RedWolfsrevolution.com Blog

Why are Neo-Nazis Mad at Obama?…He’s got their Fuhrer in Mind

I saw an article online the other day discussing a giant hand-made message directed at our President. A golf course in LakeVille (I couln’t find the State) had a huge message carved into the grass. The indignity: “I “Nazi-Symbol” Obama.” I’m going to do a quick deduction of this message and conclude that those who carved it were not fans of Obama.
That’s fair…I don’t care for the man myself. However, I was wondering exactly how much these people actually knew about Obama’s policies before taking all that time out of their busy schedule – what with all the hailing Hitler and goose-stepping – just to deface a poor Country Club owner’s private property. If they had taken a mere fraction of that time and did a bit of research, they might come to actually agree with the President’s politics.
After all, Barack Obama is rekindling a form of Neo-Nazism never before seen in this Nation. For example, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel – who I am beginning to see clear similarities with that other sinister elitist, Bush Senior – has said repeatedly that he wants a Civilian Army. Three months of basic training; uniforms; jumping jacks…the whole nine yards.
Barack Obama is also going forward with a Hitler-style Health Care System, according to veteran dissident Lyndon LaRouche. Let us also not forget that Obama has reneged on several other promises made on the Campaign Trail…like releasing certain prisoners held illegally at Guantanamo Bay; prosecuting the former Administrations’ use of torture… and, of course, ending two illegal wars.
“Ninety Days” he kept telling us…over and over again. And here we are going on nearly a year. With nearly no promises kept accept to continue the last imbecile’s policies.
However, one cannot expect either of these two things from occurring: for Obama to break from the American dictatorial mold, or for Neo-Nazis (and/or Skinheads) to garner any sort of intelligence. There is evil in this world. And then there are breeds of evil that redefine the concept to the point in which Webster would have to go back and do it all over again.
Politicians and Neo-Nazi’s are ranking right at the top of that list.

