#BLM founder launches major project to shrink black lives
R Cobb’s great satirical image aside, this diary features Glen Ford’s ‘Black Lives Matter Founder Launches Huge Project to Shrink Black Lives’, blackagendareport.com, June 6, 2019 (BAR essays are all CC)
[Ajamu Baraka, center-front ; )]
“Alicia Garza, of Black Lives Matter fame, last week introduced her latest project in the pages of the New York Times: a survey of “more than 31,000 black people from all 50 states” to determine, as the headline announced, “What Black People Want .” The Black Census Project “is the largest independent survey of black people ever conducted in the United States,” wrote Garza. A collaboration of Garza’s Black Futures Lab , Color of Change , Dēmos , and Socioanalítica Research , the project “trained more than 100 black organizers and worked with some 30 grass-roots organizations” to elicit Black people’s views on a range of domestic subjects – but asked not a single question related to war and peace.
Garza & Co. have thus performed a kind of lobotomy on the Black polity in the United States, excising from public policy discussion Black Americans’ views on the nation’s endless military and economic wars against people of color around the world. Garza’s team appears to have operated on the premise that Black people have no opinion on the death of millions and the destruction of whole societies, crimes that are committed in their name by the U.S. government. As if Black Americans don’t see the connection between ever-expanding war budgets and constantly shrinking domestic social spending. The project is structured as if African Americans are provincial boobs who don’t give a damn about foreign affairs or the intersection of U.S. foreign and domestic policy.”
Now what Ford hasn’t mentioned is that Garza’s op-ed at the NYT (arguably a mouthpiece for both the Democrats and the CIA) is titled: ‘Dear Candidates Here Is What Black People Want’. We long for the same things as everyone else, and yet few campaigns treat us as if our experiences matter.
‘During election season, I always cringe when I see candidates eating fried chicken next to a bottle of hot sauce in Harlem or taking staged photos with black leaders. These shallow symbolic gestures are not a substitute for meaningful engagement with black voters. And candidates should know that we see right through them.
Candidates and their campaigns are comfortable talking at black people, but few want to talk to us. This limits our ability to influence their decisions and policies. And it’s a bad strategy at a time when black people, black women in particular, form the base of the Democratic Party, are its most loyal voters and mobilize other people to go to the polls.”
Ms. Garza, a founder of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, is the head of the Black Futures Lab’
Note that blackcensus.org and black futures (pdf.) features Black Not Blue (hint hint) on every page. Ford covers some of the survey results, but I’ll feature these for now:
“The most important issues for respondents were also the most important issues facing the rest of the country — low wages: [‘More than 7 in 10 (71 percent) respondents “strongly favor” increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour] lack of quality health care, substandard housing, rising college costs (84% were concerned) and different sets of rules for the wealthy and the poor. Of course, a majority of Americans face these difficulties. But black communities experience them more acutely.”
I’ve forgotten the name of the third founder of the official Black Lives Matter movement, but one was Patrisse Cullors who’d reTweeted this:
@JamilSmith “The new @ewarren plan to confront the crises of student debt and college affordability is, per @AndyKroll, by far the most ambitious and detailed of any offered by a candidate in the 2020 field. Read the details, which she shared first with @RollingStone
…which I’d found doubly interesting as the photo above Garza’s piece at the Times was captioned: A crowd listening as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts spoke to potential supporters in South Carolina in January. Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times…and in the foreground were mainly faces of color. (I’d used my last Times click yesterday, so I’d copied the whole letter into a word document.)
Now $15 an hour is hardly a living wage, is it? $22 might be, but that depends on single, married, married with children, amount of medical and other debt, and so on. So why did they choose such a low figure, and I’d include candidate Sanders in that?
Back to Ford:
“Most corporate Democratic candidates also avoid foreign policy issues whenever possible. Garza and her corporate-philanthropy-funded [< fascinating Ford Foundation and allies, and at DSA Jacobin, no less] crew impose the same strictures on Black discussion, in hopes of creating a saleable electoral campaign product for Democrats.
The survey’s web page is keen to advertise that the 31,000 “Black Census respondents are highly engaged in elections: Not only did more than 73 percent report voting in 2016, but 40 percent also report some other form of electoral activity, such as engaging as donors, volunteers, or canvassers.” The message is: these are folks that need to be put to work on some worthy Democrat’s campaign. “As the unwavering base of the Democratic Party, if the politically engaged Black population ceased to vote and gave up on the system, it would upend the Democratic Party and have devastating effects on our democracy as a whole,” says Garza’s Black Census Project, in a transparent pitch for its availability to save the Party and “the system.”
[Weird little conflations in the italicized portion, but I’ll leave that one alone.]
“Predictably, three-quarters of those surveyed want cops made accountable for their misconduct, and just over half want community boards created to supervised police departments. But the surveyors were not interested in Black people’s views on U.S. military violence abroad, or the impact of U.S. policies on poverty in the world, or anything at all about Africa, a continent the United States has militarily occupied since 2008. We do learn that President Obama, who effectuated the occupation, enjoys an 85 percent approval rating among respondents, as does Black Lives Matter.”
“The survey is a hustle to make Garza, Color of Change and their (already deeply-connected) financial backers bigger players in the Democratic Party – without challenging lawless U.S. empire, “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world, today,” as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated more than half a century ago, and as Malcolm X hammered home till his dying breath.”
