Fuck the Taliban

Malala Yousufzai

In an act of complete faggotry, earlier this week members of the Taliban decided to chase down a school bus in Swat Valley, Pakistan; in search of a little girl who had committed an egregious sin - authoring a blog, which criticized said Taliban.

After chasing the bus down, the cowards proceeded to ask the little girls inside to identify Malala Yousufzai - and then opened fire, injuring two other girls also in the vehicle, while attempting to kill Malala.

They almost succeed in murdering Malala, as they strike the child in the neck with a bullet. She is rushed to the hospital, and luckily survives after the bullet is removed, though barely.

The Taliban issues the following statement after learning of Malala's survival:

"If she survives, she most certainly won't next time - We will most certainly kill her".

Every time you start to think those drone strikes are immoral, and should be internationally banned, something like this happens and reminds you that a drone strike aimed at these uneducated fucking cave hoppers would be a great fucking idea.

I understand fighting for beliefs, and I understand people have differences. As terrible as it is, war can be necessary. But shooting up a little girl on the way home from school? For writing a blog? Want to know where the line is drawn? 

Right here mother fuckers.

How about this, Taliban - Fuck you. 

Fuck you and your beliefs. Fuck your villages, fuck Osama, fuck the traitors in Afghanistan who betrayed the revolution.

Bunch of faggots with your faggoty prophets and your shitty little caves and RPG's. Faggots.

And I saw that mansion Osama was in. Nice fucking mansion, looked like a shit hole, and he didn't even have a fucking Blu-ray player - Place fucking sucked and I hope they did take a shit on his corpse before pissing on it. Proper burial my ass, fuck him and fuck you and proper burials.

With actions like this, you lose the right to a "proper war" and "proper burials". You should all be impaled and lined up around the city to remind people what happens when you commit these atrocities in the name of your faggot like beliefs.

And those dusty robes are fucking gay, so go fuck yourselves.

No one gives a shit if you don't think women should go to school. You people are fucking morons and you won't ever rule a significant country in this world. Bunch of faggoty religious zealots. 

They should all be hung, every last one of them. Or lined up in front of the firing squad. 

This news deserves a longer write up, and in all likely hood will get one. However, good luck to the child who was shot by these bitch ass mother fuckers. Hope she recovers and writes 1000 more articles calling out these fucking retards.

N K E - Israel & Supporters Disrespect Islam, But Still Get Upset When Anyone Disrespects Israel (N)

Friday, a federal judge ordered the Washington DC Metro to allow a pro-Israel ad to be posted throughout the transit system. Apparently, allow it quick, quicker than a dancing jew even, as these posters and signs have to be up by 5 PM Monday.

A Metro spokesman has said that they will comply with the order (of course), so up the ads will go.

WE'RE ASSHOLES

I am all for free speech, so off the get right I don't see an issue with the Judges decision - And even if I did not agree, as it is the law of the land, I'd imagine that they have the RIGHT to post this type of idiocy. I think more of the blame should be put on the Jewish who support these types of ads, and the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The AFDI in fact fought for these ads to go up. As I mentioned, their fight was basically for the freedom to put up this inflammatory nonsense.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the world getting up in arms when Mel Gibson calls someone a "kike" after getting plastered, but said world then barely shows a pulse of reaction when shit like this is thrown from the other side of the fence. And that is really the point of this article I am writing - Why the double standard? 

Now riddle me this, trash can - Why the fuck is it ok to put up this type of poster, but every time someone says "Hey, Israel should stop occupying Palestine" everyone is labeled anti-semites, or racist Nazi's?

If someone put up a poster saying "END ZIONISM, NUKE ISRAEL" in the middle of New York, there would be so much media outrage you would have to cut the TV off before the star of david shot out of it and hit you in the mouth. Why the outrage for one and not the other? 

If there is anything that is more annoying than a political christian, it is definitely the political jew. I am all for having the state of Israel, but acting like they have some god given divine right to a country is fairly outlandish. Everyone knows what happened - After world war two and the terrible atrocities of the Nazi regime, a bunch of europeans went to the middle east and basically stole land, then created the "state" of Israel. The holocaust was a terrible, terrible event, and I won't ever downplay that. But back to child education for the response here - two wrongs don't make a right. 