It’s not an easy thing to admit to, and in fact it is an even harder thing to comprehend…for most people. I’m talking about subtle barbarianism. “Subtle” barbarianism, you ask. Of course; we hear about actions that can obviously be constituted as torture from all over the world. We read about such audacious – and horrendous – events like; beheadings, ethnic cleansing, forced starvation; so on…but there’s one procedure that has become so commonplace that it has now reached the domain of obviousness…however; it is no less barbaric.
It is now so widely overlooked that the only time it is perceived as inhuman is when it’s happening to a female (more on this in a minute). I am talking of course about circumcision. And I shall expound upon this primitive ritual. Cutting (no pun intended) to the chase and getting right to the point (no joke intended, either): the most important aspect of this practice, is that in a civilized world the most rudimentary concept of freedom would immediately prohibit any removal of the human anatomy from a non-consenting person.
If discerned for ever so briefly, this becomes a comic-style slap on the forehead, followed by a hysterical “of course.” For those not understanding the simple “two plus two equals four” logic: we do not legally allow butchery! It doesn’t get any simpler than that!
Nowhere in the law books does it say that when a child is born you are allowed to cut his arm off, right? So the question must be asked as why we allow butchery in other circumstances. Especially ones concerning the genitals!
This question is asked, and two answers are almost always given in an instantaneous response, both of which are equally inadequate in justifying such tyranny.
The first reason given is a religious one. Essentially; an Abrahamic provision – sanctioned by “god” – asserted that circumcision was a method in which Yaweh was able to “mark” his people…just as we do with cattle today. This is most likely the prevailing reason in explaining why cutting the end of an infant’s penis is still accepted in today’s society. Either Yaweh continues to hold a monopolizing grasp on his “vessel”, or perhaps parents have just succumbed to such drastic cultural conditioning that they don’t understand the freedom being robbed from their child.
If it’s the former, the question I propose is this: how do we know for certain that a human being, of just a few minutes after birth, is even capable of being a definite religion? What are his characteristics that determine this? There is a one pretext given: “his parents are.” However, in a contrasting example, if his parents were, of say – a Moloch denomination, and believed in sacrificing live babies to some superficial “Higher Power”, would it be condoned in today’s society? The answer answers itself, because we are of a supposedly “civilized” society. The reason I state that so boldly is because of the fact that if a State whose constitution does not base itself in a separation of the Church, the repressive consequences would become innumerable.
However “extreme” the religious examples might be postulated, every one of them must be scrutinized if we are to garner any sort of liberty. It is not right to condone barbaric behavior only when the auspices are of Abrahamic persuasion, while the other “extreme” illustration of spiraling live babies into a huge inferno is condemned. Both are wicked! And both should be outlawed!
The other argument articulated in favor of genital mutilation is that of hygiene. It is presupposed that by cutting off the foreskin, the risk of contacting a STD is greatly reduced. This rationalizing is given far and wide by pediatricians. My answer is a paradoxical one: if it could in fact be proven that a doctor’s hands indeed cause mental trauma and physical suffering to a child every time the procedure is performed, I would recommend, by using the same logic given by them; that the hands be cut off before they were able to commit any more torture.
Savvy to that concept? Before an action occurs, we take measures to ensure it not come to fruition. (In Orwellian this means a thought crime) The only problem is that a great amount of individual liberty is lost in trying to curb an event that hasn’t happened yet. If it is true that circumcision reduces the risk of STD or bacterial infection (and I’m in no way implying that it doesn’t) – let the person decide when they are capable of doing so. Besides, not tending to your ears can also lead to infection, should we cut those off also?
This entire practice has proven to be frivolous by even those who praise it. While parents continue to chop off the heads of their son’s penis, they continue to look antagonistically towards other countries and their usage of female circumcision. It’s hard to even write, but basically female circumcision is when any part of the vagina is surgically altered. Cutting off the clitoris, sowing the vagina shut…just to name a few examples (FGM is various, as opposed to male mutilation). The inconsistent moral is blatant: its okay if it’s a male, but not it’s a female. I think Penn & Teller had it right – “Circumcision is bullshit!”
It’s somewhat fortunate that the practice is becoming rarer and rarer. In fact, roughly 90 percent of the World outside the United States is uncircumcised; proving once again that America is, and Americans are, an insane, overly-cultured (or conditioned), sheepish, and hypocritical bunch. Hopefully the male species will wake up – and realize that my contention is legitimized. After all, according to the British Journal of urology, circumcision desensitizes the penis by 75 percent. This is because there are over 10,000 nerve endings in the foreskin, and, once removed, your libido is working with a mere 3,000. The truth is that no major medical facility in the world recommends this practice. By cutting your son’s penis, you are only ruining his freedom, ruining his future sex life, and continuing an ancient and ridiculous ritual.
Here then, is confession time: I was a victim of such mutilation. More than that, the doctor did a fucked up job. He botched it; leaving a huge gaping hole on the right side of my penis.
Now, call it cultural mutilation; religious mutilation – whatever you like; dismembering another human being is as inhuman as it gets. It is simply grotesque, and repulsive, that we accept these things in our society. How long is it going to take before legislation is put into place that forbids parents from committing such butchery? I suggest that it be signed into the law books very soon. With perhaps accompanying legislation that will start handing out felony assault charges to doctors still performing this wicked and deplorable act.

“When you guys figure it out, come back and tell me. Until that time I’m sticking with my Judeo-Christian Philosophy.”
-Bill O’ Reilly in an interview with Richard Dawkins

In another quick segment on YOTUBE you can see the tag team efforts of Bill O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck attempting to dismiss New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for a supposed piece he did commenting on the latter hypocrites’ stories about the FEMA camps. The clip itself was hilariously devastating. In it, the two make comments about Krugman “not caring if you said it or not.” And then in a perfect example of YOUTUBE journalism, clips of Glenn Beck’s almost hysteric voice tells his Fox viewers that he cannot debunk the FEMA camps. Repeatedly.
One then begins to wonder if Glenn Beck is a real journalist, or maybe a poltroon who was threatened by the New World Order. The clip does a deliver a rather damaging blow to Beck’s profession. If you haven’t seen it I highly suggest you do. Recently I’ve begun a phrase that I repeat from time to time. “The more you dismiss it without argument, the more credibility is granted to it.”
In regard to the FEMA camps – pretty cut and dry. A mainstream commentator for the FOX news network, Glenn Beck, at first and then repeatedly, tells stories of the reality of the clandestine camps propping up over the country. Then, all of a sudden, he and his propaganda cohort, Bill O’ Reilly, slam a columnist who reiterates the original piece. Well shoot…you said it Glenn!