“But Garza knows the borders of what is acceptable to the corporate Democratic Party, and adheres to the limits imposed by the fat cats – who are also among her donors. This is sometimes called political “capture” of dissidents by the ruling class. However, the term “capture” hardly fits when the prey is begging to be caught.”
“Her survey is an insult to the Black Radical Tradition, which is rooted in solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the world and has resulted in Black America winning allies and emulators around the globe.
Fortunately, an organization exists that will never forget the six million Congolese that have been slaughtered to date as a result of U.S. foreign policy – the worst genocide since World War Two – and which fights daily to bring Washington’s “endless wars” to a halt: the Black Alliance for Peace . But that’s not the kind of project that corporate billionaires fund.”
If the U.S. Congress was debating impeaching Trump for causing over 40 thousand deaths in Venezuela or tearing up Iran deal and moving the U.S. toward war, impeachment might be of some importance. But democrats support Trump on those moves, so we get a Mueller diversion instead.
— Ajamu Baraka (@ajamubaraka) May 22, 2019
(cross-posted from Café Babylon)
Comments
Identity politics...
...drive me crazy (not a long trip either).
I'm from Alabama. Civil rights has been a big part of my life. But this focus on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc. without talking inequality is crazy. A living salary (dependent on region and city), not minimum wage is needed. Ending these absurd wars, medicare for all like most developed countries have, mass transportation, ending fossil fuel and moving to green energy, sustainable agriculture, adequate efficient housing... and on and on... these are the issues which lift us all...black and white, gay and straight, male and female, ...
I understand somethings are based on discrimination... for example prison (and crime) reform is a race issue. None the less we could lift all boats in a sea of green peaceful prosperity (but I'm not holding my breath).
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
i get that ID politics
drive you crazy, but i'm having a bit of a time unpacking a lot of the rest of your comment.
who's not talking about inequality, for instance? yes, living salary sounds nice, but most amerikans are wage slaves, not salaried positions.
as far as your prescription:
yes, it sounds lovely. but the only green new deal that has a military peace dividend is howie hawkins and co.'s, and i don't even by his/theirs. electric cars? pffft: green capitalism. but seriously, what's Green Energy? such a catch-all term that sounds luscious, but most renewables also have not-so-hidden carbon footprints.
and yes, on big al's 'how to confront capitalism' and 'gardening' on offer, it struck me that housing is the most expensive item now, and i'd wondered if i might write up a Thought Experiment about that fact.
yes, i agree that the prison and police state are worse for blacks (and native americans), but if the stats i've read are close to correct, black wealth is far, far lower than it was before the 2008 meltdown, and yes, we could list all the reasons, including blacks and sub-prime mortgages, and tra la...but that's why i laughed that obomba's ratings were so high among the survey's respondents. but 'lifting all boats' may be a bit of a chimera, as far as i'm concerned.
i did click into 'join the black alliance for peace'...and discovered that my being white bread was okay, but i'd have to be 'a supporter', lol.
but the ocasio/markey green new deal hits none of the correct bases, especially using 'net-zero carbon' as a basis not even addressing fossil fuel use in the end, *and* never even addressing the largest carbon footprint on the planet: the US military.
thanks for reading and offering a well-considered comment, lookout.
Switzerland has a minimum salary...
...and I agree the green new deal comes up short. I like the XR approach better...citizen councils to hold politicians responsible.
Solar electric cars and homes can be a reality, but at the same time we must lower our life styles and energy demands. You have to look at what could be instead of why it can't be. I had to deal with farmers some of my career as a soil scientist. No-till won't work was a common argument. My reply, we must learn how to make it work. I had the same issue working for better schools. Yes rainbows and unicorns, but it is the life I'm working toward and in many ways living. We can bitch and moan but it ain't gonna do no good. Gotta move forward. You do what you can.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Lowering our lifestyles
The CEO of Allstate had a 727 as his personal corporate aircraft. I'm sure it would have been a 747, but a pilot friend told me that 727 was the biggest plane that could takeoff and land at Palwaukee airport, close to the CEO's home.
You are preaching to the wrong choir, telling people like me to ride on buses instead of cars while the rich and powerful use more fuel in a week than a working man does in a lifetime.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Lowering lifestyles
especially in the West and America, will amount to only a drop in the bucket as far as reducing the carbon footprint.
No one has mentioned that the problem at the root of most of the global warming/climate change issue -- we Earthlings are vastly overpopulated on this planet, far beyond what the planet offers in terms of sustainable resources.
A worldwide birth-stop plan is needed, though the chances of this happening in my lifetime are about nil. But without it we will continue to push the boulder up the mountain and see no progress.
At the same time we also need bold new thinking on alternative clean sources of energy. Deep geothermal has been suggested and it may offer the path forward. And from a technological pov, we are not too far away from being able to harness the clean limitless power of the inner earth, supplemented by solar and wind.
Ah! But who is going to volunteer for extinction?
More likely some AH clone like Trump will decide on this Final Solution to the overpopulation problem.
Or the nukes will fly obliterating ALL the human race.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
No need for
extinction. There would be an agreement for an overall worldwide population level by a certain year, with countries given their own population goal. A substantial reduction in the birth rate and overall populations, maintained thereafter at low levels, coordinated on a worldwide basis through the UN and regional alliances, does not mean any group is going extinct.