Does anyone have a god given right to land? Or is it a god given right to steal land? When do the god given rights end, and who is determining these rights? And who is god giving these rights too? Not the Palestinians, I guess. 

That is really what these posters are about. Defeat Jihad? Did they even bother to read the definition of Jihad?

The ad's are a stupid do-it-because-we-can play, and it is the same thing with putting a mosque in New York on top of the rubble that used to be the twin towers. Its fucking stupid, disrespectful, and everyone knows it is just going to piss other people off. Enough of the double standards. Stop getting mad about the NY mosque, but not about this. 

And yes, I am being anti-Israel in this article. And no matter what you assume, I have no ill will towards any jewish person, just because they believe in that religion, or they were born into it. I'm not anti-semitic just because you think I am "mean" or I say "mean stuff", and you like attacking Muslims as well as anyone who disagrees with Israel's terrible polices. 

The posters should come down, but they won't. Israeli supporters and the hard line Jewish will defend this type of shit, and bring up misrepresented historical facts and all kinds of nonsense. Don't bother to listen to them, do yourself a favor and stay informed, read a book.

At the very least we will still get some gratification from these posters one way or another in the coming weeks. I for one, can't wait to see photos of them after they have been defaced, and I'd assume that is just about guaranteed to happen, likely sooner than later.

Mitt Romney Cares About You

Oh he did it/said it, but if you act like it meant something else,  everything will probably turn out fine.

He cares. He said so after all. 

Though I am sure many of you have already heard, as it was obviously a big-fucking-deal piece of recent news, let's start at the beginning of Romney learning to "care" about you (and everyone else, apparently).

Though he now cares, Romney was in fact quoted as saying the following: 

"There are 47% who are with him (Obama), who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to car for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing. It's not my job to worry about these people - I'll never be able to convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives"

This was clearly an alarming dose of reality from a man who has a strong chance at winning the US presidential race - He basically told supporters he didn't give a rats ass about a good chunk of the population. Or maybe you.

(Because they won't vote for him anyways - Meanies).

Shockingly, much as the democrats make excuses for Obama breaking campaign promises, republicans made excuses of this golden egg of a speech excerpt. Others took it a step further, and just agreed with him.

I mean, really. I know the major US political parties are republicans and democrats, with some normal and some crazy people mashed up in between, but whether republican or democrat, can we at least get someone who doesn't openly admit, with vitriol mind you, that he doesn't care about half the population? (And if you read into it, probably more, as this was a good day, and he needs the votes).

Once the news came out (I.E. - he got caught being terrible/stupid), he stood by the comments. No apology. And we all knew he would not apologize anyways, because he told us in his autobiography. In fact that is what HE NAMED his autobiography. Mitt doesn't apologize. He isn't into that shit. Especially if the apology is supposed to be directed at someone who has less money than he does.

He apologizes... I mean he doesn't... I mean... Fuck it.

                                        

But remember. He cares now. Wait, he does?

Apparently.

As mentioned in one of my News for the Masses updates, in an apparent about-face, following the debate victory from the the night before - Romney apologized for saying earlier in the campaign that he didn't give a shit about 47% of the american people. He was, and I quote Mitt himself "completely wrong".

Mitt continued to elaborate:

"I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100% and that's been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100%. When I become president, it will be helping the 100%."

Well, there you have it, people of the United States. Even though the guy basically lied his ass off, and continues to lie, and get caught in lies, you now have the go ahead to vote him in. I mean, he said it. He cares about 100 fucking percent of people. 100 fucking percent. It gets no higher.

I'm pretty sure no one else on the planet cares about 100 percent of the people. I hate to take things so literally, but I like to take things this literally, if the opposition is going to take things like the 47% comment so un-fucking-literally, and continue to make excuses for this man. You take the low road, I'll get right down there with you - Fuck it.

Another lie in my book, to go on top of the other lies. And hey, this asshole even said he would not apologize. He was just playing, though.