My thinking tells me this… Bill O Reilly, along with so many other persons’ of Faith are willing to dismiss all the evidences of evolution, astronomy, and the such, and give all rights and privileges of Creation to an unverified claim (a ridiculous one) that “God” spoke to illiterate peasants in a remote desert – somewhere around 4000 years ago. A man walked on water, was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected…all things completely and literally believable. Except that the Truthers are ridiculed and insulted for bringing serious and legitimate questions to the doorsteps of our elected officials. Unbelievable. But once again…our faith deceives us. It tells us that we’re right when we probably know that there is a good amount of doubt.
Because science is not (yet) able to answer every single question regarding the origins of life on earth, Bill O’ Reilly says that he will stay with his belief system. Can that that same logic be reversed? Can it be said that “I’m sticking with the Truth Movement until the Government of the United States answers the unanswered questions of 9/11?” Is that credible? Can I ask about the FEMA camps that are reported to hold 50 million Americans? And why they’re all empty.

Disturbing revelations about our Free Country.

Check out these Scumbags

Hi. I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen. However, I am unable to leave a return address. My apologies.
The reason I am writing this letter is because of an incident that occurred in early May of this year. It came after a high speed pursuit through the streets of El Monte, Pico Rivera, Baldwin Park, and other regions of Los Angeles. I’m sure by now everyone in your department knows about the event I’m referring to, even without me having to finish this sentence: George Fierro…unjustified in his ruthless kick of an obsolete suspect. And it is now over a month with no criminal indictment, or anything relating to such. It’s ironic that Richard Rodriguez’s nickname is “Turtle” because when he should have been ducking his head like a turtle to avoid a brutal kick, he was spread eagle and giving up.
But, before I get into the entire scenario – including a moral check of the officers’ reasons – I want you to know that nobody condones what Richard Rodriguez did, or had done in the past. A quick Google can verily show that the El Monte Flores streetgang, which the suspect was part of, is not only one of the oldest gangs in the Valley, but also one of the most active. In 1995 a member of the gang orchestrated the mass murder of a family in El Monte – including a baby and 5-year old girl. The whole reason was because someone had left the Mexican Mafia. This case of retaliation is not an isolated incident, and anybody with half a brain cell wouldn’t believe it is. For those who condone such behavior, there are usually only two words that follow, and they start with an “F” and ends with a “you.”
That condemnation is garnered not only in the court of public opinion, but – because police departments are awash with angry, sentimental officers – it’ll reach onto every badge-wearing man and woman who has the authority to exercise more extreme actions…like the kick delivered by your fellow officer. But the reason these sorts of behaviors are condemned by the people is because we see them as a violation of a purported ethical absolute. An Oath of Service and Protection is not merely a nice little cliché that can be discarded when anger or frustration arises, as was clearly the case here. And that was confirmed by Geoffrey P. Alpert, a professor of criminology, who said that the “officer lost control.”
Cleary. And when live television broadcasts such things and is viewed by millions of people, they see the same person; a ruthless gang-member, and a ruthless cop. One and the same. So the officer became exactly like the gang member, with one crucial difference: the former as made an Oath to the law and therefore is not obligated to disregard it at a whim. There is supposed to be that ethical standpoint with law enforcement officers, the one that separates them from the ones they arrest. And the majority of people expect that exact thing. And they see a symbiotic relation when things like this happen.
But perhaps the two knew each other. Maybe even Mr. Rodriguez bought one of Mr. Fierro’s shirts. You know the shirts I’m talking about. After all he does own a clothing company that promotes gang violence and glorify criminal behavior. So how upset could Mr. Fierro be at the suspect that would have made him want to kick him? For God’s Sakes – he wants his business! As the wonderful organization NORML pointed out, he wasn’t content with his own job. He was an agent of the Prison Industrial Complex: A ruthless ideology that corrupts every greedy, insidious scumbag who wishes to make money off of gang activity and the growth of criminality. Drugs, prison expansion, and, in George Fierro’s circumstance: gang apparel. So, again, clearly there is a sense of schizophrenia here. By the way, does your department look at him the same way? Is he never criticized from others?

