Thursday, July 24, 2014

Wisdom


 ______________________



______________


 

_____________________


IN a forum--a real forum--people would discussing and debating ISSUES and IDEAS. But in this so-called African American--which in fact is NEITHER-- discussions and debates very quickly turn personal. Often there is no debate at all. And when there is, those debates often turn into quarrels. It is interesting that when I listen to statements, speeches or writings of those cats back in the 1960s--Martin, Malcolm, Angela, Bobby Seale or whomever--yeah, they sometimes ge personal, but they're mainly about issues. Malcolm's "Message to the Grassroots" occasionally issues insults, but mainly offers an ANALYSIS. And this was a brother without even a high school education. Our political culture, like the political culture of America as a whole, has seriously deteriorated and regressed.

-Savant

___________________

Don't be a fool! The Convention Peoples Party was the political organization led by Dr.Kwame Nkrumah, who led Ghana to independence from British rule---decades before anything like "Afrocentrism " was even conceived. Probably before Molefi Asant was even born. While I hardly consider Abdurratin a worthy successor to Nkrumah and his comrades, the CPP was a movement of great historical importance. And the great evil was not "Afrocentrism " but colonialism, imperialism and white supremacy. For the most part that still is the case.

-Savant

 ____________

Your first source is a right wing white propaganda site; hardly a credible source. Your second link I cannot access. Most rappers one listens to are simply talking trash, or "gangsta " stuff (mainly against other Black people), but not extermination of whites. And who is Selwyn Duke? What is his area of scholarly expertise? At any rate, most Black violence is actually directed against other Blacks---just a most violence against whites comes from other whites. And street violence, or common criminal violence hardly amounts to genocide, or even contributory to genocide unless part of a plan of genocide. Blacks are in no position to orchestrate such a plan even if they WANTED to--and most don't want to Indeed, if there were a REAL danger of genocide in America it would be a danger to Blacks, not whites. Whites still control most of the political power, and even more of the economic power. They still also have nationally a monopoly on instruments of force and violence. While I will not claim that there's an actual plan afoot for Black genocide--for I have no credible EVIDENCE of such---it would be more likely (given actual power relations in the USA) than any genocide against whites. But given the declining fertility of whites both in America and Europe, given their declining birth rates, nature or perhaps their own social practices may be a danger to the future of whites.

-Savant

 __________________

Strange that I, a Black man in America, don't hear Black men talking or worrying that much about their population growth. When you hang out with brothers that's just NOT the conversation. Some brothers are interested in politics, maybe wondering what happens next after Obama. Some brothers--not many--talk about the danger of Black genocide. Some SISTERS I've also heard talk about such things.(As early as the 1930s & 40s Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois pondered the possibility that the fate of European Jewry could become the fate of America's Blacks). Others just talk about sports. Naturally, men talk about women. (Of course, ALL men do that--not just Black men). I simply don't hear Black men talking about killing any "opposition ", though some do hold that when scumbags like the pigs who killed Diallo or Trayvon Martin walk, then maybe WE should take them out. I don't hear many Black men talking about any mass slayings of whites, and they seem to regard as CRAZY the few who do talk about such things. I hear Black men talk about the huge numbers of people in prison, the scarcity of jobs, and the near nonexistence of a decent wage for most of the few jobs available. The fact of the matter is that Black men are such an complex and diverse human group that most generalization you make about them are likely to be either false, or at best a partial truth. I don't hear any significant number of Black men talking about mass killings of non-Black others. I think that the belief that they do is a paranoid illusion.

-Savant

 ______________________

Maryland was a slave state, and practiced segregations. So much for Maryland's liberalism unless you're comparing MD to backwaters like Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida and other centers of American Fascism. At any rate, Maryland (and America) doesn't mind "lowering " standards on behalf of whites, especially where it serves the interests of the 1%. But I will credit Maryland for at least not practicing the most extreme forms of racism and class oppression. Perhaps that's one of the reasons that this "libtard " state is one of the wealthiest in the country with one of the highest general levels of education (however inadequate that level still is).