And we aren't talking about a broken campaign promise. We are talking about covering his ass on a statement saying 47% of the people he is going to lead are worthless to him. Or something. I guess because they won't vote for him? Or maybe, you know what - Let's all be honest. Maybe he just doesn't really like the middle class and below. Maybe he does really think all poor people are pathetic.

Big deal?

Well maybe not. If you hate Obama, are die-hard republican, or really dislike paying taxes (but like roads and schools of course) you were going to vote for him in any case. If he said something this fucking stupid - Or if he didn't. Just like before the debate - Nothing has changed. 

We all know it's impossible to truly care for 100 percent of the people, but you know what, I'm taking it to literal. Wait though - Mitt isn't. He does care. He told you so. And if you're dumb, you might believe him.

Jimmy Hoffa - FBI Thinks They Found Him (Again).

Hoffa - Saying "Hello" to Robert Kennedy

37 years after the "mysterious" disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, a new lead has appeared. Apparently, some guy called the FBI and proceeded to tell them that some dead body was buried at some house; located in Michigan - During the same timeframe that Hoffa pulled his great disappearing act. 

Thanks for the amazing, in-depth information, informant A.


The FBI, during preliminary testing, has found anomalies under a concrete slab beneath the house, or driveway, (details are sketchy - surprise) and they have made plans to drill - to look for, well what else, a dead body. 

Not much is known about the informant, as I would imagine being anonymous is important in matters like these. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone whom cares enough to kill the informant is still alive today, or still willing to murder over the location Jimmy Hoffa's dead body. It was damn near 40 years ago, after all.

Jimmy Hoffa

Jimmy Hoffa was a friend of the masses, and a champion of organized labor, in particular the trucking industry. Unfortunately, his disappearance gets more attention than his actions and life, which is most likely the true pity here.

Hoffa rose at a time when someone like himself was needed as a leader in the organized labor movement. Though not as powerful these days in any industry, (thanks to not having leaders like Jimmy Hoffa) unions where on the way to - or at their peak during Hoffa's tenure, who lead the Teamsters for a short time but was involved with the labor movement for several years, both before and after his time as boss.

Charismatic, intelligent, but still rough around the edges, Hoffa battled the pretty boys of the 60's & 70's - The Kennedy's. From the 1960's onward, he dealt with endless investigations and hearings as Robert Kennedy seemingly had a personal vendetta against him. Some people have a different stance, but to hell with all the nonsense, it's compatible to JFK's battle with Castro, and I was never much a fan of the Kennedy's to begin with - So I'm good with the vendetta stance.

Eventually, Hoffa was charged with taking money from the union's $300 Pension Fund, found guilty and sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was pardoned by Nixon in 1971, but with conditions; one being that he could not be involved with the organized labor movement until 1980.

Obviously, this caveat caused a bit of trouble, as Hoffa was none too pleased that he would be unable to once again lead the Teamsters organization that he himself had built. To make matters worse, the confidantes that Hoffa had left in power, were not so anxious to give that power up, once he was released from Prison. In fact, they liked the conditions just fine. As it went, they also liked being the boss. 

HIs past dealings with organized crime, and the just mentioned "Ah, shit" situation, all likely played a part in his death.

You may have noticed in the first paragraph, "mysterious" is in quotations. This is because really, everyone already knows why - and what - happened to Jimmy Hoffa. He was murdered, most likely by people he considered at the very least associates, and then either ran through a wood chipper or hacked up with an axe, before being buried in pieces or dropped off in a lake.

A wood chipper. Jimmy Hoffa is not pictured, that is in fact - a tree.

The only mysterious things here are who chopped him up, and finally what location they chose when they dumped his body (what was left of it).

Jimmy Hoffa is the alternate to someone like Robert Kennedy, and should be remembered for how he was able to lead the people from outside of the typical political structure. His ways were not always clean, as shown by his ties to the mob, however he had the best interest of those he lead at the forefront of his thoughts, and his actions show this. He made lives better for those he served - And that is the mark of a good leader.

He should be remembered more for these things, and less for getting hacked up, and most likely murdered by those who were at one time, considered friends or loyal supporters. The middle class needs another man like Jimmy Hoffa.

