Sunday, August 3, 2014

Great Music and Speeches










____________

Various Social Commentaries from Savant: Interestingly enough, King was born the year of the crash which precipitated the Great Depression. So, he spent his early childhood years under the shadow of the economic blight. Though he lived in relative comfort, he remembered the breadlines. And he reflects that "I can see the effects of this early childhood experience on my ANTICAPITALIST FEELINGS."(AU TOBIOGRAPHY,p 2., my italics). I do wonder if he isn't reading his later sentiments into his childhood past. Or maybe that was the beginning of what would evoled into Kingian Christian socialism.

-Savant
 _________________

 There are Marxists who do not say "I am a Marxist", but whose Marxism is evident to anyone who reads them and is reasonably familiar with Marxian ways of thinking.Thus far, I've yet to come across any statement by Lukacs or Gramsci which says "I am a Marxist." Indeed, to avoid Fascist censorship Gramsci was very careful NOT to mention Marxism, and often simply spoke of "philosophy of praxis". But only someone utterly unfamiliar with Marxist thought could be taken in by the disguise. Dr. King, in private writings, interviews, letters often makes clear that he is socialistic in his thinking. What's interesting is in private discourse he often uses the word socialism for what in more public addresses he simply calls "more fully developed democracy." It is common knowledge that socialists of the 19th and 20th centuries often made the critique that "democracy " in capitalist societies wasn't genuine, or was very narrow. It didn't extend to economic life at all, and was often limited even politically for those social classes beneath the bourgeoisie. What these socialists--Marxis t and non-Marxist--held was that a fuller democracy, a more fully actualized democracy is possible and must be created; and this more fully developed democracy meant socialism. (Before the rise of totalitarian states calling themselves socialist, most socialists---and even their adversaries---assu med as a matter of course that socialism meant far more democracy (TOO MUCH for the right and liberals) than is possible under present capitalist conditions in England, France or the USA. King whose focus in philosophical study was (aside from Personalism) mainly SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY knew this. In fact, he opposes fully developed democracy in STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM and WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE to both Communism and capitalism. To be honest, and put my cards on the table, so do I. Only I am prepared to say PUBLICLY what King usually said privately, that we need a SOCIALIST democracy. That ordinary people need both political freedom and democracy governance of economy and their conditions of work, etc. King had to operate under the blight of McCarthyism. I don't.
-Savant
 _________________

 Unfortunately, there is mutual animosity between SOME Africans and SOME African Americans. That's obvious even in this thread. And the roots of this is IMPERIALISM, the racist and capitalistic imperialism of the west which has estranged Black people from themselves and each other. Black people here and elsewhere are often caught in a trick, fighting each other along the lines of division created by the common oppressor--each group of Blacks claiming the other is solely responsible, and neither seeing the ultimate roots of the trouble. I can only imagine that the Western imperialists and capitalist pirates and predators are laughing all the way to the bank. Black vs Black hatreds are politically convenient and sometimes downright PROFITABLE to the powers that be. Now if the vast majority Africans thought more like Cabral and Nkrumah? What if most African Americans thought more like Malcolm X, the Panthers or even Gil Scott with his song "Johannesburg "? The racists and exploiters would not be laughing all the way to the bank. And it that sort of revolutionary consciousness that I'm thinking of were to become rampant even within one thread in AA Forum I would not be surprised if the thread--maybe even the entire forum--were shut down. For this would indicate a remarkable awakening and a dangerous new solidarity. I wonder how many Black Americans or Africans have even seriously reflected on that possibility.


-Savant

 _____________

By the way, I have no illusions about uniting ALL Africans and ALL Black Americans in North America. In fact, I've no illusions about uniting all Black Americans with each other in North America, or uniting all Africans in Africa itself. Only a doufus thinks he can unite everyone. But you may be able to unite a critical mass strong enough to move forward and transform society. That is certainly worth the effort. 

-Savant

 ________________

 In STRIDE TOWARD FREEDOM, STRENGHT TO LOVE & (to a lesser extent) WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, King objects philosophically to Marxist materialism from the perspective of his own Personalist and Hegelian idealism. So, part of the dispute is philosophical and metaphysical. But he objects MORALLY to the political repression of Marxist-Leninist regimes, regimes which carry out their struggle for a "classless " society in ways which simply reinstitute class oppression in a different form. In STRENGHT TO LOVE King admits that he finds moving the moral passion of Marx and Engels for social justice, and surmises that (atheistic or not) Marx's moral passion derives from the prophetic tradition of his Hebrew heritage. And while King rejects the violence carried out in the name of the classless society, he does not reject the ideal of a classless society. Indeed, King describes the classless society as a "noble end" (STRENGHT TO LOVE, p. 168)--even though Marxists Leninists seek it by ignoble means. But that classless society, free of economic and political oppression--free also of racism--is the ultimate aim of socialism or communism. (And we may recall that in HOMAGE TO CATALONIA, Orwell claims that for the average socialist worker in Spain during the 1930s, socialism meant a classless society---for King, a "noble end"). Indeed, isn't that also what Nkrumah wanted (at least initially)? isn't that what Fanon wanted? A liberated human being in a liberated society achieved by means of socialism and democracy? So, did King. So do I.

