate of deposit in a bank and obtaining an interest rate. If a capitalist puts $1 million in the bank certificate and the interest rate is 5% and inflation is 0%, then the capitalist receives $50,000 income a year for that certificate of deposit.

The finance capitalists have gone a step further, because they get used to forgetting about the initial $1 million and simply evaluating how much income comes in each year and figuring out what it would take to boost that income. So a typical business student learns concepts such as “present value,” while our would-be communists learn how to say, “the workers should have overthrown the Stalinists and instituted free pizza and beer.”

Here is an example from the Wikipedia about what business students might learn.

“Present value is the value on a given date of a future payment or series of future payments, discounted to reflect the time value of money and other factors such as investment risk. Present value calculations are widely used in business and economics to provide a means to compare cash flows at different times on a meaningful ‘like to like’ basis.”

That could be a difficult web page to read. However, if one can guarantee an income now and into the future, say $X payment every month for Y years, that figure can be converted into an asset a finance capitalist would be willing to exchange for right now. That figure is not $X times 12 times Y, but there is some figure such that a finance capitalist would be willing to exchange an asset now in order to obtain the steady income later. In other words, income flows are assets already in the minds of the finance capitalists.

MIM’s philistine critics dogmatically repeated something they read somewhere about how a worker making double what another worker makes might still be exploited, which is true. One worker could earn subsistence wages while another earns less than subsistence. A subsistence worker “eats” his income and would have nothing leftover to provide guaranteed income to anyone else.

Yet in the u.$. case, what we are usually handling is income above and beyond the means of subsistence–luxury goods and means of production. Year after year, the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie enjoys a living standard above the means of subsistence and thus it is meaningful to covert its income into assets for calculation sake. In the finance capitalist’s world, whether those with income convert their income to assets in an actual market or not may be irrelevant. For proletarian theoretical purposes, we can also deduce that a steady flow of income IMPLIES social access to capital and can be calculated per business school procedures, the likes of which Wikipedia explains.

By looking at the income or cash flow of the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie historically or into the future, we can, if we have to, calculate its implied assets. We can even do so after we subtract out income that really goes to subsistence. The remainder will be capital–the appropriation of labor from other countries’ labor. Sheer luxury consumption funded by collecting interest on a $1 million certificate of deposit and luxury consumption by the Amerikan population generally are the same thing in terms of the studies suggested by the labor theory of value.

MIM’s critics who simply make up their economic analyses in order to obtain 51% of voters–most likely for the Democratic Party or Labour in England–are bourgeois democrats. They are political analysts with no anchor in Marxist political economy.

Those who make up their economic analyses in order to flatter 90% of a country such as the united $tates are bourgeois populists.

Those who like Marx uphold the labor theory of value look at the cost of subsistence, luxury consumption and matters such as total profits. Marxist scientists will perform the calculations necessary to learn how much exploitation is happening or not happening. Marxism has nothing to do with bourgeois democratic or bourgeois populist political formulas unless capitalism has not fully established itself and the bourgeoisie is playing a progressive role.