And how come the FBI can find everyone else, but not Hoffa? Another article, I suppose.

RIP Jimmy Hoffa, a man of the people.

Update - It has been confirmed that said body might be under the driveway, not under the home itself.

Fuck Glenn Beck

Hey guy! 

That's him. Capitalist sympathizer, or maybe Capitalist wanna be, the one, the only, the fag, Glenn Beck.

For those of you who are not familiar (I'll assume everyone is), he does columns and writings for CNN, and probably various combinations of other media which in total amount to the cesspool which is his current career. Books, a buncha of shit, a lot of money, apparently. Fucker might even be retired these days. (And to be fair, cesspool is a bit harsh - Mother fucker has a Scrooge McDuck money bin out back).

Maybe he is hanging out with Rush. You know. Two bitch ass guys, just swimming around in a giant vault, filled with empty prescription pill bottles and gold bars.

As he writes, or talks, whatever the dick is doing, he goes on; normally writing about subjects which are also the mass media's topic of the week, and then tries to put his personal spin on it. Only problem is, his personal spin is shitty and his show sucks. How is it popular? I would say good question, but hey I have even watched it just to scream at my TV like a jack ass and call him a fucking moron.

Several months ago, this also accompanied all of his writings on CNN.com:

Life is great. God damn great. Join me, will you?

That's right. This son of a bitch does his "Hi, 1950's life is great" department store promo smile. Not only does he act like life in every home in America is a great big dream complete with virgins, copious amounts of alcohol and video games, he adds insult to injury by posting his big gay ass smiling face next to his four paragraphs which basically illustrate with words him blowing capitalist Americas dick. I guess it worked out for him - So he owes it to current system, or something.

He is another example of why capitalism doesn't work. Basically preaching self serving to the fullest, while talking about how much he "donates to charities" when arguing with adversaries. Hey asshole - Thanks for donating to a charity of your choosing, but not wanting to pay more taxes. 

Dick.

In a more recent show of bitch ass-ness and naïveté, the asshole actually complains because people treat him differently than they treat some others - Due to his words, actions, and political stances.

Nice job jackass, way to spout off about "personal responsibility" and the like.

It's the same fucking shit with all of these upper echelon people on the right - Everything they talk about it all fine and fucking dandy, until it fucks up their day as it generally fucks up everyone elses.

Hey, I get it. It's easy to be pro-private health care - when you can afford that health care, a nice house, the BMW out front AND long vacations, after all.

Guess what bitch - You get treated a certain way if people don't like you, or agree with you. Much like you treat people on your very own show, whom you disagree with. Welcome to the real world, Lord Beck.

One thing I agree with, is that yes, Che Guevara was a fuck up revolutionary.  Still a great man Che was, but hey - It didn't work out in Bolivia. As far as what me and Glenn Beck agree on, that's about it.

In closing a message for Glenn Beck (And I do hope this gets to you):

Fuck you.

Mao - Comrade Chairman: A Historical Summarization on the Legacy of Mao Zedong

Opening

This is a brief work of mine, on the late Chairman Mao Zedong. Factual for the masses, and short enough to not fill a book. It is needed, with all of the slandering, and comparisons of Mao these days to terrible leaders and mass murdering dictators, such as Hitler.

Before I go forward comrades, I will let you know off the get right, I am mildly biased. My political alignment is to the left (though not radically, of course if I were born earlier this could be different as you will soon read), and I do not shy from the label of a communist. Now, that does not mean I do not have an open mind, (as you may have realized from reading my works) as I do fault leaders, institutions, and parties of the past, for the mistakes they have made. As a matter of fact, if I were in China circa 1970, I would probably have been called a Capitalist roader. However, on the other hand, I would not have learned from the mistakes that the comrades in question have made, if I were alive at the time. Now it is easy for me to look back and say "Well, they should have done this or that", after reading texts and standing on the shoulders of others. I do not like to do that often, but it is almost natural.

I think, given the circumstances, China is doing what needs to be done. Essentially, there are many reasons why a Soviet style economy did not work, and will no longer work (though with the right modifications it could very well in my opinion, I am no economist).