-Savant

 _______________________

Given proper sources many times in this and other threads, and not just on the thought of Dr. King. At any rate, I've published work on King through a respectable academic publisher, which a number of AA Forum folk have actually seen, and which has been reviewed favorably by established King scholars (which I do not claim to be) like Lewis Baldwin and Rufus Burrows, Jr. (his most important work being, GOD AND HUMAN DIGNITY: PERSONALISM, THEOLOGY AND ETHICS OF MARTIH LUTHER KING, JR)

-Savant


Tuesday, July 8, 2014

More Information in July of 2014



_____________________________



 ____________

 




___________________


Everybody know that I am antifascist and anti-Nazi. I've elder who fought at Normandy. But I seem to recall you speaking (though somewhat guardedly) in favor of Hitler (thoughly more explicitly of Stalin). So, you've NOT proven where you stand. Again, I expect you to relate the issue of Nazism to the thread's discussion of the Civil Rights Act. Even Dr. King's WARNING about the dangers of Fascism in America--a Fascism that will be at least Nazi-esque given America's tradition of racism--is at least related. But you were never good at discerning relations between things.

-Savant

 _________________

Many men of ALL races and colors and ethnicities abuse and harass women. And in marital situations proportionately MORE white men than Black men murder their spouses. Even while still a student I'd seen shelters for battered and abused women--mostly white wives and girlfriends of white husbands and lovers. Whoever presumes that abusiveness toward women is somehow a specially "black thing" is simply delusional, and basing conclusions more on prejudice than reason. Of course, the assumption that one should allow oneself to be abused by someone else because that person has been abused was neither stated nor implied by mean. Any such interpretation would be groundless. Also, I hope that it is really true that you are "well versed" in the history and culture of African Americans. But thus far I've yet to see evidence of this 

-Savant

 _________________


 Greetings. I happen to know the father of Ta Neheisi Coates. He is none other than Paul Coates, former leader of the Baltimore Black Panther Party, and now owner of Black Classics Press in Bmore area. That was a provocative article by Ta in the ATLANTIC.

-Savant

 _____________________


VOTING RIGHTS ACT Let us not forget that just last summer the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, once regarded as the crown jewel of Civil Rights legislation, by gutting enforcement provisions. The struggle continues!

 -Savant

 _____________________


 Nixak-77 acp • 8 months ago


If you ask most African Americans [FYI: a term Malcolm X helped popularize] that are either old enough to remember &/or have studied their careers, which Black leader of the 1960s do they most admire &/or were most important to the Black freedom struggle of that era- number 1 would be MLK but he would be closely followed by Malcolm X. Even as apparently most white folks, whether calling themselves 'liberal' / Dims or conservative / Repugs, seemingly have a problem understanding why Malcolm was/is so admired by Black people. Actually there was much mutual respect between Malcolm & Martin, w IMO their main differences being tactical. In fact by April 4th 1967 ['Beyond Vietnam'] many were saying that Martin sounded like a [so-called] 'non-violent' version on Malcolm [but as Chris Hedges says Malcolm was NOT an advocate of violence]. Malcolm called for the right to armed self-defense in the face of RACIST VIOLENCE- especially when the authorities failed to protect Blacks victimized by RACIST VIOLENCE [FYI: the right to self-defense is supposedly a constitutional right].