I did also say this was very unlikely to occur in the near future. It will probably take a number of years before enough countries finally recognize the scope of the problem and feel the pressure to deal with it. In the coming years we will see more and more environmental refugees, which will cause considerable pressures on the voluntary or involuntary receiving countries. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the refugee crisis reaches intolerable limits and there is no choice but to reach a coordinated serious response.
actually, it's the bill gates
foundation and david attenborough, whose carbon footprint must be 20 times higher than third-worlders, as is african eugenicist bill gates'.
i agree:
we do what we must...and are able to do. that's why i enjoy local pipeline protestors and their occasional (if even temporary injunctions), as potable water worldwide will be the most precious resource.
as for XR's "citizen councils to hold politicians responsible.", yes, and i could counter with psychologist margaret salmon's 'how to create a climate emergency', but in the end, there's an entire world of fossil fuel out there, so green new deals US, UK, XR: they're all capitalist solutions to chaos caused by capital.
"You have to look at what could be instead of why it can't be."...i agree, but there's also reality. the seas are boiling and rising, carbon ppms are already 412, iirc, and yes, we all should have been living more simply so that others might...simply live...which you know quite well was the message from the 60's. but many of us did not, and the ruling class certainly did not, but liz warren does want green bombers. ; )
good night, lookout. look, i think you're a great person, with a glass rather unreasonably 2/3 full, is all.
BLM disrupted Sanders speech in Seattle.
They harrassed every candidate except one.
Guess who?
$hillary.
BLM is an Establishment group undermining black lives.
actually, i remember that
hillary was also interrupted, but she'd handled it far better than bernie had, although i can't remember in which locale. ; ) iirc, she took the woman/women aside, and asked close to: "what are your demands, then?" and they were tragically rather stymied. i'll bet you could find it on youtube still.
on edit: i can't believe i did this, but take your pick, lol. but they weren't all women, that fact i'd forgotten.
now my BLM oeuvre at the Café is extensive, and i supported them wholly, but once an author at sustainablepulse.com featured the deal that the ford foundation, george soros, other non-profit industrial complex foundations, et.al. had offered them, i knew the cooptation would turn the movement >>> to the Blue Team. one of the new asks for policing is 'body cams', but as we know, the po-po simply turn them off when they're about to break the law. and they get away with it.
Hillary was not interrupted.
Somehow Hillary's campaign knew about the BLM reps coming up from Boston to NH. While the BLMers stood in line, the entrance to the event was stopped and they never got to attend the speech. Later Hillary met with the supposed protesters in a private room where she convinced them to join up with her establishment politics--which they meakly did. I am not sure of this point, but the only cameras in the said side room were Hillary's.
Sorry but, I disagree
Hillary did not handle it better if you are referring to when the BLM folks met with her after her speech in New Hampshire. I watched that video a number of times and what I saw was Hillary talking down to the three BLM folks who met with her. They were very respectful of her but she showed far less respect towards them and never answered their questions. Instead she preached to them about how they were going about it all wrong.
After Bernie was confronted by two women who interrupted his speech, he sought out representatives of BLM and met with them to discuss their issues. As far as I know, Clinton never did.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
When the BLM women
interrupted Bernie's speech, it wasn't so they could have a conversation with him. They took over the stage in order to address the crowd that had gathered to hear Bernie.
When the two young women ran up onto the stage and started shouting, Bernie turned the microphone over to them and stepped back. He didn't have the opportunity to discuss anything with them. That wasn't their purpose.
As you said in your comment, Bernie subsequently sought out and consulted with BLM leaders. But it's hard to see how he, or anyone, could have handled the situation as it was happening onstage any differently or better.
By the way, the event in question took place in Seattle in August 2015. It was obviously several months prior to the time a Secret Service security detail was assigned to Bernie, which was in February 2016 or thereabouts, if I recall correctly.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Well, I don't have discussions with my microwave
nor do I ask my mixer what it thinks.
They're just tools I use to a purpose.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
i'd even provided a
youtube list of different 'clinton interrupted by blm activists', one seems to have been in atlanta, boston (?), ach, i've already forgotten the others. bernie as assaulted in Seattle? if so, i've forgotten, but i do remember the audience had judged them to be rude as hell. i really hadn't cared, myself.
but how sad this has become a thread on those 3 women, the 3 candidates rather than the black alliance for peace *and the actual fact of police killings with impunity (blacks and reds, esp.)
The genuine work continues, hampered by the fakes
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hillary was not interrupted for over 3 weeks.
Nor were any Republicans.
Martin O'Malley and Bernie were the ones who were interrupted: the only candidates in any way to the left of Clinton (not that O'Malley is any prize, but he is to the left of her on climate).
