‘Lemmygrad’s resident expert on fascism’ — GrainEater, 2024

The political desperadoes and ignoramuses, who say they would “Rather be Dead than Red”, should be told that no one will stop them from committing suicide, but they have no right to provoke a third world war.’ — Morris Kominsky, 1970

  • 3.26K Posts
  • 2.47K Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 27th, 2019

help-circle











  • Many adults cling to Christianity because it can function as a crude coping mechanism in an uncaring society: the appeal of a higher power caring for someone is easy to see, and religious institutions in general can be convenient sources of community, especially for somebody trapped in an antisocial culture like the United States of America. I am irreligious yet I feel more comfortable revisiting a Presbertyrian church than approaching my own neighbors.

    Liberation theology is not a desperate attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. For some Abrahamists, it simply feels natural or logical to them. I am willing to agree that theology of any sort is unnecessary for emacipating oneself, but it is—at best—a waste of time trying to convince somebody to discard it since they are already on our side and their spiritual beliefs are harmless. If their beliefs remain a big deal to you, though, then you need to understand that they are symptomatic and that addressing them directly would be the wrong approach to take.

    Yes, the Church has frequently been complicit in colonialism. Yes, aggressive proselytization is always wrong. Nevertheless, we also need to acknowledge that many lower‐class Christians have rebelled against their oppressors despite mainstream Church teachings, and that they are reluctant to let go of their beliefs since they are convenient sources of comfort, not necessarily because they are worried about retaliation. Religion is a double‐edged sword. The ruling class has used it as an instrument of oppression, but that does not mean that it has never backfired either.













  • [Transcript]

    In January 1923, the young journalist Ernest Hemingway covered the Lausanne Conference for the Toronto Daily Star. His first encounter with Mussolini left him distinctly unimpressed. Ushered into a room along with other journalists, Hemingway found the Premier so deeply absorbed in a book that he did not bother to look up. Curious, Hemingway “tiptoed over behind him to see what the book was he was reading with such avid interest. It was a French–English dictionary—held upside down.”¹










  • Control of fertility is a precondition of women’s enjoying equal opportunities with men. Even if there are other constraints — lack of money or education, for example — effective birth control liberates them from the tyranny of unpredictable pregnancy. In invading the private sphere, [the Third Reich] tried to deny women self‐determination and choice by restricting access to birth control for ‘valuable’ women and by imposing birth control on the ‘worthless’.

    While men were undoubtedly affected by these policies, Bock is right in saying that women were particular targets of both pronatalist and antinatalist […] policy because of their biological rôle as childbearers.

    […]

    For the Fascists], abortion among the ‘valuable’ was a crime, and in 1933 the paragraphs of the Criminal Code which had been repealed in 1926 were reinstated in more Draconian form, punishing with a severe prison term both the woman undergoing an abortion and anyone assisting her. Nevertheless, a few abortions were permitted in the Third Reich where the life of a ‘valuable’ mother was at risk from a continuing pregnancy.

    But most birth control advice centres were closed down in 1933 along with the political parties which sponsored them: the ‘Law for the Protection of the People and the State’ (28 February 1933) was invoked to close down ‘Marxist’ birth control centres (Noakes/Pridham: 1983: 142). Some survived for a time, precariously and in great secrecy.

    (Source.)



  • One of the propaganda lies of the wealthy physicians who control the American Medical Association was neatly exposed by Congressman Andrew Biemiller of Wisconsin on July 13, 1950 (Congressional Record, page 10117):

    There is the slander campaign against national‐health insurance which calls it socialized medicine despite the fact that the AMA well knows it is not socialized medicine at all. Part of this campaign is the attempt to use the completely discredited alleged quotation from Lenin that “socialized medicine is the keystone of the arch of the Socialist state.” The AMA has been called upon to either document or stop using that quotation, many, many times. Its officials have admitted that the quotation cannot be documented. Experts at both the Library of Congress and the University of Chicago have declared there is no such statement in the known works of Lenin. Yet the quotation continues to be used in published material, in public speeches, and in political assaults. The use of such falsehoods is typical of the AMA approach to issues of public health, and they can no longer be defended on the lame grounds of ignorance of the truth. They are willful perversions of the truth. (Italics are mine.—M.K.)

    Isn’t there something monstrous about the idea that men of power and wealth will try to block much‐needed health insurance for the poor by dangling the scarecrow of a phoney Lenin quotation? And even if Lenin had said this, what would be its relevance forty or forty‐five years later? Must millions of Americans be barred forever from adequate medical care because of something Lenin wrote? How crazy can we become?

    Morris Kominsky, 1970