 ____________________________

 Nixak-77 • 8 months ago

I'm well past my naive youthful hero-worship of JFK [& RFK] BUT- 2 issues which I differ w the usually astute analysis of Noam Chomsky is RE the meaning & implications of the JFK hit & the 9-11 'New Pearl Harbor' event. Chomsky's {mis}Analysis of these key events in modern US [& world] history is totally conventional- for which he effectively regurgitates the official narratives of the Warren [lone nut gunman's 'magic bullet'] & 9-11 {c}Omission reports. 50 yrs after Nov 22 1963 in Dealey Plaza, those folks who even care to remember are still debating whether: LH.Oswald acted alone or was he actually on the 2nd floor having lunch & drinking a coke when JFK was shot? - Does the 'magic bullet' [myth] even make ballistic sense? - Did the shot that blew JFK's brains all over Dealey Plaza throwing him violently backwards & to the left, come from behind or from the 'Grassy Knoll' located in front of him & to his right? Thus we've never gotten to the [far] more important questions of WHO? & WHY?... I have no doubts that JFK started his tenure as a typical cold warrior style 'centrist Dim' politician [IE: more like a more 'polished' Harry Truman than a Henry Wallace], & he definitely was from an Ivy League elitist back-ground. IMO his daddy likely used his links to Chicago's 'Boss' Daley, the mafia [& even IL's Catholic Church's Cardinal Cody] to steal the 1960 election in Chicago / IL in favor of JFK. But let's not forget that FDR, who most progressives see as likely the most 'progressive' POTUS, was also an Ivy League elitist, was quite a warmonger himself [FYI: Many now say that FDR most likely knew days or even weeks in advance that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor by late Nov / early Dec 1941- but that's the price FDR was willing to pay to get the US into WWII], & as Sec of the Navy was effectively the proto-type to Slick Willy's role as lord governor general over Haiti [PS: FDR's cousin Teddy was quite the war-monger RE Cuba & the Philippines], & then there was his imprisonment of all west coast Japanese Americans for the duration of WWII [= racism & a proto-type to Bush's / Obama's phony war on terror as an excuse to effectively demonize {if not Gitmo-tize} all Muslims as potential 'terrorists']

 JFK went along w Tricky Dick Nixon's & the CIA's Bay of Pig's scheme [up to a certain point but refused to fully commit] instead of nixing it. Obviously the Bay of Pigs was a prerequisite provocation to the Cuban Missile Crisis in Oct 1962. JFK also initially went along w Ike's & Trick Dick's dubious commitment RE Vietnam. But IMO JFK, between the CIA's treachery RE the Bay of Pigs fiasco [led to JFK saying he wanted to break the CIA into 1000 pieces for lying to him & thus firing Allen Dulles & his top assistant- 'Ironically' Dulles would later co-chair the Warren {c}Omission's so-called 'investigation' {cover-up} of the JFK hit] & the near global nuke catastrophe of the Cuban Missile Crisis, had a rude awakening & the 'Fear of the Lord' put in him. He, better than nearly anyone, knew just how close the US & the USSR came to 'Nuclear Armageddon' w the military war-hawks pushing him to launch a first-strike- cause many/most of those 'Dr Strangeloves' thought the US could actually 'win' an all-out nuclear war w the USSR [calculating that the US would loose 20 - 40 MILLION out of 160 million while the USSR would be TOTALLY Annihilated]. Also keep in mind JFK had recently become a father to 2 young kids while POTUS- who he obviously alluded to in his 'Not a Pax Americana' peace speech in June 1963. Thus IMO JFK wanted to walk back from unnecessary confrontation / provocation w the USSR, not because he was a prophet of peace ala MLK, but because after the Cuban Missile Crisis he realized the insanity of provoking a potential global nuclear hell's fire! It's in this context that Oliver's Stones 'JFK' should be seen- especially RE whether JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam by the end of his 2nd term [w a planned withdrawal of 1000 troops by the end of 1963]. This is of course a hotly debated & contested issue, & perhaps somewhat speculative.


But IMO JFK likely would NOT have escalated Vietnam to the massive proportions that LBJ & Tricky Dick / Kissinger did- & JFK may have even wound down in Vietnam by the end of his 2nd term [we'll never know for sure]. And let’s not forget that the 'Gulf of Tonkin' false-flag {non}event [LBJ's 'causus belli' to massively escalate in Vietnam] happened after JFK was dead- on LBJ's watch! PS: Let's NOT forget that of the 4 major political assassinations in the US during the 1960s, 3 followed the same ole 'lone-nut gunman' scenario [ JFK, MLK & RFK]- like a really terribly bad re-run / sequel. Thus IMO those inclined to chalk up JFK's hit to Oswald as a lone nut gunman, will most likely do the same for James Earl Ray re MLK & Sirhan Sirhan re RFK [IMO its NO coincidence that MLK was shot in the face near his mouth exactly 1yr to the day after he spoke out against the Vietnam War- calling the USG 'The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in the World'. Nor was it coincidental that RFK was killed when it became obvious he would likely win the WH & a couple a days later they 'finally' just so happen to catch MLK's alleged killer in London after being at-large for almost exactly 2 months].