 I hope this brief introduction will help everyone begin to understand this view on Mao,  a more balanced and realistic view; as opposed to what the current western world tries to shovel toward you.

Mike Dolan, sums up the "popular" western viewpoint these days in a review he wrote up a few years ago on Mao: The Unkown Story (An excerpt below):

"When I watched the second Addams Family movie, I knew there'd be a "blockbuster biography" of Mao coming soon. The key scene comes as the Addams are trying to decide what to name their baby. Rejecting other, overexposed dictators like Stalin and Hitler, they pick "Mao."

That was it, the writing on the sten-gazeta: time for some enterprising literary entrepreneur to grind out a big fat book showing us all what a monster the Great Helmsman really was.

Even so, it's a shock to see how mechanically Jung Chang and her husband, Jon Halliday, have carried out their assignment -- and how eagerly the reviewers have endorsed the product. Every critic from Santa Barbara to Glasgow has joined the "Down with Mao!" chant, waving this big green book in an elbow-destroying parody of the Red Guards who used to whack capitalist roaders with Mao's little red one."

Ladies and Gents, a quick note: You will notice I say "Possibly", or "It is probable" etc., when talking about Mao. This is due to the fact that I do not like to say what another was thinking or what the reasons were for their actions often; although with this type of writing it is difficult. You will note a good example of someone doing this too often, when I speak on Jung Chang's book later in this writing. Also, this text may seem running into nothing at times, but it all falls together. I'm by no means a fantastic writer, though I'm above average, clearly.

Chairman Mao

Knowledge of Mao

I would not call myself a historian; however politics and history are my "forte". As far as Mao is concerned, I have read and studied tens of thousands of pages of text regarding him (paper and online sources included), or subjects closely relating to Mao. I have read the flattering (Red Star over China), to the obviously biased (Mao: The Unknown Story), and have formulated thoughts and opinion's by compiling all sources, and then analyzing them. As well, I have studied the obvious military, political, and poetry works Mao himself had penned. In my opinion, the most informative; and "closest to the truth" total work that has been done on Mao to date, is Dr. Li Zhisui's "The Private life of Chairman Mao".

Cover of Mao: The Unknown Story

Thoughts on Chang's Book Mao: The Unknown Story

This must be added due to the controversy this book has brought. No offense to Chang, as the book makes for a good story, but the book is shitty and has some glaring fallacies and blatant bullshit portions.

She claimed to have studied Mao for 10 years, and to have researched XXXX pieces of text. The problem is, as you probably know, she went around getting interviews from people who had something against Mao, and this is the kicker - people who no one else can seem to find after the fact.

She also has a tendency to try and tell you what Mao was thinking - constantly. (How the hell she was able to receive transcripts of Mao's thoughts, I am not sure, but the critics liked it).

Some of the lines in her book almost read like this: "As Mao looked up to the sun from a street in Changsha, he was thinking about how he would conquer China, then the world, and enslave the entire population of earth". A little exaggerated, but not much and you see the picture I am painting. Some how I doubt the soviet records she and her husband accessed had anything to do with what was on Mao's mind, at such and such points in time.

Another issue I have is the fact that in her book Wild Swans, she talked of how horrible pre-1949 China was, and how some of her family had their feet broken and bound and then were sold to warlords as concubines. All the while Warlords where fighting across the country, foreign powers stepped upon the Chinese and she even mentioned body's strewn about the country side. During the writing of this book apparently she did an "about face". She now spoke of pre-Communist China as a place where one could live in complete bliss, occasionally jumping out of the path of an incoming bullet or piece of shrapnel here and there. In other words, this fantastic author lied in one of her stories, which are both true.

A scene in which Jung Chang was a participant in many times over, long before she wrote her long winded story book.

Simply put, I have read and researched a good amount of chinese & Mao works as well. She tried way too hard to turn Mao into a something he most likely was not, so she could sell books. I see no problem with books or authors listing his faults, or informing of the catastrophes from some of the policies Mao was involved with; but to use some of Phillip Short's words, turning Mao into a two-dimensional card board cut out of Satan is unnecessary and ridiculous.

Ending on this note, I give her props for writing another good story. I could not have written it. Bitch can write a book. However, be careful with what you take from this story, because I think that is exactly what it is, a story, not history.