By now I’m sure you have gotten the gist of my point: that moral corruption doesn’t always lie with somebody who has broken an arbitrary law. It is also found in the Police Departments of our counties, and no doubt in many of our courtrooms.
What I am asking for now is not unreasonable. I am only asking for the complete resignation of Officer George Fierro. The ACLU is being too nice on this one; asking for suspension. I am asking for democracy to be restored, and for the receivers of tax dollars (that’s YOU) to do the right thing. Because if the same logic was applied in the opposite spectrum, and me or any other citizen went out and starting taking the law into our own hands, then we would no doubt be arrested by one of you. Why does it not work the other way around? Why shouldn’t vigilantism be indicted here also?
The main reason I am asking for this is because so much time as elapsed from the event in question. And as more time goes, the more people will forget about it. Please don’t wavier in your morals. We don’t want Gangsterism anymore than we want Officerism. Thank you for reading.

“Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.” - George Carlin

“You have heard that it hath been said, “You shall love you neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” – Mt 5:43
In a reasonable world, it would be assumed that a Nation had a right to defend itself. This simple statement means that on our deplorable, hate-filled planet, War is a regrettable necessity. It is innate in every one of us to have contention for others whom we disagree with. However, that is not justification for every single conflict a given Nation is engaged in. Why is it then, when one speaks to the average American conservative – the so-called “Christian” conservatives - they are willing to forget every single shred of knowledge and understanding in favor of relentless condoning of their country’s adventures oversees? They are willing to neglect all situations of death – women and children included – and attempt to legitimatize any given war. We have to ask ourselves; would Jesus himself condone all these wars?
As stated though, defending a Nation and its borders are understood, but if one is adhering to the teachings of Jesus Christ, then how can one group of persons be so oblivious to every single thing that he taught? If Jesus said “love thy enemy” then why does the average conservative insist on killing not only him, but his family and neighbors as well? A certain amount of conflict is inevitable, but if we scroll through the list of wars the United States has instigated and exasperated over the years, it would be difficult to find a conservative who would disagree with any of them. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq: all wars completely immune of condemnation in the mind of a conservative.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” -Matthew 5:38-40
If one thinks this to be an impractical method in which to apply to our complicated World, there would still be none so unprepared and unqualified to fulfill this passage than…yes, that’s right…the standard American conservative. Even in today’s newspapers as the Bush torture memos are dripping out and its becoming more and more KNOWN that his evil administration engaged in routine torture, we have to ask ourselves yet again; if Jesus Christ was inside of a room with an untried detainee in Guantanamo Bay, being waterboarded - would he condone it?
For these politicians who think they have “god” on their side and are doing the work of their lord - I personally do not see how they can even postulate such an absurd idea. I believe that my quotation of George Carlin certainly sums up the logic in this argument; why is the right so vehemently opposed to abortion (I’m not in favor of it myself) when on the opposite end of the spectrum they are willing to send young men and women to fight in foreign wars or excute large amounts of criminals - where is the pro-life in these actions? How can they be contradictory to their own purported positions?!

“The young man said to Him, “All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” - Mt 19:20
Can someone possibly imagine all those “Christian” Republicans sitting on their fortunes, sitting in their high offices, and imagine them donating large swaths of their money to the poor and impoverished? This might be unrealistic, after all; who would possibly do that? Certainly not these proclaimed followers of Christ.
It is my absolute understanding, according to the New Testament text, that a true follower of Christ is distant, as possibly can be, from the policies of our government. It is the saying “of this world but not of this world.” But objectively, this seems most unrealistic if one sees the actions of most of these purported “Christians.” Perhaps even these are the false teachers of religion that Jesus warned against. People, like Jerry Falwell, or even our most devoted evangelical President – Mr. Bush, who use the passages at their own leisure and twist the meanings of it to fit their agenda.
How can one possible apply one of Jesus’s most quoted phrases “he who is without sin, cast the first stone”, when we have hundreds of untried Muslims in secret prisons all over the World? Who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner? Their “god” or themselves? And at the same time try and implement an American Theocracy, based solely on their warped version of Jesus’s teachings. Public schools that require mandatory prayers, or legislation that forbids any homosexual act – completely destroying basic liberties. This mindset is evil and it must be met with hostility.
Theyre argument is usually something along the lines of this being a “nation built on Christian values.” This is an outrageous and falsified lie. Our Founding Fathers we’re primarily deists with a simple belief in a Supreme Being; but not one who intervened in the affairs of the State. On top of that, our Constitution is written without a singular mention of the word “Christian” which leaves us with a secular, and free, government.
A true Christian is supposed to be one dedicated to helping people and without any usage of violence. Where is the political diplomacy with these conservatives who “bomb now and ask questions later”? Alas, it’ll be a long time before any one of these conservatives becomes the next Gandi.