March 26, 2008

There is a five page posting in a patriotic youth group on the Internet about apologizing to MIM. The responses will serve as excellent material for history. They demonstrate exactly how far out to lunch the left-wing of parasitism is and has been for several years. There is no prophylaxis at work, while even MIM Lite accepts that it is impossible to keep everyone in a patriotic youth group informed. The point is that protective concepts have to be formed and applied to keep the unconscious from anti-communism. In contrast, Michelle Malkin at least gives reasons for her attacks.
Now we have McCarthyism debated by Clinton and Obama camps: “‘I think given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor,’ Clinton said in a news conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.”(1) Hillary Clinton said this in connection to Obama’s pastor Wright. In saying that one cannot choose family but one can choose one’s pastor, Clinton echoes Michelle Malkin, who said it before her.
Bill Clinton kicked off a discussion of McCarthyism by indirectly questioning Obama’s patriotism. “Mr. Clinton, in a speech to voters on Friday in North Carolina, said ‘it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.'”(2) A retired Air Force general replied for Obama: “‘I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors,’ General McPeak said, ‘so I’ve had enough of it.'”(2) McPeak has probably done his share of travelling the world with the Air Force. Now we have a passport scandal in the news as well.(3) There are those who point out that Joe McCarthy was building his party and really believed in what he was doing. Bill Clinton is attacking Obama and revealing cynicism with his McCarthyism. CNN is calling the situation a discussion of “21st century McCarthyism.”
Especially now that there has been an all-volunteer military for over a generation, Amerikans can consider a Jeffersonian approach to patriotism. In that case, patriotism is just making sacrifices to engage in the public affairs of one’s country. Such a definition does not prejudge whether one should be in the minority or majority and nor does it hold that patriotism requires a willingness to die to kill people in other countries.In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama points to a survey that showed that 66% of Amerikans believed that Saddam Hussein had a direct role in 9/11. The fatuous left-wing of parasitism is inclined to believe that such results are on account of poverty’s leading to a lack of political education. MIM believes the opposite that the situation stems from economic well-being which leads to carefree existence but also an occasional willingness to cover for one’s leaders and to invent vicious reasons covering for their actions–a whiteness solidarity.
Unlike Obama, we at MIM do not love the 66%. Of course, the mentally retarded should be excused, but taking such an approach to the 66% is unnecessarily elitist in its own way. Such a love of country is not love in our book, just condescension. The Amerikans knew they might be just covering for Bush in coming up with justifications to start the Iraq War. It is only now that they see the results–after the fact–that we see polls running in other directions. So if loving the 66% is a requirement of patriotism, MIM is not patriotic. We have seen evidence time and time again that the majority can be consciously and unlovably vicious. If one would not love a boyfriend or girlfriend who made up stories to carry out mass murder, then one should not love the 66% who made up stories about Saddam Hussein.The fact is that there was no one with any discernment in the patriotic youth group spreading private information about MIM over a period of many years. It readily sided with the imperialist state against MIM again and again and ended up comparing unfavorably with many in the state itself not 100% enthralled with either Clinton or Bush, especially once they discovered that neither Clinton nor Bush could 100% protect them.On a related note, a “counterterrorism blog” has already compared the McCarthyism situation to Watergate. The blogger said that Deep Throat should have appealed to the “Left” for help. Deep Throat was a source in the Watergate stories that brought down Nixon. The counterterrorism blog says that once FBI leaders realized they were on questionable legal ground, they started playing both sides–Nixon’s and that of his opponents.This is unfortunately a point well beyond our would-be “Left.” There would not be five people anywhere who would understand it in the activist groups. Moreover, when Putin or his underlings talk about “counterterrorism cooperation” and “continuity” there is no one here outside the state to understand what he is talking about. We would tell our counterterrorism blogger that there is nothing to worry about because there is no “Left.” What there is is a bunch of people unable to reason independently from the state, unable to stand by themselves and unable to contribute anything except regurgitation of the state–except with their own racist pornographic modifications and axes to grind thrown in. With a would-be “Left” easily bought off with trinkets, there is only Deep Throat, nothing else. It were as if there did not have to be a Democratic Party office to break into in Watergate.To obtain an apology from MIM’s Internet critics would be pointless, because the same thing would happen again, if not to MIM, then to future communists. A meaningful apology would have to come with a policy against using the good ole’ boys’ network, and that is not going to happen in a white nationalist Internet organization. Clinton may be the one offering the theory right now, but patriotic youth groups will be delivering the practice as they have in the last several years.The accusations levelled over years by leaders of the patriotic youth association against MIM stem from myopic pragmatism. The hope is to hurl enough charges of an uninvestigated nature that some stick. If sufficiently embarrassed, the pragmatists then apologize but only for an individual instance. To do otherwise would require a method in
one’s madness and that is not possible for the pragmatist Liberals. The inability to reason from ideological principle and the inability to put facts in scientific categories are the same underlying problem. One unable to reason from ideological principle is also unable to see the point of scientific endeavor. For pre-scientific people there is only the case-by-case approach.