Just as with any organization, no matter how fraudulent, some supporters will join just because they support the organization's stated ideals, and, not knowing or believing the organization is fraudulent, will act sincerely and naturally. In other words, if you concoct this strategy of interruption to disrupt left-wing primary challenges to Hillary Clinton, but SAY that you're doing it in order to call politicians' attention to the daily murder of black people, some people will join your organization to protest racist murder. Those people didn't get the memo about Hillary being untouchable. So they start interrupting her too, in all innocence, which means that people like John Lewis have to attempt to shush them and end up getting them thrown out of the event--because the real goal was not to highlight the murders of Black people but to provide Hillary Clinton with a moral and political credibility she does not possess.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
it seems that you're indicating
that the movement is fraudulent, based on the three women who'd claimed to have semi-patented the title. as i've said to gulf gal below, i doubt that back in the day most activists had even heard of them; i know i hadn't until they'd interrupted some candidates.
those whose twit accounts i'd checked out for police state news were these,plus shaun king who's now owned by the Intercept.
sadly, keegan stephan's account is protected, but he was so liveley in NYC that he finally went back to school and got his law degree, specializing in human rights law.
https://twitter.com/bassem_masri
https://twitter.com/search4swag
https://twitter.com/Rebelutionary_Z
https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC
now muslim bassem masri did a hella lot of live-streaming, as did rebel Z (who got shot in the shoulder for his sins, but bassem died of unknown causes in nov. 2018 (heavy.com also has photos, videos) but adds these three names to the list:
so please don't allow the coopted ones to stand for the whole movement at large. i did just check, and the #BlackLivesMatter twit account has been taken over by...these sell-outs (maybe that's not fair; i don't care).
No, it's more complicated than that.
BLM predates the interruption strategy by quite a lot. It used to be a bottom-up grassroots movement which used as its main strategy lying down in traffic to call attention to the daily murders of black people by the cops (also by vigilantes, but the cops were the main issue, because it's near-impossible to defend oneself against murders committed by the state).
However, as with Occupy, anybody can call themselves BLM, and that makes it easy for the powerful to co-opt the name. (All you need are some Black people willing to work for the powerful to put into leadership positions in your version of "BLM.").That creates a movement where part of it is controlled top-down political activity and part is bottom-up grassroots activity. Then the issue becomes: which version of BLM draws the most people? which version gets the most people to believe that it is the real, true version?
Often the more successful version of the political movement will be the one that's best known, which is generally determined by who gets the most media coverage. Also the endorsement of known and trusted leaders, such as those in the CBC, gains credibility for whichever version of the movement they endorse.
Also, the people, who are the most important part of any movement, will often have no idea that part of the movement is controlled top-down activity with a very different goal than the goal of the original grassroots movement. Therefore, they simply act in good faith and assume that anything that calls itself "BLM" is striving to end racist murder.
But if that were true, then the following event, when a young activist confronted Hillary about her super-predators comment and got thrown out to the actual hissing of white donors, would have led to all of "BLM" withdrawing their support from Clinton, at least until recompense of some kind had been made by Hillary. Yet they did not withdraw their support. In fact, some "BLM" supporters on Twitter began to make character attacks on the young activist. An anti-racist organization focused on the murder of black people by racists could hardly support the Clinton crime bill and the "super predators" argument that rests on the racist idea that black people, including black children, are criminal thugs. Even less could such a movement endorse a white candidate, or any candidate really, whose response to a young Black activist was to stand in solidarity with her hissing white donors, refuse to answer the young woman, and have her summarily thrown out.
http://time.com/4237111/black-lives-matter-hillary-clinton-protest/
I know that you know all of this, and the only reason I inflicted the wall of text above on you is that it's really important that we not fall into simple binary thinking in such a fraudulent political "culture." The statement "BLM is a contrivance of the rich and powerful to support the Democratic establishment" and the statement "BLM is a passionate grassroots movement against racist murder" are both untrue, under the circumstances. There is no need to lump those striving for justice in with those striving for a cushy job at the Center for American Progress, and I certainly didn't mean to do that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
my apologies,
but it's too much for me to read and absorb for now. may i direct you to my verbose comment (and links) to gulf gal toward the end of the comment stream for now? weekends are full of RL obligations, and i'm way behind by now. back as i'm able. ; )
BINGO! N/T
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Methinks you have it right.
What happened to Bernie in Seattle was pushing the envelope of an assault. After that incident I remember the attacks on Bernie that he was a racist and that the democratic party had race problems.
What happened with Hillary (in a NH speech) was a staged political event that showed that Hillary was a friend to black people and listened to their complaints--the democratic party was redeemed. The BLMers there in NH were absolute shills who in no way displayed the militancy of the Seattle protesters. They were later given "positions" in various capacities.
But then, there was a conference not long afterwared of black advocacy groups at which Garza was there. A Hillary outreach coordiantor was there to advocate for Hillary who met with Garza. Garza would not throw "shade" at her and wanted to see what the advocate for Hillary had to say. If I remember it was Garza who attacked the democrats to show BLM was a movement independent of the democrats and suddenly she was willing to listen. Bernie was not shown any such consideration and cooperation while Hillary was.
The irony is that the DCCC not soon afterward that instructed candidates how to marginalize BLM.
Guess that's par for the course with anything related to
the democratic party. It is an imperialism/war party after all so going against that grain won't get you far with the party. It's the same thing with most of the progressive movement led by Sanders, they'd rather not focus on imperialism, in fact, they won't even mention the word, but when prudent will voice the appropriate indignation (like, no more regime changes!) while still voting for and supporting the 1.4 trillion imperialist police state.
yeppers,
par for the course, indeed.
