|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See also our article before the election talking
about whites voting for Bu$h and war
The nature of the Bu$h victory demonstrates some very clear points about the united $tates. Our candidate "none of the above" has to make a concession speech for the nation commonly known as whites in the united $tates; even though our candidate won over 50 million votes from among registered voters who number 173.6 million.(1) 57% of whites voted for Bu$h. More than 89% of Blacks, 55% of Hispanics and 59% of Asians voted against Bush and large numbers stayed home with us.(2)
Something that MIM has never done is claim that it has majority support in Amerika. If we were like former president Richard Nixon, we would say we are the "silent majority," because generally the majority does not vote except in presidential elections and candidates like Bu$h brag about winning with 48% of 55% of the population voting as in 2000 or maybe something like 51% of 59% this time.
Something that this election reveals and we've said before, is that reactionary white politics does have reserves in Amerika. In 2002, there were just under 193 million people eligible to vote in the united $tates.(3) About another 18 million people the U.S. Census found but can't vote because they're not citizens. The imperialists must have really turned up their game to register 173.6 million and leaving only about 20 million not registered but eligible. It appears 50 million just registered in the last two years.
The smoking gun in our observation on the reactionary nature of Amerika is that voter turnout did increase from the year 2000. They're at 114 million up from 105 million in 2000, and not all the votes are counted yet, so we may get as high as 120 million.(4) Nonetheless, Bu$h won by a bigger margin than in 2000. So though our candidate "none of the above" won more votes than Bush total, we cannot infer from that that whites are a majority progressive. If we asked people to vote for any of their choices but forced them to vote, a large portion would still vote for Bu$h. Bush proved that he could eat into our candidate's support and combined with the Kerry war-mongering vote, even excluding some deluded youth and oppressed nationalities, our candidate "none of the above" clearly lost among the whites, so call this a concession speech.
If we assume our candidate received 100% of the non-citizens who can't vote (and that's not true, because some are definitely lackeys taken from other countries as rewards for serving as puppets), the Republicrats still beat us by approximately 119 million to 93 million.
What one might think is that new voters are voting with some delusion of changing the status quo. One might think that's why they bothered to register for the first time. That turns out to be true with over 60% of people who did not vote in 2000 voting for Kerry,(5) because Bu$h did politicize some people and caused others to compromise themselves to vote for Kerry. However, the new voter effect was not overwhelming, which means that we cannot put the "deluded" label on a large portion of the new voters. The new voters also came to the polls to vote against gay marriage and preserve the status quo. Meanwhile the repeat voters hardened and increased in their support for Bu$h, going for Bu$h 50% to 45% for Kerry according to NBC. Democrats who think getting people into the electoral horse race helps people politically obviously do not see that trend.
Voting for Bu$h in this election is a very clear action. The president and the media pounded home their message. Sometimes we Marxists find the exploited in a condition of "false consciousness," where the exploited ineptly pursue their own interests and simply do not know what is going on. That is not really the correct paradigm in this case when as many well-publicized wars are going on as the united $tates is involved in. We as Marxists cannot say simultaneously that the capitalist class is dominating the media and then also say that the whites do not know Bu$h is carrying out a war in Iraq. We have to let go one of those assertions. Paying for the wars and then voting for Bu$h, failing to organize demonstrations and sending children to war-- these are actions that have to be distinguished from the concept of mere consciousness, unless we are to fall into a Trotskyist trap making the entire goal one's mental state of political purity as opposed to action.
It is not just that false consciousness is blocking tens of millions from recognizing their vanguard party. Over 60 million people just took action for Bu$h, who is a very clearly defined political quantity.
The mark of the white nationalist "left" is that it denies that those who voted for Bu$h and all his wars are stabbing the oppressed nationalities in the back. The white nationalist "left" makes elaborate excuses for the whites of this country--all boiling down to a verbally crafted dreamstate carefully nurtured--as if everything were a matter of debate and not bombers, missiles, tanks and machine-guns.
At a more local level, Alabama whites also took action, with a majority voting to keep language in the Alabama constitution that requires segregation of schools and poll taxes historically used to keep Blacks from voting. The governors and ex-governors of Alabama told the crackers it was time for change, but the Christian Coalition said changing the constitution would raise taxes--a complete falsehood and the thinnest of disguises for racism. The Chrisitan Coalition action shows that it is not "moral values" holding together their political coalition, but in fact racism and a total lack of integrity.
Even if a recount shows that the Constitution should in fact remove the language, it won't change the fact that a majority of whites voted to keep segregation in the Alabama constitution. The same jack-ass Chief Justice of Alabama who lost his job for illegally putting a stone tablet with the 10 Commandments in the court opposed changing the Constitution in the name of the Christians.
"There were 688,927 votes against it, and 685,508 votes for it"(6) as we write this. It's also another reason why we have to be for a strong central government--dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations. Left to themselves, the Alabama whites would still be segregated in 2004, which is why the re-civilizing and de-parasitizing stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations is necessary for humyn harmony.