Thoughts on Mao, as well as His Historical Achievements and Mistakes

Generally, I comply with the "7 parts good, 3 parts bad" line that the PRC has put forth. However, I go much deeper. I think those 3 "bad parts” included exceptionally large mistakes. What we have next, in general, is fairly usual when people argue about Mao. They look at the total number of deaths in a country over a period from anything and then say he was a power hungry maniac, and everyone who died during his reign must have been murdered by Mao directly.

Well, it is obvious that he did want personal power, which I see as something that happens quite often. SHOCK - He wanted some of this glory, and power.

However, how can those people say his goal, along with that personal power, was not to make China strong and assist the people to a better life, and a stronger country? The Great Leap Forward was a huge disaster, and this is now obvious. The reasons the GLF should be placed on his shoulders are 4 fold.

A) It was his plan
B) He was the leader of China
C) He did not like dissent from his opinions
D) He believed the positive lies of the comrades under him far to often.

From what I know, I can say Mao's goals for the GLF were most likely the ones always stated. To catch up to Great Britan, feed the masses, and make China strong in a short amount of time. I will give you a quote from Li Zhisui regarding Mao's actions during the great leap forward (Who as you know did not paint a very flattering picture of Mao):

'"But I do not think that when he spoke on July 2, 1959, he knew how bad the disaster had become, and he believed the party was doing everything it could to manage the situation".

Of course, he was horrible in the field of economics, this was a horrible plan, and many people died. Mao was not aware just how bad the situation was, until it was out of control (as noted in the quote above), and it took another year before he "bit the bullet", stopped the GLF and imported grain. The fact that he gave up meat whether it may be small to some, is huge to myself, a man of the people. 

Mao Zedong and Premier Zhou Enlai, during the waning days of the Cultural Revolution.

For example - Would Stalin ever give up meat in private because others had none? I think not. That right there should make naysayers stop the comparisons. While the disaster can surely be put on Mao depending on how you place responsibility, the reasons above are also the reasons I do not find Mao directly responsible for every single death during the GLF. The bottom line is, he did not want, or intend for so many to perish, and all of the blood is obviously not on his hands (In this case there was not actually much blood, we are talking starvation, though that does not make the deaths any less tragic).

I think another huge problem Mao faced was his eventual dedication to orthodox Marxism-Leninism. It would seem he eventually came to think, that an answer to any real world problems could come from applying Marxist theory (and later with his own theory's as well) without any modification. This is a problem of course. The world changes, the economy changes. You must make changes to succeed, and I am not sure he understood that. Revisionism was needed at the time. And, after the Sino- Soviet spilt, he most likely saw himself as the champion of orthodox Marxism-Leninism. He saw Krushchev's changes and secret speech about Stalin as a blow to the communist movement, and he decided to pick up the flag and continue to tow the old line. This would increase his (and China's) power internationally, and adhere to Lenin's version of Marxism. In these ways, his pride, desire for power, and dedication got the best of him.

Next, comes the the Cultural Revolution. Mao did not want to lose power, and at the same time he possibly wanted China to be the next Soviet Union in the world (The leading country in the communist bloc). A powerful country that could apply Marxist theory to its government, and lead the masses to a high standard of living. As you know, the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" led to many tragic occurrences. The economy came to a stand still, half the country was criticizing the over half and many lives where ruined. The GPCR also led to his "personality cult" being put into over drive. Although Mao many times said he did not want to be revered, of course he most likely enjoyed reaping those benefits. Who would not, really?

A large difference here compared to other countries was the actual adoration for Mao that the people had for him. People can argue the fact all they want, the adoration was a legitimate one for many. Even Jung Chang was a Red Guard, and I can tell you she was probably not forced to put the armband on at gun point. She was caught up in the revolution and Mao, and followed suit like so many others. The idea of the GPCR was obviously ridiculous and grand. How many other "dictators" would have dared to put so much power in the hands of the people? Mao knew it would not affect his power, but it would definitely affect the power of his establishment.