"but when prudent will voice the appropriate indignation (like, no more regime changes!) while still voting for and supporting the 1.4 trillion imperialist police state."...and i'd add: while calling those 'regimes criminal, killing their own people, 'some say' stolen elections' (at least the bern qualified his condemnation of maduro's corrupt regime that far...) oh: and 'i don't recognize 'random guaido as the prez of VZ!' or voting for the 'defense of nato act'....or: failing to vote at all. jeebus.
I'd love to see her supporters make her explain
why she's a member of the CFR.
"CFR candidate Barack Obama, probably the most anti-war candidate in a couple of decades, and so condemnatory of his predecessor in this area, as president not only continued the Bush wars but added Libya, central Africa and now Iraq and Syria to the list while sponsoring drone killings in Pakistan, Syria, and Somali. History will view him as having been as pro-war as George W. Bush."
http://libertyunderfire.org/2015/01/he-cfr-loads-the-2016-presidential-e...
In any event, the no regime change ploy is too convenient and something that would no doubt be used as opposition fodder to placate the real issue of imperialism and the global war OF terror.
Tulsi's explanation about the CFR
Take it for what it is worth.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PUKSfjdL7g]
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thanks, didn't know she had responded.
For what it's worth
But on reflection and after listening to an old Obama
video, that's basically the same thing Obama said as Senator.
I concur with
the podcaster (sounds like Jamarl Thomas) who concluded by saying TG gave a good answer and was credible. The CFR nontroversy is of a piece with her meeting with Assad and Modi and reinforces her view that you shouldn't just always meet with those in your camp, that there can be benefit to meeting with those with differing points of view, particularly if they wield considerable power.
I'm not persuaded by political purity arguments, and this CFR stuff is very weak tea.
I'm glad you're not persuaded by "purity" arguments
since you seem to have such a thing about purity. Fwiw, those of us that aren't democrats shouldn't count in your purity thing because we don't discriminate between democratic party politicians.
But no, the issue is about the CFR, not the bullshit excuse that she's networking. I've done much research on the CFR, but I won't bore you.
If I "have such
a thing about purity" it's only because a number of lefties, and those claiming to be lefties, seem to have such a thing about it.
AOC is too young, needs to wait her turn, seems a bit uppity, the GND doesn't go far enough. Tulsi met with Assad and Modi and even Trump so she must like dictators and probably secretly prefers strong-arm rule and conservative religious nationalists. Her CFR membership, if she still is one, means she is quietly in the neolibcon camp of regime changers and warmongers.
Michael Flynn and Dr Jill Stein had one dinner with Vlad Putin at that Moscow confab and so must be Putin Puppets.
This is all just nuts, as crazy as the RW/Glen Beck guilt-by-association and conspiracy theorist wackos.
Opposition to democratic party politicians is crazy
conspiracy theory stuff? All righty. You seem to think all "lefties", of which I avoid calling myself because it groups with people I don't agree with, should support democratic party politicians and stop pointing out their negatives. And those that don't are the purity police, letting perfect be the enemy of the good, all that. I heard that bullshit for years on Daily Kos and their "elect more and better democrats" mantra. Keep in mind that less than 30% of the voting public identify as democrats and only about 110K voted for AOC. I sure didn't and she doesn't represent me.
There is political party
loyalty purity and ideological purity. Neither is such a good idea. DK deals mainly in the party purity of a centrist nature, but I find that goes too far, as does his heavy censorship hand, which Stalin would have been proud of. Not at all to my taste, and I haven't been a regular there since probably 08.
It's more the ideological purity that I object to in some of the posts here, nitpicking every detail of a candidate's profile. For a very few, Tulsi being in the NG Reserve makes her part of the warmonger machinery, a deal breaker. This is stupid, leftier-than-left purity and lefty virtue signaling run amok. Her meeting once with Modi makes her a secret Hindu nationalist too -- more idiot guilt by association. Ditto her membership, which may be expired now, with the CFR.
That said, I would have advised her, for appearances sake, to have not joined up with the CFR or to have tweeted recently that she would accept donations from millionaires and billionaires. I think she is genuinely not a typical CFR neocon type nor someone who will be looking to take care of millionaires/billionaires, but staying away from both groups would have been wiser politically.
with all due respect,
i'm wondering what you've meant by "Her meeting once with Modi makes her a secret Hindu nationalist too -- more idiot guilt by association." and when that meeting was.
now this is from 'in defense of tulsi gabbard' at progressive army and at least he's in the main, showing some of her blemishes:
yes, he committed muslim genocide as the governor of gujjarat province, no small matter to many of us. tulsi also accompanied the genocidaire on two charm offensives across amerika, most notably to silicon valley (ro khanna, too?) once he was permitted to enter the US legally again. all those high tech customers, including for modi's 'cashless society', worked fine for the elites, not so much for the rabble classes.
but now that india is a US ally, as is israel, pakistan is the evil nation, both with nukes:
India to buy 100 more of the Israeli bunker-buster bombs used in attack on Pakistan terror camp
The Indian Air Force has inked a deal with an Israeli defense firm to restock its arsenal with an advanced version of a bunker-buster bomb it had used in an airstrike against an alleged terrorist hideout in Pakistan in February, RT.com
and now that he's been re-elected, his rule over the lower and middle castes is even more barbaric. what a peach he is.
on edit: i'd forgotten the link, but even so. i'm not preaching that any of you should care about this or other things tulsi, but what i am saying is that i'm by way of an internationalist defender of human rights, and this matters a hella lot to me. and Modi can Namaste and do yoga on youtube all he wants, and he's still who he's always been, but now the West cheers him on, apparently agreeing w/ the thug that 'India is the largest democracy in the world'. kewl, let's sell 'em more weapons systems 'n bombs, use more of their ports.