That's not all for Alabama. The crackers also elected a Confederate activist to be the Supreme Court justice. New judge Tom Parker hands out mini-Confederate flags and associates with the League of the South.(6)
Anyone who follows that and can't make a judgement on u.$. whites needs to take some Geritol and get a gonads implant. The white nationalist "left" (which includes many lackeys from among the oppressed nationalities) can make excuses for anything. What it is is adjustment to the powers-that-be, the cracker labor aristocracy/ imperialist alliance. Instead of hiding what happened in Alabama, the duty of the progressive forces is to make the whole world know the extent of the white attack.
While it is true that within u.$. borders the truth is in the minority, that is no reason not to hold out and allow the rest of the world to batter the crackers into their senses. On the global scale, they are a tiny minority. About 119 million voted for Bu$h or Kerry, but there are 6 billion people in this world. The overwhelming majority of the world hates Bu$h and the Amerikan wars and an increasing majority of the world is learning to hate Amerika outright--and that is what gives us for change in Amerika real hope. The election of Bush as opposed to Kerry will help to strip away global illusions about Amerikkka. For this we can even celebrate, because by raising the stakes and with a little luck for the international proletariat, whites may not get a second chance to back down into a Kerry-Clinton "equal opportunity exploitation" routine.
Of the 114 million voters counted so far, less than 1 million were for alternative parties. It's very hard to say anything good about 113 million voters for Bush and Kerry, who is a descendant of "Ivan the Terrible."(7) The voters we most want to cut some slack for are the first-time voters for Kerry, especially the youth voters. Youth went overwhelmingly for Kerry, at least 56% according to NBC exit polls. Even in Alabama, the majority of youth supported Kerry while 63% of the state went for Bu$h in the largest victory margin in Alabama presidential elections in 20 years.(8) The youth saw they didn't like the status quo and tried to change it. They need to draw a number of lessons on how severe the problem is in Amerika and not imagine that they can drop politics after pulling a lever every two years. At the same time, we want youth to see how public opinion has changed since Iraqis started fighting Amerikans. At first, 80% of whites supported the Iraq war.(9) That figure is the crucial figure on whites, their natural state given all the historical struggles prior to the Iraq war and that is about how much support among whites there is for any imperialist war that is a cake-walk, such as in invading the small island of Grenada in 1983 or occupying Haiti today. Now white support for the Iraq war is down to 58%,(10) thanks to the Arab people, and the Arab people are not done fighting yet. The point is that we for real change have important international support and the Amerikans themselves are just a small minority.
The Alabama and war issues are all connected together. Attitudes like these will not change without major defeats in war or the equivalent kind of disaster which Bu$h may just have in store. That is why watering down the truth in an attempt to kiss white butt will not work. Kissing white butt only emboldens whites to become even more crazy and confuses the people in our own camp. As Malcolm X pointed out, when someone has a knife in your back, it's not time for conciliatory words. Right now the Amerikan white has a knife in the international proletariat's back, but the oppressed nationalities will not have confidence in themselves unless they take an internationalist view. If they remember their homelands in Mexico, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, Africa, the Philippines etc., then the oppressed nationalities will have some perspective.
Our critics spend all their time worrying about what the white majority of Amerika is going to do. They're afraid MIM "alienates" whites, instead of worrying how whites may be deceiving the world's majority into letting them get away with their rampaging. First of all, an enemy cannot back down unless s/he is told s/he is enemy. So to expect a major change of political consciousness coming from the vegetarians, hippies, post-modernists and other neutered white nationalist leftists in their efforts to get to the hard-core crackers is not even pragmatic.
In the second place, Amerikkkans are already going all-out in war, borrowing money from the world to do it. The fact that they may initiate even more wars now with Bu$h's victory does not change the capacities of whites to fight very much. It's still a situation where Amerikkkans are the global minority going into debt. In fact, the Bu$h victory is going to tip more Europeans into the progressive camp. That is the objective situation and no election or white nationalist rally or gay-bashing can change that.
In other words, in looking at the two sides of conflict, the Amerikan troglodytes and the international proletariat, it is our camp that has much more potential to ramp up the fight. It is our side fooling around, often staring in disbelief at how bad Amerikans can be. MIM is here in North America and we're tellling you of the world the details: yes, it is that bad; believe it.
The danger is not that MIM is going to provoke these Amerikkkan whites into doing more damage. They're much closer to maxing out than we are.
Notes:
1. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10083337.htm?1c ;
The MIM campaign has much reason to doubt this figure, but it is cited in numerous bourgeois outlets, e.g.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5065804.html
and we certainly do not doubt that the Republicrats soundly defeated us in 2004.
2. USA Today 3November2004, web page graphic titled "exit polls" but with no separate url.
www.usatoday.com By the way, the Washington Post poll before the election predicted the 57% white vote
for Bu$h perfectly.
3. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/p20-552/tab02-1.pdf
4. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/index.html
5. New York Times article here:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/nation/10084740.htm
6. http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/109950086233420.xml&storylist=alabamanews ;
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/alabama.segregation/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137746,00.html for the bit on the League of the South
7. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5723115/
8. Alabama margin of victory historically here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10090262.htm?1c
9. The original Gallup press release has been removed from the Gallup web page, but it is still
cited all over the web including here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/01/MN170852.DTL
10. The 42% of whites now opposing the Iraq War is a figure available from Gallup in the paid section
of its web page.