 ______________

Compared to Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison and the very left wing Wendell Phillips, Lincoln was a conservative Republican. But Republicans were mainly to the left of the Democrats, which at that time was the party of slaveholders (at least in the South). The Democrats were the REAL conservatives since they wanted to conserve the system of slavery. Historian E. J. hobsbwam notes in THE AGE OF REVOLUTION that the very idea of the conservative or political conservatism emerges in reaction to revolution, and refers to those who sought to conserve an older order challenged or overthrown by revolutionaries like Robespierre in France and Tom Paine in America. Sociologist Karl Mannheim in IDEOLOGY AND UTOPIA also notices that conservatism (as distinct from unreflective traditionalism,) emerges as a self-conscious position only after the old or traditional order has been challenged. In America, the oldest and most oppressively traditional system was slavery.
-Savant


http://www.assatashakur.com/cointelpro-blackpanthers.htm

http://truthseeker24info.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-advice-from-crammasters-and-others.html


Tuesday, July 1, 2014

More Wisdom on Defending our People




_______________________________

 Isadshi Koseshi:

I'd like to also add that I agree with Lashid4u. One thing Black folks DON'T realize? As long as there are T.S's....there will be NO collective progress, growth or unity amongst Blacks. Many think ignoring this elephant in the room is possible; when the room is full of the stench and piles of dung now. His agenda IS influencing MANY; which as a result, deters collective growth, empowerment, unity, ect.....which IS the desired result. It is also evident that Blacks have no value or respect for each other or themselves if we are to ignore him. Which is also evident that Blacks ALLOW ANYTHING and EVERYTHING done to them....due to the lack of value for Black life. Those whom you respect , you will defend.

No group of people would allow anyone to speak with such homicidal hatred and condone it, like so many,.....towards their own but Blacks.....and publicly, I might add. It's genocide, not a man with an opinion.
_______________________________

Most nations aren't launching satellites. That's primarily the privilege of the wealthier nations.. As for the wasting of precious resources in the purchase and sale of arms, probably the USA excels all other nations. We have millions of homeless and hungry people in the world's richest nation. Yet men quarrel over a minute increase in a miserable minimum wage while zealously expanding subsidies for our growing arsenal of destruction while our military forces, far exceeding the legions of ancient Rome, span the globe as a kind of global police. We fail to grasp a simple lesson that Dr. King tried in vain to get America too see: A nation that spends more on military production than on the uplift of its citizens is a nation facing spiritual and social death. Militarism and plutocracy destroyed the Roman republic, and may very well destroy the American republic as well.

-Savant

______________

Lashid4u:

1 day ago Wowwww ...That ..is ...crazy ...smh ...They've been really playing bad-ass through the internet, thinking they can cyber-bully people ...smh ...but deep down, I KNOW that you're right, in saying that I should not give him focus ...However, I believe that he has gotten quite big (or BIG ENOUGH), where he needs to be taken out, now, because it's getting dangerous, like, when I see young, former college friends posting his videos in facebook, influencing other young men (and women)....

_____________________



Isadshi Koseshi:

What I find disturbing is how people DON'T realize that T.S. IS supported by Google/Youtube. Period. EVERYTHING he says IS against Youtube policy. EVERYTHING. This IS NOT a "man" with just an opinion. He has a planned agenda for the sole purpose of destroying Blacks thru divisive and degradation PROPAGANDA which he follows through from his handlers. Period. No one could speak as he does without getting strikes and their channels shut down, suspended or banned from Youtube. He's an agent. Period. He's contrary. On one hand he says boycott Black women, get with White females, then degrades Black males and warns White females of their "criminal intent". The ig-nant negros follow through with much support. Many don't get it; his language IS White supremacy rhetoric (n___, be___, ect.). He's coached as to what to say. Including his advocacy for IRR with Whites; which White supremacist condone and accept, due to the fact that they KNOW it's a depopulation method and further weakens the Black man...and seals the disunity between Blacks.