Plenty of peaches out
there the US needs to be able to talk with, none of them saints. Of course, if the same standard were applied by other countries to us, they would not meet with our head of state either and might join in the game of denying visas to our leader to visit their country. Again, I am not a fan of purity tests, whether domestic or foreign, and the purity games could easily get out of hand.
However, not being at all versed in the 2002 event and allegations against Modi, I would not think it wise to rely too much on the accounts from plagiarist Fareed Zakaria who does come from a Muslim background and may harbor a subtle bias even as a non-religionist, but I do of course agree with his conclusion and concurrence with TG.
As to all the rest, it shouldn't be a shock that the Indian gov't is not acting in entirely Grandi-like ways of peace and understanding and passive nonviolent conduct. How many countries do outside of Denmark and Iceland?
sorry to virtue signal,
but i've written quite a lot about modi's genocidal history in gujarat province, and kashmir stuck between two nuclear powers, both here and at the café, iirc. the west believes that imran khan supports terrorists groups in pakistan, seems to believe that it's insurrectionists within kashmir who fire across the border into india, but all of the opinions are pretty much evidence-free, but india keeps disappearing' dissidents claiming some arcane law from nehru's (iicr) law.
so plagiarist fareed aside, i will say that above all i do trust arundhai roy's reporting...from inside india, a well as rupe india's and other human rights journalists.
well, yay-uss. that straw-nation sophistry excuses it all, doesn't it? and by the by, the man he beat was rahul gandhi of the indian congress party, grandson of indira gandhi. roy said he has a somewhat checkered past, but had improved in recent years, fwiw.
but as i've said: it doesn't have to matter to you or other gabbard enthusiasts; it just matters greatly to me. that is all.
on edit: i checked, and found at least two diaries on india/pakistan/kashmir i've cross-posted here. i unearthed tweets that show rahul's rather checkered past.
Everyone has a
checkered past, some more checkered than others. But if we started in on the purity tests with each foreign leader with denial of visas thrown in, and they reciprocated, the only meetings in the world among leaders would be between Denmark and Iceland.
Btw, speaking of countries worthy to receive me, I have Denmark high on my short list. Iceland is too cold, and I prefer a longer summer. Besides the virtue of being relatively simon pure morally, with Denmark making a positive mark in history with its resistance to Nazis in WW2, both are unlikely to feature in anyone's invasion plans, due to their geopolitical insignificance.
Re your edit:
are you saying you're in the same camp as the lib interventionists, the R2P crowd of Samantha Power and the like, the sadly misguided liberals who advocated for US intervention against Gaddafi in Libya and against Assad in Syria, and other places? Yeah, that's worked out real well.
I'm an "internationalist" too, and I also like to proudly pat myself on the back for that. But I believe it's morally better to let people work out their problems by themselves, whether political or environmental, etc. Very rare exceptions to that rule. That also includes selling military equipment and technology. Only countries which have a long proven track-record of responsible behavior, and with a clear and present need, should be getting our military support.
what in the world
concerning my edit has given you any indication of the rubbish you just painted me with, wokkamile?
and i guess these nations are in the eyes of the beholders:
may i say that you have a strange way of 'debating' and presenting counter-arguments.
regarding
"I'm an "internationalist" too, and I also like to proudly pat myself on the back for that."
which is not what i'd indicated whatsover: as in rather: "i'm by way of an internationalist defender of human rights, and this matters a hella lot to me.
as this is a dead thread, and i've waited for it to be, i'll add that i'd only checked TWO pages of my essays here, and discovered that you hadn't been on either about modi, kashmir, arundhati roy on modi, not 'the suppressed OPCW on the fake gassing in douma', not Palestinian Reisitance, nor 'the leaked I/P 'deal of the century'. so while not proof positive, i call bullshit on you claiming to be any kind of 'internationalist'
the end.
FYI, The pod casters were
Niko House of MCSC network (not Jamarl Thomas), Craig Pasta Jardula and Fiorella Isabel of the Convo Couch. And all three are long time political activists and Tulsi supporters.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
even if that article were
just half-accurate, (and yes, you've done more than due diligence on CFR), my memory is of lifetime members george clooney and don cheadle and 'lookout south sudan: hollywood stars are on the case (clooney's 'the sentry') cafe babylon, and i just kicked up 'Why Is South Sudan a Hellhole? Blame George Clooney’, ken Silverstein, feb. 6, 2015
the US's dirty fingers advised a split in sudan, oil in the south arabic ethnic class divisions, etc. made to order for warlord v. warlord. and it hasn't stopped yet.
to all arguing blm v. bernie or
hillary; i don't have the time, nor the inclination to search out the various locales in the youtube videos search i'd provided.
sorry i'd even brought it up (oh, wait: i hadn't) , as that's all by way of a side issue. pace to all of you.
