Posts Tagged ‘John Gibson killed by an IED in the War on Christmas’

For the very special Maoist in your life:

“Maoart paintings integrate with virtuosity real people’s faces into faithfully reproduced propaganda posters. Based on a photograph provided by you and a poster of your choice, an artist renders you as a socialist hero.”

Seriously, check it out.  For 200 bucks, you pick a model poster and send in a headshot from a similar angle as your intended character.  Within three weeks, the artists will paint you a faithful revision of the original starring you as the proletarian hero.  The website notes that the paintings are done by “freelance professional Chinese artists selected for their portrait skills and their ability to reproduce the propaganda poster styles,” adding that they “do not commission “painting factories” and their salaried artists.”  Here are some samples of regular ol’ white folk rendered as Chinese Communist icons:

It’s all inclusive: Chinese-language slogans, industrial or agrarian background, etc.  But if it’s out of your proletarian price range, consider a simple movie or DVD.  Especially one reviewed by the Maoist International Movement (MIM).  They’re very sweet on Harry Potter…

“Harry Potter: The Prisoner of Azkaban” is almost the best we can expect from bourgeois liberalism’s films for children. It’s pointedly anti-fascist–giving the boot to eugenics in the opening scene, where Aunt Marge talks about the parents of Harry Potter in a disparaging way as reflecting on Harry…

…and give a limited endorsement to Star Wars:

“There was not much to complain about politically in the first installments of “Star Wars,” which was both anti-fascist and anti-imperialist. The role of Black characters and the “Red Guard” in the key battles did not go unnoticed at MIM. In this movie, we learn that democracy is the preferred government of the “good guys” of the Republic.  Although the characters’ endorsement of democracy is rather shallow like the current understanding of democracy in the united $tates, the movie itself offers slightly more analysis of democracy.”

(Yes, that’s “united $tates.” stet.)

Maoists, however, utterly hated Spider Man 2:

“There is a lot of confusing shit going on in this movie. By the NYSDCJS and NYPD’s own figures(1), grand larceny, grand larceny auto, and murder, will be about 20% of reported crimes in New York City in 2004, and the majority of these reports will not be due to the actions of the illegal bourgeois Mafia, who metaphorically figure prominently in the adventures of such comic action heroes as Spider-Man and Batman. MIM has said that “Spider-Man: The Motion Picture” (2002) has some redeeming value on the basis of its depiction of asexuality, but it cannot ignore the fact that “Spider-Man’s” Amerikan flag-waving fans are cheering for something that in the real world would be called “capitalist police repression.”

This is an important point. Communists do not support pig repression, much less the pig-wanna- be, labor-aristocrat vigilantes who think themselves heroes when they are gunning down the Third World proletariat at the Mexico-united $tates border, or the self-styled “community” pigs who “police” Asian, Black and Latino youth street organizations. If the bourgeoisie want to sic their thugs on each other, MIM would not get in the middle of this fight, but it does not support pig repression in the abstract when Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) has his knee-jerk reaction every time he hears a police siren. If Spider-Man had any (spider-) “sense” at all, he would fight the police repression under which gold miners work in Azania and China to produce the gold coins stored in the vault of the bank that is robbed in the movie.”

Want more?  MIM has literally hundreds of these.  So this holiday season, “Smelt a lot of good steel and accelerate socialist construction.

*Preemptive note to rightist trolls:  None of the above represents an endorsement of Maoism.

Read Full Post »

The New York Post reports on George and Laura’s White House Hanukkah invitations:

“The message reads that the couple “requests the pleasure of your company at a Hanukkah reception,” written beneath an image of a Clydesdale horse hauling a Christmas fir along the snow-dappled drive to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”

No fuckin way.  They can’t be that stupid.

Yes.  Yes they are.

Read Full Post »

Sometimes you read an opinion piece so incredible, so ludicrous, that you just have to spend the next 10 minutes watching Pac Man in a college library to get your head back on straight.  I’m not talking about Tom Friedman hawking his latest catchphrase, nor some dead-ender propping up an ideology.  I’m talking about monkeys throwing crap at the wall.  I’m talking about Deputy Editor Daniel Henninger’s effort in the Wall Street Journal:

“This year we celebrate the desacralized “holidays” amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin — fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed.  People wonder, What happened? One man’s theory: A nation whose people can’t say “Merry Christmas” is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.”


