Wednesday, February 29, 2012

"A Letter To Other Occupiers" By Staughton Lynd

Highly recommended.

"Bear with me if I continue this ancient Movement history.

In November 1965, there was a gathering in Washington DC of representatives from a myriad of ad hoc student groups formed to oppose the Vietnam war. During the weeks before this occasion several friends warned me that different Left groups were preparing to do battle for control of the new antiwar movement. I assured them that their fears were needless: that kind of thing might have happened in the 1930s, but we were a new Left, committed to listening to one another and to learning from our collective experience.

I was wrong. From the opening gavel, both Communists and Trotskyists sought to take control of the new activist network. In the process they seriously disillusioned many young persons who, perhaps involved in their first political protest, had come long distances in the hope of creating a common front against the war.

Paul Booth of SDS called this meeting “the crazy convention.” I remember sleeping on the floor of somebody’s apartment next to Dave Dellinger as the two of us sought to refocus attention on what was happening in Vietnam. I recall pleading near the end of the occasion with members of the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) to be allowed into a locked hotel room where, apparently having lost on the convention floor, they were forming a new national organization.

SDS faced the identical problem at the end of the 1960s with the Progressive Labor party (PL). Essentially what PL did was to caucus beforehand, to adopt tactics for promoting its line within a larger and more diffuse organization, and then, without any interest in what others might have to say, ramming through its predecided resolutions. After a season of hateful harangues and organizational division, very little remained.

Some Occupiers may respond, “But we’re not trying to take over anything! We only want to be able to follow our own consciences!” Sadly, though, the impact of Marxist-Leninist vanguardism and unrestrained individualism on a larger body of variegated protesters may be pretty much the same. In each case there may be a fixed belief that one knows the Truth and has correctly determined What Is To Be Done, which makes it an unnecessary waste of time to Listen To The Experience Of Others. Those who hold these attitudes are likely to act in a way that will wound or even destroy the larger Movement that gives them a platform.

In the period between Seattle in 1999 and September 11, 2001, many activists were into a pattern of behavior that might unkindly be described as summit-hopping. Two young men from Chicago who had been in Seattle stayed in our basement for a night on their way to the next encounter with globalization in Quebec. I was struck by the fact that, as they explained themselves, when they came back to Chicago from Seattle they had been somewhat at a loss about what to do next. As each successive summit (Quebec, Genoa, Cancun) presented itself, they expected to be off to confront the Powers That Be in a new location, leaving in suspended state whatever beginnings they were nurturing in their local communities. So far as an outsider like myself could discern, there did not seem to be a long-term strategy directed toward creating an “otro mundo,” a qualitatively new society.

This brings me to the forthcoming confrontation in Chicago in May. My wife Alice and I were living in Chicago in 1968. I was arrested and briefly jailed. Although many in the Movement considered the Chicago events to be a great victory, I believe it is the consensus of historians that the national perception of what happened in Chicago contributed to Nixon’s victory in the November 1968 election. More important, as some of us foresaw these predominantly Northern activists like their SNCC predecessors appeared to have great difficulty in picking up again the slow work of “accompanying” in local communities.

I dread the possibility of a re-run of this sequence of events in 2012."

Seattle, Eastern Washington, and fussiness/uptightness

I spent the weekend in Eastern Washington, the rural and Republican part of the state east of the Cascades, and it was an eye opener. Not because of it's conservatism, but because it came with a certain kind of familiarity of action and thought that's found not just in conservative areas but in the rest of the United States outside of the Pacific Northwest. Call it a kind of absence of myopia, if you will. Liberal and conservative, urban and rural, the rest of the U.S. is united in greater contact with basic reality outside of navel gazing self justification. if you go to New York City, to Chicago, D.C., Detroit, Miami, you won't find the sort of uptight, entitled, prissy, spoiled, presumptuous bullshit you have to put up with in Seattle and Portland. The most culturally refined sections of New York City will probably tell you to go to hell if you act like a spoiled little brat wanting everything your own way and objecting when your whims aren't acted on immediately or respected. In Seattle it's a different ball game.

All of your rich, yuppie, bullshit preferences, neuroses, and hang ups are indulged and respected, are treated like they aren't delusional acts by people with too much privilege and not enough contact with the real world, but are instead wise, thought out, processes of elder statesman and women, who very knowingly want to crucify someone for having the wrong species of dog leash, I mean harness (since dogs supposedly shouldn't be leashed, according to them).