No problems
I mostly avoid posting except to add something when I believe there may be more information that would be helpful to others in understanding context.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
i appreciate that many
of you have different takes on those interruptions than my vague memories.
what i will note is that the recent protest movement against police killing unarmed (and often mentally ill) people began in ABQ in 2014, although i've forgotten how many men mere murdered...and got away with it. and if any were black, i can't remember.
i also remember that the protestors against police murders of blacks who'd used the Twitter hashtag BLM seemed shocked to discover that cullors, garza, and friend said it was Their (almost patented) movement when some native americans created #NativeLivesMatter. but i guess the three really did want fame, and now they have it; i doubt most activist had ever even heard their names earlier.
for many people of color, it's not just that the po-po are apt to kill them without reason, but that there are so many extra-judicious murders of especially blacks. operation ghetto storm investigated (kali akuno and arlene eisen, published by the Malcolm X blackroots committee):
Operation Ghetto Storm 2012 Annual Report on the extrajudicial killing of 313 Black people by police, security guards and vigilantes
The Report exposes how every 28 hours someone inside the United States, employed or protected by the U.S. government kills a Black child, woman or man.
These state-sanctioned killings are the casualties of what we call "Operation Ghetto Storm," a perpetual war to invade, occupy and pacify Black communities-- much like the U.S. invades and occupies the Middle East."
for me, obomba's sick response in militarizing the police up the wazoo made me despise him more than i'd thought possible. he finally knuckled a little under protests, and said that the po-po could no longer have tanks on tracks, but the ones on wheels were okey dokey.
but in the end, it's not ID politics i dislike, it's appeals to ID politics i find odious, as with this 'dear candidates' letter, and the twelve times AOC's capitalist green
deal shout outs to 'people of color'...ah, i've forgotten the various terms for 'the disadvantaged'..in order that the D can campaign on it...and win.
i did laugh that garza's letter included this in various guises:
they sure did ask me; how about you?/s
it was a sad day for me when the guardian ended 'the counted', though. they may not have had all killed by police included, but it was an excellent searchable data base.
but for me, the one who'd bothered me the most was con man, Big Brand 'teach for america' deray mckesson and his blue vest. 'DeRay Takes Baltimore', by Drew Franklin on February 19, 2016
anyway, a few morning thoughts, perhaps too many, but...there it is.
re: BLM
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that BLM began in much the same way that Occupy did, without any single centralized founder or leaders, although David Graeber is often credited with the idea behind Occupy. In other words, it was an idea that many blacks rallied around and used as a platform to inform the public at large about black issues, particularly police brutality.
Personally I prefer these types of social movements that originate in and are driven from the grass roots. I believe that this is why there was a big difference between the public action taken by the two women at Bernie's rally with that of the three young people who went to speak with Hillary in NH. If I am wrong about the above, I love to know and will stand corrected.
The militarization of our police is another one Obama's awful legacies. Americans now live in a hyper militarized society which continues to degrade our personal freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This militarization of police and our society at large has turned our society into one in which violence is the accepted standard for dealing with anything from a minor traffic violation to dealing with a country that does not knuckle under the weight of the 800 pound US gorilla. In other words, lives of those whom society has demonized are cheap. I keep hoping people will finally wake up and take to the streets like the yellow vest movement in France to stop this madness.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
i think you're exactly correct,
which i'd been trying to make clear to readers. and yes, david graeber credits himself w/ starting OWS, but that may be a stretch. ; ) there also was a radical activist site in the UK whose name i've forgtten that seems to have been one of the early progenitors. ; )
i feel silly now, as i'd gone into my black lives movement archives to check for dates, but had forgotten that i'd only opened the place a few years ago, so i tried to check firedoglake (now shadowproof) but i couldn't kick up any of my diaries there. meaning: i don't know when i began following some of the early accounts i'd listed above, but i'd never peeked into any of cullors', tometi's, or garza's accounts as i remember. a few accounts i'd watch in oaktown, but i cannae remember their names.
but they were a diffuse group, and used sources like Cop Watch and other volunteer organizations (one had a huge data base) for news and folks could add more content at will. not all were cops killing blacks of course, but any of the rabble classes.
i'd also felt it was important on the organizations that trained cops to testily at trials, including re-enacting 'crimes' (falsely) to convince jurors and/or judges that 'po-po X simply didn't have any time to consider NOT shooting the suspect dead, as his phone really did look like a gun!' lt. dave grossman's name i actually do remember (he even sold the T-shirts, arrggh): 'sometimes you're the sheep, sometimes you're the wolf' or some such.
but yes, it was definitely a grass-roots movement, and as i recall it, few had ever mentioned those three women. i just had a thought about what to search for at shadowproof, but in the end it won't make a bit of difference no matter what i find. ; ) i will say that my media files are full of photos i'd used to report; some of the worst ones tend to stick with you, kinda like the kids killed by asshole obomba's Terror Tuesday drone assassinations.
peace to you, and to all of us when we can manage it. the US has made it a harder world than it might have been...in so many ways.
on edit: great idjit that i am, i arrrrgh went and looked again at shadowproof, and in one very long diary w/ too many links and stories of murdered by police, i did kick up this short video from 2014 (it may have been about the time that under his rule DHS (?) had declared a constitutional-free zone, 200 miles within every US border):
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=kStDAPwCBa0]
closing time for me,
and again i'm gonna have to go with sam bradley's cover of dylan's best anti-war song; as far as i'm concerned, bradley owns this song now. war is the seed underlying every other cause of the people's want and immiseration:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaMz8pgua_0]
g' night, and peace when you're able.