_____________________


http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2014/01/savants-words_20.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T83C5VG0OM8C8STMN#c11

The vast majority of Black Americans--male and female--are WORKING CLASS folk, not thugs or welfare queens. As for education, most WHITES are woefully uneducated--and collectively among the least literate people in the Western World. If you are blinded to these realities by the dazzling deceptions of the white corporate media, or simply so mentally colonized as to be enamored of whiteness still in the 21st Century, then I do hope that you find your white lover, drive off into the suburban white sunset and get permanently lost. I've really about had it with you ankle biting buffoons regardless of whether you're from the Americas, Africa, Asia or Neptune. You've nothing to offer but the poisons of your prejudices.

-Savant

__________________

I think the issue is more political. When I first became involved with the anti-apartheid movement, I don't believe I personally knew a single South African, though I had friends and classmates from Nigeria, Ethiopia, Ghana and a couple of other Anglophone African countries. I met South Africans, many of whom had fled the fascistic white dictatorship in their country, in the course of my involvement in the struggle. Some of them became personal friends and one, a pretty S. African girl named Mercy, became for awhile even a romantic interest. But what got me involved in solidarity work in support of the ANC and PAC was political. As a Black man and revolutionary, I had a moral duty to do whatever I could to promote the liberation of Black people everywhere, be it in the USA or Africa.....But in the process I did make friends with some Africans. Not all of them, of course. Some of them I personally didn't like. Some of us African-Americans I personally don't. But I don't have to personally like or dislike every African-American to be committed to the struggle our people here. One can LOVE Black people everywhere without liking them all. And one can commit oneself to the liberation of our people out of a sense of love and duty -Savant 
_______________

 Has anyone noticed that Assdurratin's positions here are identical with those promoted by far right wing racists. Those Voter ID laws are actually more like the poll taxes and other measures which politically disfranchised our ancestors after Reconstruction. It is no coincidence that most people blocked from voting by the new voting restrictions are Black and (increasingly) Hispanic citizens. Also notice Assdurratin's RHETORIC: "Obama the MARXIST." Only a philosophically and politically illiterate simpleton could think that Obama is a Marxist after reading Obama's writings and speeches. But then again, only a political or philosophical illiterate could read Nkrumah and not see that he was a Marxist, though Assdurratin (who claims he's an Nkrumahist) vehemently denies Nkrumah's Marxism. What a phony he is: an a___ kissing Uncle tom reactionary pretending to be a follower of a left revolutionary African statesman. And now he's defending measures by his right wing white masters to disfranchise us again, a ,mere 50 years the Civil Rights Act, and 49 years after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. "Traitor go to h____!" -Savant


______________________

Most nations aren't launching satellites. That's primarily the privilege of the wealthier nations.. As for the wasting of precious resources in the purchase and sale of arms, probably the USA excels all other nations. We have millions of homeless and hungry people in the world's richest nation. Yet men quarrel over a minute increase in a miserable minimum wage while zealously expanding subsidies for our growing arsenal of destruction while our military forces, far exceeding the legions of ancient Rome, span the globe as a kind of global police. We fail to grasp a simple lesson that Dr. King tried in vain to get America too see: A nation that spends more on military production than on the uplift of its citizens is a nation facing spiritual and social death. Militarism and plutocracy destroyed the Roman republic, and may very well destroy the American republic as well. -Savant

 _____________________________

Monday, June 30, 2014

Extra Wisdom

I'm talking about the WORKING CLASS, the proletariat, not the lumpenproletariat whom both Cabral and marx called declasse. The vast majority of Black folk are proletarians. Rosa Parks, like my mom, was a seamstress. Not an educated petty bourgeois nor a capitalist. Dr. King himself states that the MASS of his supporters in Montgomery and other campaign were common laborers--not lumpen characters like Little Melvin or even Malcolm before he became X. That is also what I said in the post to which this screed of your is a reply. Sorry, that even simple terms and basic analysis is beyond the reach of your comprehension.
-Savant

 _________________________


I'm pretty much ignoring that pimp, that pseudo-Nkrumahist hustler. What interests me nowadays is something King and Nkrumah did share in common--the end of racism and class oppression, and liberation of Third World countries from poverty and imperialism. And his philosophy of COMMUNITY--the core of his ethical thought--which is markedly anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. Naturally, since capitalism is anti-community, antihuman, and a scourge upon the Earth.