Both the patriotic youth group and the astrological patriotic
association would have been better off following MIM orders. They have ended up as crude tools of Bush and Clinton. That’s a tough concept to swallow with Leninism so unpopular in the imperialist countries. On the other hand, it will also be tough to swallow how little evidence there is for a “Left” in the imperialist countries if certain MIM struggles are examined carefully.

It is imperative to dispense with ultra-democratic and pseudo-
anarchist ideas that the leaders are abusing followers even before the
leaders have state power. Quite the contrary, the “live wires” always
attract a disproportionate response from the state. Lenin got that
right and the bourgeois Liberalism masquerading as some kind of
radicalism, whether anarchist, ultra-democratic or other exotic “ism”
got it wrong. Getting it wrong is not just academic but leads directly
to counterrevolutionary activity. If the patriotic youth group had any
integrity, it would admit that. The lack of ability to discuss that
point proves again why MIM’s emphasis on quality and raising the bar
is correct. It is unfortunate that Lenin is correct, but he is correct.
If he were not correct, the anarchists and ultra-left would have already
mobilized the “masses” to rebuff the new Watergate and McCarthyism. Their lack of accurate understanding of the strategic balance of forces ends up delivering youth to militant anti-communist tendencies.

Unfavorable comparisons between a would-be “Left” and Deep Throats arise because MIM’s third cardinal principle is correct in spectacular fashion. What would be a “Left” is really just a pornographic transmission belt for the imperialist state.

4. “Of Telecoms, and “Twisting Slowly, Slowly in the Wind”: Watergate Reprised,” By Jeffrey Breinholt,

The first paragraph of this article is factually false, because FISA does spell out exactly that authority for spying on Amerikans does not exist elsewhere. However, the article is mostly about analogies to Watergate in the current day and is thus useful.

[I apologize for the formatting problems in this article over the last few days, problems which seem to change without my doing anything. MIM Lite is unfamiliar with formatting at this time, but we will get up to speed eventually.]

Re-opening a purge case

March 25, 2008

I have it from two sources that I want to believe that MIM overstated its case against a liaison MIM purged. Hence, I will restate the case leaving out the false parts.

1) The comrade refused a particular assignment which she knew was grounds for purging, so she wanted to be purged on some level and in refusing the task specifically said she did “not trust” the leadership.

2) The comrade was suspected of planning a quick and unauthorized departure from her cell anyway.

3) Soon after the purge, MIM learned that she had provided false identification to the party and never corrected it over years.

4) We suspect but would have difficulty proving in an absolutely clear way that she released a unique piece of information about the party created for her benefit.

As one can imagine, point 3 led to false charges against the liaison.

Scuttlebutt received back says that the leadership had “persynal” reasons to placate another comrade in conflict with the liaison, and thus the purge. This has to do with the general lack of method among Amerikans in their thinking, because they prefer pragmatist empiricism to method. The easier course would have been to keep the comrade around–less boil, bubble, toil and trouble–but then the same variations of Liberal wags would have said MIM did that also for persynal reasons of a more classic sort. So no matter what was done, purge or not purge, we can be sure that the pragmatist empiricists would have generated bullshit psychological reasons for why it happened.

That’s why it is important to form policy based on theory and a general factual knowledge of populations and stick to policy. People who always do after the fact (post-hoc) justification on an individual basis are absolutely the worst. In MIM’s experience, thanks to the influence of pseudo-anarchism, ultra-democracy and bourgeois Liberalism there is no where in the united $tates a leadership capable of doing that much–formulating policy in a scientific fashion.