“One had better explain that.”

The author knows he’s spinning towards Munchkin Land, but continues by walking us through some boilerplate financial crisis narrative.  And then:

“What really went missing through the subprime mortgage years were the three Rs: responsibility, restraint and remorse. They are the ballast that stabilizes two better-known Rs from the world of free markets: risk and reward.  Responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments. Remorse is a product of conscience. None of these grow on trees. Each must be learned, taught, passed down. And so we come back to the disappearance of “Merry Christmas.”

Apparantly, the war on Christmas is over and we won.  Our wanton sacking of Christmas destroyed the strict moral code that had previously dominated the world of finance.  With Christmas left prostrate, financiers and borrowers alike devolved into a post-apocalyptic terror-sex orgy of reckless capitalistic activity.  It wasn’t deregulation, Henninger argues, nor a structural problem with a system that encouraged people to overvalue worthless paper.  The problem was, we lost our virtue.

Strangely, this only happened just now.  Not the Gordon Gecko ethics that led to the 1989 savings & loan crisis; nor the salacious profligacy of the Clinton period; nor the first seven years of Bush’s YOYO economics.  All that was well and moral so long as we had Christmas.  Tragically, something gave in September of 2008.  Henninger doesn’t explain the trigger: Was Santa lanced by a secularist Janissary?  Did Dobson surrender his credentials to Rochambeau at Yorktown?  How could the strong moral fiber of early 21st century America have folded so quickly?

“Northerners and atheists who vilify Southern evangelicals are throwing out nurturers of useful virtue with the bathwater of obnoxious political opinions.”

That explains it! The legions of Southern evangelical bankers, who built this country’s wealth on a sound moral platform, suddenly disappeared in the autumn of 2008, shifting control of the economy from Biloxi seminary students to secularist northerners.  The nomination of a not-baptized, not-born again Republican wiped out the last systemic protection of our heretofore Godly financial system.  Or something.

I have a guess at Henninger’s intentions.  He’s trying to set up Kathleen Parker and Jonah Goldberg on a blind date.  (No touching, children!)  The goal is to reconcile the God Squad with the millionaire branch of the party.  Henninger hopes that blaming secularism for the financial collapse will help redirect the increasingly vicious self-flagellation of the Republican Party towards a common enemy of those greedy, Godless northerners.  (The regionalism is a nice little touch.)  Whither Madame Rudy?

Moral failure is a hot explanation for the financial crisis.  Lefty minister Jim Wallis makes a similar case here.  It may be true that a lack of ethics contributed to the problem.  However, anyone who thinks that the down-home decency of Southern evangelicals was the glue holding the system together can please drop me an email because I’ve got this bridge for sale.  This effort to spin fact-free religious moralism into a party building exercise is one part Newt Gingrich and one part Elmer Gantry.


Read Full Post »

The American Family Association is a Christianist 501(c)(3), Sobieski’s winged hussars in the War on Christmas. They’ve boycotted 7-Eleven for selling porn, Sears for advertising on Logo, and, in perhaps their greatest victory, the American Girl doll company for supporting a “pro-lesbian, pro-abortion” charity. They also sell buttons and other Jesusy tchotchkes, like this year’s light-up cross for your yard:

Merry Birmingham, neighbors!

Merry Birmingham, neighbors!

Because nothing says KKKristmas like a burning cross.

Read Full Post »

Remember the atheist bus?  (I know we’re supposed to call ourselves “humanists” these days, but that implies a halfway decent opinion of humanity…)  The bus is now stateside:

WASHINGTON (AP) — You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.

Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington buses starting next week and running through December.

The American Humanist Association is dropping $40,000 to get the message out in time for Christmas.  According to a spokesman:  “Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

This / being / America, there’s backlash.  (Full disclosure: A relative of mine copy-edited Gibson’s ridiculous War on Christmas book.  She tells me he misquoted the first amendment.  Hint: it’s one damn sentence.)  The American Family Association called the ad “stupid,” and the Dean of the Liberty University Law School called it “insulting.”

The ads are running on the inside of buses…

…and on the ouside:

So keep an eye out for the atheist bus this holiday season.  And check out this article by the only (openly) atheist Congressman, California’s controversial Pete Stark.

Read Full Post »