I live in Seattle, and am happy here, but I'm not some sort of vacant cheerleader who swallows the Kool-Aid without criticizing bullshit when he sees it.

Here's to Eastern Washington, for sanity if not for social policy.

Relevant for Occupy Wall Street: Rudolf Hilferding on Finance Capital

Here. A solid thinker from the Austro-Marxist school, who opposed both the Social Democrats in Germany and the Third International. For "cartel" you could substitute "corporation".

"The cartel itself presupposes a large bank which is in a position to provide, on a regular basis, the vast credits needed for current payments and productive investment in a whole industrial sector. But the cartel also brings about a still closer relationship between banking and industry. When competition in an industry is eliminated there is, first of all, an increase in the rate of profit, which plays an important role. When the elimination of competition is achieved by a merger, a new undertaking is created which can count upon higher profits, and these profits can be capitalized and constitute promoter's profit.[1] With the development of trusts this process becomes important in two respects. First, its realization constitutes a very important motive for the banks to encourage monopolization; and second, a part of the promoter's profits can be used to induce reluctant but significant producers to sell their factories, by offering a higher purchase price, thus facilitating the establishment of the cartel. This can perhaps be expressed in the following way: the cartel exerts a demand on the enterprises in a particular branch of industry; this demand increases to a certain degree the price of the enterprises[2] and this higher price is then paid in part out of the promoter's profit."

The rest of the book, of which this is just an excerpt looks very interesting, and is available through the link, but unfortunately I've only read the above, and what's immediately linked to it, in, print in Tom Bottomore's collection "Austro-Marxism".

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Trans-Vaginal ultrasounds required to get abortions---wait, that's like rape

For some reason, I didn't pick up on the type of ultrasound the Virginia bill requires women to get before they have abortions, until yesterday. Perhaps I didn't follow the issue as closely as I could have, because I'm not female. When I first heard that women were being required to get ultrasounds, even though I thought that it was invasive, I pictured the type where they put gel on your belly and scan there. I didn't realize that they were actually requiring doctors to put something into your sexual organ. That's over the top in ways that break quite a few social, personal, and human rules. In fact, requiring women to receive a probe of their reproductive organs in order to get an abortion, with pregnancy being the result of using the same organs, is like requiring them to be raped, to perhaps 'teach them a lesson', before they can get an abortion.

*on edit: the more I think about it, the worse I see it is. Abortion is protected in the U.S. under the right to privacy, that's a right implied by other rights that are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Personally, I feel that abortion should be based on something more fundamental, but, whatever.

The right to privacy is just that, the idea that there are certain things that are none of the government's business and that it has no authority to intervene in. To say that you need to have something put inside your sex organ in order to get an abortion steps on and quite literally violates any notion of limits to what the government can and can't do to you. Very strange considering that most folks in Virginia probably throw fits about the government telling them what they can and can't do with their guns, but, hey, that's a guy thing.

Monday, February 27, 2012

...and art imitates life: Portlandia, Season 2, Episode 5

At the pre-school, the parents make a big deal about the head of the school who not knowing who the band Neu! is. I'm a fan of them, although I'm not a yuppie with children, and in fact would be surprised at seeing folks in that situation who did know them, yet, it's awesome, personally on target, and kind of scary. Maybe Amon Düül II would have been a better suggestion, but with the double umlauts and the, well, now I'm doing what the parents were doing on the show.

*on edit: in episode 6 of season 2, another piece that hits close to home, "She's Makin' Jewelry". I didn't do jewelry, but for a while I studied glass blowing with the intent of being an artisan. Studying didn't mean looking through books but blowing glass. Not making pipes, but actual cups, small vases, and bowls (although I did study warm glass sculpture). I gave up glass blowing because I wasn't good at the particular hand eye coordination that it needed, and when I went up to the furnace to gather the glass I would always feel like I was catching on fire. There was no way I was going to wear one of those kevlar sleeves to be able to stand in front of the furnace.