In point of post-hoc, psychological fact, the comrade in conflict with the liaison provided a relative defense of the liaison. However, when one is so pseudo-anarchist by habit that one provides false information to the party, one cannot expect not to be highly suspected.

That said, in the overall picture, the liaison case is absolutely one of the bright spots if reports are true, despite a total lack of Leninism. Nonetheless, we claim credit for having made the right decision.

“Bad-jacketing” someone not in an armed struggle who has so many strikes against her otherwise is a sort of overkill concern. In this case, when she was purged, the “colossal toilet bowl” had already filled with water and flushed once completely. The liaison was not aware of that fact, but “trust” was going to have to be in infinite supply. So we have not just a post-hoc individualist justification for the purge, but also another policy concern specific to the struggles of that time and Leninism generally.

The comrade in question did display a nagging sense that she was wrong and that the party needed greater help. And as we say, if reports are true, then she was truly a relative bright spot compared with other things that happened in the MIM picture. For us, that is a vindication of the purge; although, it would be interesting to hear her side of it. There was no intermediate stage possible where say people learn to trust each other under fire at the barricades or in a trade union march sniped on by police. Hence, purge was the right decision.

Your concerns

March 23, 2008

There have been many expressions of concern about the present writer persynally.

Earlier this year, I received an important bit of persynal information but in a maximally Spectacle-laden context. It was totally unnecessary for that transfer of information to occur that way and even more importantly, the usual culprits are responsible for supporting to the hilt what was irresponsible about it over years of time. Readers cannot expect me to be happy about that or shrug it off.

On the other hand, there is a sense of shame that despite accomplishments in the last two years, this matter seems to weigh more heavily than more important matters. Comrades’ sense of well-being should be more closely tied to that of the international proletariat overall and I take blame on this score.

I often recall this picture and the reports of Iraqis defending their country being slaughtered by well-armed Amerikans. In military terms, even if a comrade has been shot in the leg, she should still fight on. Likewise, this MIM Lite comrade is on the offensive and has important things to do in 2008 and our readers should rest assured that I know it.

Regarding suggestions that the comrade seek psychological counselling, psychologists have a history of spying on communists, including in private sessions. In fact, the incident of concern also involved a psychologist and social worker who broke the policies of her organization to deal with MIM through a white nationalist means.

Some have wondered why I do not start a new business or job. This is not uncomplicated to do at this moment.

Regarding the search for a significant other, I have been flabbergasted by the help on this score. A few years ago, a friend tried to have me use un-pc means of getting into an affair. However, what is right to do is all relative to context and had our roles been reversed, I would have done the same.

In the last two years, I have encountered many attractive people who know my dirty secrets and find me. I have meant no offense or rejection of anyone. What is right to do is not all that clear-cut.

I do not need counselling, but anyone who has visited with me before is welcome to visit again and socialize.

Christmas comes early: ‘Ho, ‘ho, ‘ho

MIM Lite has a sense of humor. There is something deliciously funny about “Spitzer girl”‘s immediate fame and fortune including the loss of some fortune when it turned out that she had already posed nude in a “Girls Gone Wild” video.(1) Brainwashed here, we get the humor the same way we pick up on countless drug jokes while not partaking in drugs. However, for MIM Lite, the humor is subtle, not overriding or an endpoint. For those thinking “bang someone famous, create a scandal and then cash in,” the question is whether one has enough sense not to think that sex really is business, even if “that’s the way it is” right now. A good reference point is going into denial on the Western ‘ho question while going out of the way to support liberation of Iranian or Afghan wimmin while sitting in the West. A Phyllis Chesler will pass on the ‘ho question while agitating on oppression of Islamic wimmin.


No Taliban ever gave a Heather Mills $48 million.


Hamas is not to blame for Jessica Hahn’s fortune.