One last thought; it has been jokingly mentioned that “Jesus was a Liberal and Yaweh was a Conservative.” Reading the discrepancies between the Old Testament and the New Testament – it is not hard to see why this is said. The unchanging Alpha and Omega had several changes in character within a relatively short period of time. But that’s a whole other discussion.

There always seems to be a fine line between those who are praised and those who are condemned. Circumstances and rationalizations play a vital part in deciding who will be considered “heroes” and who will go down in History as bloodthirsty monsters. Usually when this happens the morals that were supposed to be held so close to our hearts will be forgotten, in favor of the general (societal) consensus.
For example, if we are to believe that the act of murdering and innocent person is a crime that should be condemned, how is it possible that we – as a herd-like society – praise those who perform the act under a different banner? Society frowns upon those who blatantly kill innocent people. But this rule should apply across the board; no person who does it, or participates in it, should receive any leniency.
Now, if we were to look at History, and all it’s events of murder, torture, rape, pillage; we will find some cases in which the person (or persons) responsible for these heinous crimes will, in fact, be glorified for this behavior.
Take Ronald Reagan for instance. During his presidency in the 1980’s the United States flourished under his administration. It was an unprecedented era of National Pride and prosperity. For this vague reason alone, Mr. Reagan will always be revered as an American hero.
However, if we were to apply our standard moral creed to this gentleman, then he will certainly have to be condemned as will. Because Mr. Reagan (along with many others in his cabinet) provided billions of dollars of military weaponry to Right-Wing dictators in Latin America, who systematically slaughtered innocent peasants almost daily. We must ask ourselves; why does former president Reagan deserve our forgiveness? Was it because the threat of Communism was so great as to justify the support of these murderous bastards? He then becomes exempt from our moral perspective.
There is often a slogan that gets thrown around from time to time: “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The only major difference in justification is that of opinion. For there is a long list of lone bombers and rouge organizations that could be compelled to fight for their so-called “freedom.” Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or any one of the numberless Muslim jihadists. Only a small fraction of people in America would possibly agree with anything they supposedly stand for. The large remainder will simply know what they did, or killed, and immediately make all final judgments – disregarding any valid arguments.
And while their actions would obviously be a violation of our “no murdering innocents” moral standpoint, the principle itself gets tossed away when others do it under a different pretense. Kill one person, you’re a murderer, kill a million, you’re a hero. Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, Reagan; every one of them has reached a majority’s high respect. No matter how many dead bodies have been left in their passing.

On most occasions this bias – this absolute justification happens when there is a logo of patriotic pride. But sometimes it is the result of something even more influential; cultural trend. With the toxin that is rap music, nearly all criminal behavior reaches the level of idolization. The worship of a lawless outcast. Someone who is exiled from society and has no respect for the rules. Drugs, murder, prostitution; all a (seemingly) decent way to live. Or at least admire excessively. More than a few of the topics that are used in these songs are a breach of what we purportedly hold dear to our hearts. But because the music reaches god-like status, it becomes a prominent element of cultural life.
The logic is this: it is okay to listen to, but if someone we loved were to start shooting people, or selling their bodies, it would receive equal condemnation. The contradictions are astounding.
The simple point is that the rap industry will always be remembered and revered as an important component of the 1990’s culture, while drugs and murder will always be looked down upon.
Morals will now act like a proverbial pendulum, swinging back and forth to fit the circumstances. When someone goes and picks up a hooker on the street corner, prostitution is okay, when that person’s sister starts occupying that same street corner, prostitution is not okay. It will be scolded until the point in which legislation will forbid the horrible act.
When the president intentionally kills innocent people in the name of National defense, the school textbooks proudly proclaim the brave work. When a disturbed bomber grows tired of the governments’ random injustices and flows up a federal building, he is the scum of the earth.

Of course, it must be acknowledged that a person’s morals cannot be limited to a simple statement, or an emotion that stems from personal experiences. They must be reasoned out – argued even. To the point in which they are engraved in our character, solidified in our actions, and grounded in a near absolute conviction.