I am sure not one Red Guard was displeased by the new found power and benefits that came along with the title. (Free train rides all around the country, free lodging, etc). Like other movements Mao had introduced, it was all too late when he decided to stop it (or when he thought about stopping it). He probably thought he would die, China would be built from the ground up, strong, united, completely dedicated to Marxism-Leninism as an ideology, and he would go down in history like the emperors he loved to read about in the past, as a great leader, or at least a powerful one who is respected.

Mao, on display for viewing at his wake; before he was enclosed in a crystal coffin and enshrined inside his memorial at Tiananmen Square.

Final

Mao was one of the greatest political leaders to have lived - Although it sounds like rhetoric (sadly), I really do believe that his achievements outweigh his mistakes; and that he had China's best interests almost at the top of his list, next to his interests. He may have been a dictator, but as far as I am concerned I like to apply the term "enlightened despot" to Mao. You must look at the situation he was placed in. This was not America, this was China. Broken apart by foreign powers, and being invaded by another at the same time. He used communism as a way to unite the country, and he paved the path (albeit a rocky one) to where China is today and that is most likely the closest country to becoming the next world super power.

He began to think he was infallible, due to his personality and the sometimes blind dedication of those around him. Being dogmatic, which he said he reviled, was one of the main factors that led to some of his biggest mistakes. If you take away the starvation deaths in the GFL, Mao is nowhere close to anyone like Hitler or Stalin. I do not take them away, but I do not attribute every single one to him; as I mentioned earlier. The thing is, he did not sign death orders and steal food from the masses like many others. I will argue rigorously against any claims that Mao was a mass murderer for that and other obvious reasons I have stated here previously. He did not expect the people to follow the state, he expected the people to follow communism, which while it may have been a lesser offense, it was another mistake. I myself am torn by my admiration for Mao, and the fact that some of those mistakes are unforgivable.

Mao once said that China never had a man in it's history comparable to George Washington. 

Mao was China's George Washington, in a different context. Not even George Washington was selfless in his duties. All too often others seem to forget, for lack of a better term, people are people. In my opinion the biggest problem most have with Mao is that he was a communist and he was one of the few who ended up doing a great deal of good for his country to go along with the bad, and people want his image to fall along with communism's and Lenin's. Then, they try to turn him into Hitler or Stalin. The Third Rich lasted a decade, and was run on dubious beliefs; I do not even see how it is comparable to Mao's China. The Soviet Union is gone, too many purges, and to much hold onto an outdated system. 

Mao's Communist Party is still kicking, and at least making it seem like they are helping the people (a good example is, they recently abolished the 1200 year old agricultural tax - But boy are they taking what Mao labeled the "Capitalist Road"). 

Mao united a fractured country, which was backwards and overrun by foreiners, and turned it into a united major regional power, now on the verge of becoming the only other superpower next to the US. He ended the prostitution and foot binding of the previous centuries, while literacy rates and GDP per capita rose substantially.

Really, once all of the bullshit is put aside, ask yourself this: Was Mao really the worst thing that could have happened to China? And who could have done better? If Mao did not unite China, and stand atop Tiananmen Square in 1949, where would that great country be today? Would it even be one country, better, ruled by foreigners or an even more corrupt Chinese government? Indeed, we will never know.

I guess the only thing left to say is Mao Zhuxi Wensui.

Faggots in Formal Wear (Why Follow?)

This raptor is not a faggot.

Mitt Romney is a faggot. So is Paul Ryan. I know - Many people won't be comfrotable saying this, or reading it, but you know you were thinking it. And that is why that shit had to be written.

Guess what?

I'm not really that comfortable. As I sit here in my low cost, mildly shitty computer chair, I think of the friends I have who support Mitt "Faggot" Romney and his crew of rich assholes. I find myself wondering if I am actually able to call them friends.

"But he can run a business"?! America isn't a business, dick.

As it were, I am the type of cat who can generally sit down, discuss politics, and religion "in a bar", or anywhere really. I adore it actually. To hear differing opinions, and to argue the facts while gaining knowledge from the other side.  Also to put people in their place when they get over zealous. This is a love of mine, I freely admit.

Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan; the two propped up in front of the people for this round of what-rich-guy-gets to run the US, are nothing you haven't seen before. They are your typical white, full head of hair with a firm hand shake duo. Some faggoty assholes in formal outfits who generally smile and look pretty. They were also probably successful, at something.

Bain Capital, this or that. No one really gives a shit what, but they ARE SUCCESSFUL, damn you. They were raised in the great US of A, and happened to have some help (Whether it be rich parents, or otherwise, it is still help) to get to the top.

The current crop of republicans want you to basically tow the line that is this:

"Fuck everyone else. If you work hard you deserve all you have, if you can get it (but you don't deserve any assistance if you need it and can't buy it), and you should NOT pay taxes."

"Why should the government take our money!? We earned it. Fuck the government... Unless it is us. Unless we want the right to tell you what we should pay into taxes, and the right to tell you what religion is correct."

"Also, we are assholes".

Vote for me! I'm a fag!

That about sums the right up these days. 

I know there is more to the platform, but fuck off with all the excuses to push religion on everyone and come up with a reason for being greedy - I don't give a shit and I don't agree.

And no, I'm not a democrat - But the popular right in this country is borderline retarded these days (Some people champion Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) - So ya, no thanks.

Another thing, one of them is Mormon. So he is most likely bat shit fucking crazy.

I know separation of church and state is kind of a big thing in this country. So naturally,  I keep smacking my fat ass head against the wall, wondering in amazement how the right continues to use religion as a political platform and continually passes themselves off as some type of anime-mech defender of the constitution, and bill of rights.

At the end of the day they don't give a fuck about us. Or you. Or the masses. Or your mom.

Not even the slightest of fucks was given, on any day as it were.

They want to tell you not to abort your child, but when it appears in this world, they are the last to let that child into their home. They want to tell you it is their business if you want to be gay, and they should regulate what goes on in your bedroom (unless it involves storing a firearm there).

They want to tell you not to pay taxes, but rely on them to trickle money down if something needs done for the public. Trickle the money down you know, just like Romney trickled jobs overseas and out of the country to make larger profits in his younger years.

Turns out this asshole is pretty bad at trickling, unless he is trickling money into his pocket at the expense of others like a giant greedy piece of shit.

An odd creature politics is. What is the fucking deal? Let's he honest with ourselves - Obama isn't a saint, but at the ground level it would surely seem - He at least kinda cares about the people (you and me), instead of mostly profits. It is radical to say that sure. Maybe.

See, not all Mormons are bat-shit crazy

I'm sure Romney likes his wife, some people, and probably other Mormons a bit more than overall profit. And Jesus. Maybe.

Why would you agree with these type of people? Out of principle or a common religious belief structure alone? My friends, many of you - I do not believe in your God. I will state that now, and if that makes us enemies, see you in hell (probably not though).

But what I do believe in, is your right to have a God, and a good, healthy life - Even if you aren't one of the lucky ones.

Even if you can't afford to have a heart transplant, I still think you should get one if you need one. These are basic rights in my mind. A lot goes into calling Romney and majority of republicans these days faggots. It isn't simply one issue - pandering to the religious, health care, seemingly valuing the dollar more than the people, the list is pretty damn long, terrible and shitball like.

Stop following these faggoty leaders already. Excuses, and faggots. That is what they offer. The democrats aren't much better, but at least they aren't straight up being dick heads.

And follow for what? Out of a few common beliefs (not to mention a common hate - another article).
Remember, these are the type of assholes who would gladly ban your beliefs if they didn't share them with you. The US needs some sort of revitalization, and change, but Reagan failed, and the trickle down system failed. It needs to come from somewhere else.

Being rich and successful, you are still a member of the masses until you choose to separate yourself, or put yourself on a pillar; as a sort of new era king or queen.

We all want to be successful to some extent, and most would like to be wealthy - And that is good - You can still rule with everyone else, while being more wealthy - It just has to be as part of a group of citizens - and don't rule as if everyone has the same access to wealth as you do.

Remember - The masses should run this country, and all other countries for that matter. Not a few people who worked the system. Not a few people who worked hard. Not a few at all - this is the point. And especially not a few people who got lucky, whether they admit it or not.