Since then, I've moved my art to stone sculpture, and print making (but not trendy linocut and woodblock prints), the stone being my main art form. But I have no illusions about it being a full time job. It's fine art, and done on the side to boot.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Newt, the man who wants to turn the U.S. into Downriver Detroit

That's the impression that I get after reading this article in The Stranger about Newt's appearance here in the Seattle area. Possibly, one of the next times I'll go to one of these myself and report, but in any case, Paul Constant had a few entertaining takes on Newt's speech, particularly the part about Gingrich wanting to subsidize oil companies, which brings us to Downriver Detroit. Downriver is an area south of the City of Detroit, in Wayne County, that's a) very polluted b)very poor, c) much whiter than the City itself, and d)very looked down on by other Metro Detroiters. I'm sure it's not like the people themselves, who live among the refineries, chemical plants, and factories, like the Rouge plant ant its now infamous Zug Island, are really just peachy keen about living there. Nevertheless, because Downriver is south of the city and heading towards Ohio, many folks in Metro Detroit look at the folks who live there as polluted, poor, rednecks. While this, again, is unjust, that general sense, prejudice and all, is what I feel Gingrich's vision of America looks like.

Here are some of Constant's takes:

"One of the biggest applause lines of the speech came when Gingrich announced that President Obama wants to be "president of the wrong country!"

He would later suggest that the country Obama wanted to be president of was "European," where Obama would achieve his "vision...of total power in the White House." (Someone bellowed, "He's a Marxist!" Gingrich did not respond.) Part of Obama's total power apparently involves him "singing Kumbaya with Ahmadinejad," which he really wants to do, according to Gingrich. Gingrich also ripped into the president for requesting to end the $4 billion in subsidies the government provides to oil companies, because according to Gingrich the oil companies are going to "save us" from the economic downturn. (A woman in the audience suggested that Obama was going to give the $4 billion he'll earn from cutting the subsidies to "his friends." Someone else agreed.)"

"He urged everyone in the hall to post on Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail that President Gingrich would lower gas to $2.50 a gallon, telling them to donate $2.50 to his website. One woman in the audience shouted "Less than that, Newt! I want a dollar a gallon!" Gingrich said he couldn't do a dollar a gallon, and that he wouldn't lie and promise he could because he wasn't a liberal. The audience laughed and laughed."

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Want money to build up a comprehensive welfare system? Build industry

The complaint heard time and time again is that the money isn't there for things like universal healthcare. The money isn't there, it doesn't grow on trees. If you set aside the fact that our taxation system is completely skewed, with corporations and wealthy individuals not paying their fair share, they do have a point in that any new social programs would rely on the underlying tax base. That money does have to come from somewhere, but it's generated by productive industries selling products and bringing in money. That money is then allocated between wages and salaries, investment, and profits. By expanding our industrial base we can expand the available tax dollars for a bigger social safety net. Industry can either be oriented towards the internal market or the external one, but ideally, the industries we want would be geared towards making goods for export. By exporting goods, instead of importing them, we bring in money without giving it away. An increase in exported goods would bring in more money. Simple as that.

If we accept that building export industry is a good idea, the question becomes how are the companies going to get started? They aren't going to get started on their own. To really get off the ground, they would need some sort of public sponsorship. This, in turn, takes money, but money spent on building industry is ultimately money better spent than that spent on increasing consumption in order to stimulate the economy.

Monday, February 20, 2012

The good old Pedophilia question

Somewhat randomly encountered a story about a pedophile being in a professional setting, and thought about the encounters I've had with pedophiles in my adult life. I had an experience in a semi-professional setting where people I had come to know, who acted somewhat strangely, turned out to be hardcore sex offenders who had done serious time. Quite a shock. Although I don't think these people came to their pedophilia because of our culture, I think that our culture praises some things that can give folks the idea that pedophilia is something acceptable, although they wouldn't likely think of it like that.

What I mean is this: I'm not an expert, I haven't studied pedophilia beyond web searches and personal experience, but my sense is that while there are several paths a person can go down to become a pedophile, our culture of macho permissiveness and unthinking approval of sexual degradation in porn can serve a vector for pedophilia to be transmitted.

Lack of self control, substance abuse, macho attitudes, love of treating women like unhuman objects. You want to be edgy, and there's the lure of amateur younger women in porn, but, hey, they don't look like children, they're still adults. You watch the aggressiveness of these men towards the younger women,and maybe the power and socially transgressive naughtiness turns you on, so you seek out porn of younger women, then younger, and next thing you know you're watching and approving of men raping girls, and thinking about if you can get away with doing it yourself.