-Savant

 _________________

Right and Left are historical in meaning, and by the standards of THAT time, Lincoln was centrist with left leanings. Actually, he was opposed to slavery as the Kennedy's were later opposed to Jim Crow, But Lincoln, like Kennedy, was a POLITICIANS. He had to be pushed into taking an anti-slavery stand. For while his speeches and letters reveal an anti-Slavery sentiment, Lincoln like all politicians first think of political interest. Abolitionism and the requirements of war did push Lincoln--after Gettysburg victory--to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. This DID give the North now a MORAL advantage, both nationally and internationally. Northern armies were just invaders but--as one Union soldier put it in a letter to his family--"we are now the ARMED LIBERATORS of millions." Southerners couldn't just say that they were defending themselves and their "way of life" from invaders, for now they were clearly defending slavery.(In fact, they always were but could no longer hide this fact in the court of world opinion). European countries were undecided about how to respond; conservative privileged classes were sympathetic to the South, and the laboring classes--always mroe advanced than American workers--clearly sided with the North.(I've read some letters by European workers to Lincoln in which they clearly saw slavery and the most degrading exploitation of labor, and the defeat of the Confederacy as in the interests of all working class people. Also, read Karl Marx's letter in support of Lincoln and the Union. Marx was not supporting a right wing cause). Lincoln had to be PUSHED to the left. That I will agree with. But the REAL right coldn't be pushed to end a system of bondage than enriched them. They had to be CRUSHED.

-Savant

 ______________

That “states rights” line you heard from Southern apologists. Confederats. The “right” those states wanted was the right to own slaves. The issues of tariffs and all other BS they bring up all was dependent on slavery. Tariffs disproportionately affected the South because of slavery. Face it, many white Southerners were evil enough to put the country through a prolonged bloody war in order to preserve their evil bloody slavery system. -Ish Tov



________________
Tom Tancredo, speaker at a recent Tea Party gathering, suggested that Literacy Tests be resumed to exclude people who lack civic literacy. We know that because of such literacy tests Blacks were denied the right to vote in the South. But maybe we can turn this against Tancredo and some of his cohorts. After all, he indicated as evidence of a LACK of civic literacy the election of a "socialist ideologue" to the Presidency. But isn't a man who can't tell the difference between a socialist and a CENTRIST LIBERAL like Barack Obama, lacking basic civic literacy? And assuming that Tancredo had more than a high school education, shouldn't we expect him to be able to distinguish between liberal and socialist thought, especially given the severe tensions (often outright animosity) between liberals and socialist in much of modern history for the past 200 years? Shouldn't Tancredo have read Obama's writings (and those of other liberals) and the writings of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialists, and thus be better informed. His is a case of willful ignorance.

(Or if he really knows better, then he is liar and opportunist.) I mean, really! If historically literacy tests were unjustly used to denied people of color the right to vote, why not use such a las (since Tancredo is so keen on it) to eliminate right wing ignoranti like him from the ballot? I see more reason for banning people on grounds of intolerable, WILLFUL ignorance than banning people on grounds of race. No right to vote for Tancredo.

No right to vote for those racist nincompoops who claim--despite DECADES of research to the contrary, that Blacks have contributed nothing to American and world history. (Ignorance of historical achievements of Blacks helps fuel racism and racial polarization. And as Alexis de Tocqueville warned long ago in his class DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, the racial divide could bring the death knell of the American Republic. Therefore, people should bone up on their AA History or lose the right to vote on grounds of "civic illiteracy"--to use Tancredo's words!)

-Savant




 _____________________

 The hatred seems to be coming from the Right, from Tea party, milita men, white Christian right and others. Even during the Presidential campaign, you didn't hear Obama's people shouting "Klll him!" and "terrorist". You didn't hear his people trying to pretend that the opposition were Commies, Nazis or what have you.. You didn't hear claims that McCain was somehow not really "one of us" or not really American. (Indeed, one study was reported during the campaign that while 75% of Obama's ads were about his vision of the country and only a small number directed against McCain, most McCain ads were about attacking Obama, and only a small number about any positive position or vision,} And even though Obama's obviously tepid support for progressives causes has disappointed much of his base, even now you find his supporters to be overwhelmingly MULTIRACIAL and MULTICULTURAL. Is is merely a coincidence that the Tea Partiers are almost lilly white, with about 1% black memberships (and not much better among Hispanics)? Is it Obama's past or present supporters who are attacking mosques? Was it his supporters who disrupted public hearings on health care in the summer of 2009 with their clownish, semifascist hooliganism? Who were the ones making threatening calls and attacks on offices and homes of congressmen after the passage of an actually quite watered down health care package that would be deemed psltry by the standards of most industrialized democracies? No, the hatred and madness is coming from some other corner than that of Obama---a dark corner in American history, culture & psyche where xenophobia and rabid racist panic reigns supreme. The politics of paranoia, as one historian called it, seems to constitute the lifeblood of the contemporary Right.