This was very insightful
I can't put my finger on it, but it feels like every recent movement has made it's stand and was able to garner wider support on merit. After a shorter and shorter maturing cycle it almost self neutralizes itself, usually with the elevation of movement "mangers" who may or may not have been movement founders.
We have been factionalized into smaller and narrower thought ghettos, easily played against one another, and incomprehensible to many. Good ideals wither in mental trench warfare. Seems almost by design. Wonder what segment of society is immune to this, but fully capable of playing the game?
insightful comment and
question. in general, i'd say 'follow the money', as well as offer: 'the democratic party, where good movements go to die'. occupy wall street detractors now laugh at that social movement, but forget that the encampments were crushed by dhs fusion centers in one fell swoop; some are still doing what they can. but i always chuckle when eleanor goldfield insists that She is occupy.com. (whoever, whatever 'the people's party' is...)
Thank you for the reminder
I am more and more impressed with OWS. I couldn't understand how it could exist without leaders and demands. But I can only admire the discipline the organizers had. Obama would have unleashed lethal force to make an example of "anti government" (capitalist)demonstrations had there been any force on OWS side (and they were provoked time again). This movement hit the 1% where they lived. And the democrats proved what side they were on.
sorry i'd missed this,
i must have kept the tab open for too long. i will say that at times there was a certain amount of elitist hanky-panky afoot in some general assemblies, late votes after most participants had needed to get some sleep, etc. i also liked that some GAs wanted to be known as 'Decolonize' as the participants had such odious memories of being 'Occupied' in the first place.
chris hedges' 'the cancer in occupy' pissed me purple, and caused the whole movement to falter and discuss 'diversity of tactics'. thing is, most of the broken windows and looting seemed to have been done by po-po agents provocateurs with police issue boots noted in photos. his trip was that Occupy was dangerous precisely due to its non-violence, but i strongly disagree with that.
but the destruction of everything at zucotti park, especially the large library thrown into dumpsters...was needless evil personified. and the charges of 'rape and vermin' in the encampments. whooosh, tents, sleeping bags and packs thrown into dustbins, and worse. also: the kettling and spraying of protestors with mace. so many officer krupkes who enjoyed their tormenting.
Another sign that COINTILPRO never ended.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
ha;
great take. 'dissent to the white ruling class will not be tolerated'.
i got to thinking about the stated 'hatred for identity politics' expressed here, and wondered if some of that indicated white privilege, non-LGBTQ, and so on. just spit-ballin'... ; )
There's an argument to be made for that.
Folks of color certainly are getting screwed by capital and it shows every day despite the fact that a few have been raised up to prominent positions within the empire. The identity virtue signalling by both factions of the Capitalist Party for the preservation of a perverse system, however, is quite sickening.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
yes, and i'd further add
that most people of color are elites that the western hegemon has given their imprimatur to rise as Rulers, even are criminals such as genocidaires paul kagame and narendra modi...off the top of my head. in this nation, obomba and ford's 'the black misleadership class'.
i have notes for a newly re-elected modi diary, but this thread is so creepy i can't say i'll even bother writing it up. but i will say that i saw a photo in the twitterverse recently showing that the newest beauty queens in india...all have next-to-white skin. i hear arundhati roy is my head: the 'largest democracy in the world™ except for the lower castes and muslims.
but around the globe, the blacks and browns suffer mightily under the hegemon's rule.
many in the US greater black lives protests often chant assata's prayer:
it is our duty to fight for our freedom.
it is our duty to win.
we must love each other and support each other.
we have nothing to lose but our chains.
which is also why the palestinians are willing to march for their freedom.
I had concerns about BLM going back to the fall of 2015.
The way the group was constructed, there was no leader. Governments have long known that this kind of "leadership" is perhaps the easiest to penetrate and to control.
As an example, Bernie Sanders was scheduled to hold a rally one Saturday in Seattle. Prior to that rally he was scheduled to speak at a rally to save Social Security. Two black women who had created their own chapter of BLM that morning prior to the rally for Social Security, jumped the stage and took the mike from Sanders and began insulting the audience with racial taunts, essentially cutting off old white people from talking about Social Security.
This incident was used early on by Clinton mouthpieces in an attempt to isolate him from black audiences.
All of this points to a larger issue of continuous COINTELPRO manipulation of not only public forums and political movements, but of the press generally.
yes, that and clinton
interruptions at events by those women who'd claimed to BE the larger movement have been well-represented in the comment thread. but again: They were not The Movement, see my comments above.
in my entire black lives oeuvre at the Café, my guess is they haven't been mentioned One Time.
this thread was meant to be about the cooptation of those women and their homies v. actual globalist struggles in aid of black lives.
long day, no sleep last night,
so it's closing time for me. this is from the late santee sioux AIM leader & alchemist john trudell, even though the genre may be foreign to your ears. listen if you can.
Some ones are crazy or
Maybe we take turns
Dreaming about some kind of life
We say it could have been different
But it wasn't because we weren't
................................
Surviving paid for in dreams
Feeling like a world alone
Serving God with the Devil to pay
Feeling like something in no place
What goes on in Hell anyway?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y88AaSnJwqA]
and again, assata's prayer:
it is our duty to fight for our freedom.
it is our duty to win.
we must love each other and support each other.
we have nothing to lose but our chains.