Girls Gone Wild, with its undercurrent of exploitation, Gonzo porn whose goal is to degrade and abuse women as much as possible during sex, it's stuff that's not associated with 'sex positivity' but with showing a person that you can do anything with them that you want, and trespasses into the realm of rape as well. Perhaps when you open the door to the acceptability of forcing your will on others through forcible exploitation and rape, it's a small step to move onto children or to anyone else, for that matter.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Robert Reich shows his true colors:"The factory jobs aren’t coming back"

Here, wherein he criticizes Obama for wanting to bring manufacturing jobs back to America from China. Reich is the co-editor of the nominally social democratic magazine "The American Prospect", which has always puzzled me, because he promoted neo-liberalism under Clinton as Secretary of Labor. In fact, he supported off shoring jobs because we now supposedly lived in a "knowledge economy", where folks in the U.S. would work as symbolic processors (translation:designers and upper management business consultants) working as free agents instead of having normal industrial jobs, all of which is documented in his book "The Work of Nations". Reich was perfectly okay with Unions losing influence in the United States, a strange belief for a Secretary of Labor under a Democratic administration, but as Paul Krugman has pointed out, in his book "Peddling Prosperity", Reich had non-standard credentials as an economist. "Peddling Prosperity" is about the Clinton era economic policies that The American Prospect takes stands against, including unlimited free trade.

Glad to see that he wasn't schizophrenic all this time but, in fact, really did believe in what he was peddling during the Clinton years, although his integrity as a commentator has not improved because of it.

*on edit: only a fool thinks that it's possible to sublet all the real, hard, work to someone else and then just laze around being a creative designer, and not have the people who are doing the work eventually try to take over.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Strict Constructionism envisions a Constitution 180 degrees away from how it originally was

Because history shapes our consciousness of it. Truth be told, according to "The Federalist Era" by John C. Miller, issued by Harper Torchbooks in 1960, the Federalists, the ones who wrote the Constitution, meant for the Constitution to give the Federal government sweeping powers and to limit those of the States. That's why they moved away from the Articles of the Confederacy. The tenth amendment, guaranteeing power to the States, was interpreted in a very narrow way, with the Federal government understood to possess most of the powers that potentially could be delegated to the States. What changed all of that was the election of Jefferson to the Presidency. With the Jeffersonian takeover, the understanding of the Constitution was flipped from Federal government centric to State centric. His election, as well as the subsequent decades of control of the Federal government by the group that would become the Democratic Party, was interpreted as a rejection of the classical Constitutional system by the people.

It's the Jeffersonian interpretation, construed in a conservative manner, that Strict Constructionism appeals to, not what the founders originally intended. The pious appeals of the Strict Constructionists to the Moses like wisdom of the Founders is mostly theatrical bunk, in that they've bought into the self serving myths surrounding the U.S. government and don't actually know the history of it all that well. They know the 'Patriotic History', but not the objective history.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

9/11 and Bush. It was a great opportunity to take a smack at the upsurging Left

Whether you believe that, say, Bush and company knew 9/11 was going to happen, or you believe that it just caught them unawares, it's clear to me that they took the opportunity to exploit s national tragedy to stop a surge in progressive/leftist activity. After the Reagan/Bush I years, the first four years of Clinton's presidency saw people adjusting as the rabid conservatism subsided. The next four years saw the forces of the Left, pushed onto the margins of society and beyond during Reagan/Bush I years, get back on track and gain steam. Although the WTO protests, were the most dramatic show of strength by the Left, they simply the first in a series of actions that threatened to change the status quo. The protests moved on from the WTO to the IMF and the World Bank, and then to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. 2000 was an election year. When the election was stolen in Florida and Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, there was outrage and the activism simply continued. Bush's inauguration was protested. People were not just going home and forgetting what had happened.