Monica Lewinksy is not an Iranian TV host.(2)

It were as if people assumed that the prostitute Ashley Dupre’s (“Spitzer girl’s”) five minutes of fame have no impact on anything. There is no thought that with such as a daily occurrence in the United $tates, all social relations are affected. No one wonders if females can separate sex and business. That’s only for fuddy-duddy theoreticians at MIM Lite.

Amerikans are funny could be an OK conclusion by MIM Lite, but unfortunately, it does not stop there, because Amerikans had to go and be righteous about it. As of March 22 2008, there are 85 links at Google News for “International Women’s Day” and “Afghanistan.” In the first ten, four are from the U.$. Government, including two military publications. Another is Fox News. They found echo in other publications falsely claiming Marxism. White nationalist unity says that not only is “Spitzer girl” delicious fun, but also Amerikans should go impose that lifestyle on Afghanistan.

What ends up happening is simple Amerikkkan patriotism in the name of feminism. No one pointed out the ‘ho question on International Wimmin’s Day. That would hurt people’s feelings. Pussy-whipped, mother-whipped and cult-of-Mary-influenced men cannot dare to criticize even within alleged Marxist internationalism. It’s not surprising, because if Heather Mills is worth $8 million a year, we cannot expect Western men to come up with an ideology other than blind worship of their own porno-ized females.


Obama’s race speech

March 19, 2008

Only 8% of the public approves of Barack Obama’s pastor,(1) Jeremiah Wright, who has made some remarks in favor of the oppressed and exploited globally. Wright has at least on occasion taken strong stands against racism and chauvinism, stands that Obama has now condemned in a speech on race.

Obama’s speech is an excellent marker for all political activists inside U.$. borders. After all the analysis and theoretical argument, in the end, it comes down to that Obama cannot win with 8%. As a result, all of Obama’s arguments match almost to a “t” the arguments of the left-wing of parasitism opposing MIM over 25 years.

Former Clinton consultant Dick Morris hit the nail on the head: “Because he’s a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. . . . Americans will gradually realize that Obama stuck by Wright as part of a need to get ahead. They will chalk up to pragmatism why he was so close to such a preacher. As they come to realize that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright but used him to get started, they will be more forgiving.”(2)

MIM Lite appreciates this statement from Morris very much, because it explains to the international proletariat the political reality that is only the expression of class reality in the united $tates. Stand with the oppressed and international proletariat like Wright and obtain 8% support. To win an election, one must ally with another 43 percentage points somewhere, and that is why Obama took up the outlook of the Black petty-bourgeoisie and also the white petty-bourgeoisie in opposition to Wright. Obama has to use the 8% to accomplish the goals of Amerikan exploiters. The 8% is actually much more in line with international public opinion, but that won’t win an election and so the left-wing of parasitism does the Obama two-step.

72% disapprove of Pastor Wright. Realistically 40 of those 72 percentage points are probably going to vote for McCain no matter what. So the only question is whether the other 32 percentage points decide to prioritize negative feelings about Wright. They will have to decide on Obama as a package deal.

By adopting the outlook of the Black petty-bourgeoisie, Obama can take up Pollyanish patriotism. By increased exploitation of the rest of the world, the united $tates did improve the position of the Black petty-bourgeoisie, which even resents the Black lumpen at times.

MIM Lite has a different outlook. For us, U.$. imperialism IS dynamic– dynamically moribund, dynamically decadent and dynamically militarist. We can see a ten-fold increase in Black imprisonment while we fantasize about Black petty-bourgeois progress since Jim Crow days. Even better, the united $tates has gone from using axes and muskets to murder indigenous people to using nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945. That is dynamic, not static.

The other road is Obama’s. The left-wing of parasitism should read his speech carefully and answer honestly why we need their pseudo-Marxism when we already have Democrats. It takes no great Marxist science to know that 8% cannot win an election. On the other hand, Gore needed every vote in 2000 and Obama has to deliver something to that 8% also. However, we do not need Marxist internationalism to do that. All it takes is the Democratic Party–no need for the other organizations claiming Marxism.