-Savant

 __________________


Tuesday, June 24, 2014

More Wisdom

Yawn....Check out the King Papers, his Autobiography, etc. And there are NUMEROUS King scholars who all confirm from his private writings, letters to Coretta, diaries, address at the SCLC Frogmore conference, etc--his commitment to democratic socialism. Assdurratin is unbelievably dense. He claims to be an Nkrumahist but is unawre of Nkrumah's Marxism. He managed to read (or so he tell us) CLASS STRUGGLE IN AFRICA and even CONSCIENCISM without noticing Nkrumah's Marxism. In one thread Assdurratin demanded show me a quote where Nkrumah says "I am a Marxist". Yet Nkrumah was even more public with his Marxism than was King with his democratic socialism. Notice that King articulate his socialist convictions in private letters to Coretta, in student diaries, in communications with his closest colleagues, in private meetings of SCLC staff. Among King scholars his democratic socialism has virtually ceased to be a debatable issue. Thomas F. Jackson, Lewis Baldwin, Taylor Branch, Rufus Burrows, Ira Zepp, John Ansbro, Clayborne Carson, and innumerable others pretty much confirm King's commitment to socialism and democracy. It is not what Marxists since Engels have called "scientific socialiasm." (Engels would have considered King a "utopian socialist"). Socialism for King is a moral commitment, and ethical ideal philosophically grounded in Personalism (his foundational philosophical position), Social Gospel theology, and his progressive Christian ethical convictions. He is not a socialist theoretician any more than were Tolstoy, Victor Hugo, Archbishop Oscar Romero (Salvdoran revolutionary Christian socialist) and possibly Gandhi.

-Savant

___________


King was a Kantian, but didn't say so. At least I've not come across any words of his to that effect. How do I know about King's Kantianism? Easy. I'm familiar with Immanuel Kant. And I've seen King used Kantian moral arguments (whose origins in THE FOUDATIONS OF THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS any undergrad philosophy student would recognize). And I am aware of the heavy influence of Kant in Personalism, King's fundamental philosophical position. I am aware of the presence of existentialism in King as well. I was able to perceive this in his talk about the nature of freedom even before reading comments by King himself which mentioned his study of Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Sartre and others. How? I've read King and am familiar with that philosophical tendency. My UNDERGRAD students often figure this out, and without my having to point it out. I've 19 and 20 year old students who are brighter than Assdurratin! LOL! In the case of King's democratic socialism, his own comments about socialism reveal this. And some of his comments are fairly upfront about it. He certainly wasn't trying to hide it from his then fiancée Coretta Scott--herself also a socialist--as is revealed by some of their letters to each other. Then there is the whole historical context which Thomas F. Jackson, an historian, points out in FROM CIVIL RIGHTS TO HUMAN RIGHTS: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR AND THE STRUGGLE FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE. Folk should at least read the Introduction and Chapter 1 ("Pilgrimage to Christian Socialism") in Jackson's book. I mean, there does come a point where Assdurratin's childish, anti-intellectual rants and ankle biting rhetoric do become tiresome. If he wants to debate he should read the literature.


-Savant


 ________________

 Concerning CLASS More attention should be put on King's thinking regarding issues f lass as well as race, especially since he saw them as being intertwined. Intrestngy eough, he always notices that the backbone of the Movement was the Black poor, both the rural proletriat in te South and the urban Black proletariat in the North. When he arrived in Birmingham it was members of the Black bourgeoisie who tried to get him to abandon the campaign before it even began.

-Savant