Then came 9/11, and suddenly, the topic of discussion wasn't whether Bush was an illegitimate President, or about corporate greed (the two intersecting in Bush's world). Instead, Bush was now 'The Decider', the Patriotic Leader spearheading the fight against Global Terrorism. If you didn't accept that, you were a terrorist sympathizer. How convenient. Perhaps the potential for this kind of change in attitude is what Bush was referring to when he labeled the three attacks on 9/11, on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 as hitting the 'Trifecta', a horse betting term that means winning three races simultaneously.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs) upset about racist comments on Fox over Whitney Houston's death

Here. The comments really are terrible, for instance this one:

"SHe couldn’t even sell issues of “the national enquirer” anymore. Everyone was tired of the TNB. Niqqer flaps her lips and screeches, niqqer becomes rich. Niqqer ends up nearly broke after spending all of her money. Niqqer in constant fights and drug binges. Niqqer ODs when she learns she’s nearly broke and she is so wasted physically she can’t make another album. Niqqer hit the end of the road, niqqer thinking and niqqer behavior led her to where she had nothing. She couldn’t face life without the “bling bling”, she knew she would never have any more “kaching kaching”"

As someone noted, the mis-spellings are there so that the post wouldn't be automatically censored.
I find it increasingly funny that Charles Johnson has come around to see the error of his ways, although I appreciate it. The name Little Green Footballs is a likely reference to wanting to punt "green" liberals and lefties, and the site is a discussion board/news source that served as one of the prime architects of Bush era far right anti-Muslim, anti-Civil Liberties hatred. I'm not using hyperbole here. LGF really did promote ideas that can only be considered hate. Reportedly, Johnson changed his ways when he saw that the movement he helped build started to form alliances with European far right figures like Geert Wilders, he of the anti-immigration Dutch Party for Freedom. My question is, why did it really take you that long to see a problem? I mean, come on. Although Wilders isn't a neo-nazi, objecting to the U.S. far right only when it links to him is like saying that, well, you were okay with the German National Democratic Party until they started to quote Leon Degrelle, the Belgian Fascist and SS leader who wrote a love poem of a book about SS while living in post-war exile in Franco's Spain.

*on edit: post altered to reflect the fact that Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician and not a Belgian one.

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

Egypt trying 19 U.S. NGO people

For meddling with Egypt's internal affairs. Considering that this is the government that came from the Arab Spring that toppled Hosni Mubarek, perhaps we should listen to them.

Monday, February 06, 2012

Why people get upset about stuff shown on the Super Bowl halftime show

I think it's simple: the Superbowl is one of the few times that most of the United States is watching the same program, as opposed to being stuck in their own media universe. You have the most retrograde folks who normally live under rocks watching it and more enlightened folks. When something that many people find perfectly normal is shown, folks for whom life is a nice little abstraction from reality are introduced to it, and they get upset. The outrage against Superbowl Halftime antics is truly the rebellion of the least common denominator in the U.S. awareness scale.

Saturday, February 04, 2012

It seems I have a lot of readers in the Ukraine

Which is strange because I didn't think that many folks there were sympathetic to the left, what with being forcibly included in the Soviet Union and being the subject of some of the most brutal Stalinist excesses, the forced collectivization culminating in the "Holodomor" or great famine. I'm taking the stats to mean that there are actual readers out there and not bots, or pissed off folks wondering how to take down the site.

But, welcome.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Interesting quote by Engels about Arabs

Marx and Engels didn't share the same views about non-European nations, Marx being much more moderate. Engels expressed a fundamental contempt for peoples trying to obtain independence, and saw subject peoples as being better off absorbed by conquerers because they'd be incorporated into a higher economic civilization.

A few weeks ago I made reference to the non-understanding of the pair of political, cultural, and linguistic self determination by minorities within empires. I have to say that while the policy of the Soviet world in the second half of the 20th century promoting individual roads to Communism and socialism by Third World nations was flawed, it was a great advancement on the ideas that Engels, and unfortunately Marx himself to a lesser degree, put forward. Combining the protection of indigenous culture with socialist policies has much to recommend to it.

Here are Engels' thoughts about Algeria from 1848, admittedly at the start of his career. From The North Star, in an article about current events.

"Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blamable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation. The piracies of the Barbaresque states, never interfered with by the English government as long as they did not disturb their ships, could not be put down but by the conquest of one of these states. And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilisation. They were obliged to find other employment for their people than piracy, and other means of filling their exchequer than tributes paid to them by the smaller states of Europe. And if we may regret that the liberty of the Bedouins of the desert has been destroyed, we must not forget that these same Bedouins were a nation of robbers, — whose principal means of living consisted of making excursions either upon each other, or upon the settled villagers, taking what they found, slaughtering all those who resisted, and selling the remaining prisoners as slaves. All these nations of free barbarians look very proud, noble and glorious at a distance, but only come near them and you will find that they, as well as the more civilised nations, are ruled by the lust of gain, and only employ ruder and more cruel means. And after all, the modern bourgeois, with civilisation, industry, order, and at least relative enlightenment following him, is preferable to the feudal lord or to the marauding robber, with the barbarian state of society to which they belong."

I have to say that Marx showed great sympathy to people in the Third World, but saw the problems as ultimately manifesting in material oppression. Material oppression was what was really at the bottom of the other sorts of oppression claimed. That is more of a philosophical distinction in analysis than a discounting of the oppression itself, which Engels appears to have done.

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Jihad and McWorld, or, globalization and 9/11

A taboo subject. Remembering Benjamin Barber's great book "Jihad vs. McWorld", the attacks of 9/11 can be interpreted as a response not just to western intervention in Saudi Arabia and Israel but to westernizing capitalist globalization as well. That this response took the form of fundamentalist Islam is somewhat predictable, as socialism sponsored by the Soviet Union had collapsed and independent socialist ideologies had not been able to coalesce. It's possible that the plotters of 9/11 were responding to an erosion of their unique cultural and social worldview. The link between fundamentalist Islam and the the positively medieval interpretation of life put forward by Bin Laden and company added another unfortunate dimension that diverted attention away from the actions of the United States and the global capitalist culture. If it was the first act of total aggression in the globalized world, it was also the globalized world's undoing, as the response of the U.S. systematically shredded any allegiance to any global standard of conduct and to any universal notion of human culture and society.

9/11 was, of course, very very wrong. Not only that, but fundamentalist Islam is a barren ideology compared to varieties of Islamic influenced socialism based on Third World Nationalism. Hiding out in the wilds of Saudi Arabia, where any primitive notion is allowed to flourish without hindrance because of the constant flow of oil money, and where those in charge are able to indulge whatever bullshit they want, and linking up similar backwards regimes in places like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan, without much oil money, and looking at them as the promised lands, as places where pure values of some kind still live, is insane.

Hitler and an aspect of demagoguery not paid attention to in the U.S.: the soldier angle

Which is to say that when Hitler was being marketed to the German people his service in World War I was played to the hilt. According to the propaganda, Hitler was a perfect representative of the Frontsoldaten, the Front Soldiers who came back and found themselves unable to reintegrate into society, who believed that the German change of regime was due to a stab in the back by the German high command. The messianic overtones expressed by people like Dietrich Eckart, his sponsor in the Nazi Party, with him being the one they'd been looking for, were references to his front service, to his supposed bravery and heroism, as much as to his rabid anti-semitism.

We know now that Hitler was nothing like that, that his actual background was very strange to say the least and not exemplary of German or Austrian society, but it twenty twenty hindsight is great, especially if you're in a country that did not experience the event. Many people in the day commented on Hitler's being unremarkable, a non-distinguished presence,and a non-entity, but this was turned by the propaganda machine into his being one of the people. Beware of men and women in uniform who present themselves as being all American, as being the embodiment of American patriotism.

*on edit: about the stage management, and being used as a tool by others, Hitler was involved as a player political machinations before Eckart came into the picture. His assignment to spy on the Nazi party when he was in the military wasn't spying in the traditional sense of the term. It was done under a large group within the German military headed by General Erich Ludendorff that wanted to promote right wing nationalism.

Palin the literary theorist: Rawstory: Romney created ‘false narrative’ to win Florida

Here

Expect her to start tweeting about the ambiguity of governing narratives in today's society.

“I think that with $17 million purchasing some ads and some false narrative it was very, very difficult for Newt Gingrich and the other candidates to counter that bombardment of advertisements,” the former Republican vice presidential candidate told Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

“$17 million spent in one state, that purchased a lot of darts and arrows that were flown in one direction and then a lot of darts and arrows were flown back and you know a lot of that negativity sure didn’t paint the party and the cause in very attractive colors,” she added. “I think that hurts the electorate and ultimately diminishes the energy necessary to move forward in the general election.”