-Savant

 ________________________

If you've not even HEARD of Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs, they you really need to improve your education. Lukacs most famous work is probably HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS--whi ch I read as a STUDENT. Antonio Gramsci is known for his PRISON NOTEBOOKS, one edition of which I also read while a student. Those two are perhaps the most famous Marxist philosophers of the 20th century! Not only philosophers, but historians, sociologists, political scientists and even many psychologists (like humanist Marxist Erich Fromm) would be deeply familiar with them. I've READ their works as well as scholarly studies of them. While I can claim to have read ALL of their voluminous works, I've read a considerable of it. Again, I don't recall reading any statement by either of them saying "I am a Marxist." But in ANY scholarly community of philosophers or social scientists you'd be thought a dunce if you didn't know that Gramsci and Lukacs were Marxists!

-Savant

 _________________________

Of course, if you've read Nkrumah you know that he was a socialist of a decidedly Marxist as well as Pan-Africanist orientation. And if you're politically and historically informed, you're aware that socialism derives from Left traditions of politics and thought just as Fascism derives from Right wing traditions. Nkrumah, Cabral, Mondlane, Fanon and other were all socialists and explicitly anti-right wing, anti-capitalist. We ought to remember as well that after Stokely popularized "Black Power" in 1966, there soon developed some debate over what it actually meant. Some more conservative nationalists (coinciding with Richard Nixon) identified Black Power as 'black capitalism"--and eventually began saying everything was really about "green power". Some engage in mystical fabrications by identifying Black power with the obscurantist politics of cultural nationalism. For awhile Imamu Baraka and Ron karenga was running that line. Other interpreted Black Power in term of radical empowerment of the masses of our people, an empowerment that meant the revolutionary transcendence of imperialism, capitalism and racism. Stokely leaned in that direction. So, too, did the Black Panther party for awhile. And various other lesser known. A revolutionary analysis and interpretation of the Black Powr Movement can be found in Robert Allen's BLACK AWAKENING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA. An "insightful" but not revolutionary analysis is also offered by Black nationalist scholar Harold Cruse in THE CRISIS OF THE NEGRO INTELLECTAL. And Dr. King--since his legacy is supposed to be the THEME of this thread--works out his own coming to terms with Black Power in WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, CHAOS OR COMMUNITY. I think we can learn more of value from these brothers who were there than from ranting buffoons like Assdurratin.

-Savant
____________________________

One thing is interesting: On more than one occasion King clearly states his OPPOSITION to both capitalism and Communism ( least in Marxist Leninist version). He NEVER says he's against socialism, and he points to both Scandinavian and East Indian socialist tendencies with OBVIOUS approval. I mentioned to Ekdesiladki, and Indian lady who used to post here, about some of the leaders of agrarian reform movements in India whom King met there after the Montgomery campaign,. They were promoting agricultural cooperatives to redistribute wealth and empower the Indian poor. Ekdesi informed me that these leaders were Gandhian socialists who tried to continue the legacy of Gandhi (the spiritual aims of the movement) after the Mahatma's assassination. When she mentioned that they were Gandhian socialists---which didn't exactly take me by surprise since King was esteeming their promotion of Indian cooperatives---I simply said to Desi: "I should have known it! A Christian socialist admiring a Gandhian Hindu socialist." King is always on he side of the disinherited and the dispossessed.

-Savant




Thursday, July 31, 2014

Information now.

It is not so much your "harshness ", but your bigotry which is objectionable. And your unmitigated hostility toward African American people in general, and African American men in particular---expre ssed vehemently by you in THIS and OTHER threads--belies the sincerity of your now professed wish that we might live together in peace or even indifference. As for personal relations between Africans and African Americans I'm NEITHER trying to promote such relationships, nor (like you) to oppose them. People who have paid attention to my posts over the years know (unless they're dunces) that I think people should be free to love whom they wish. But while that means (as usual) that most people will choose lovers and spouses from their own racial/ethnic group, others will seek or find lovers and spouses outside their group. For me that is perfectly ok. This thread---which I did not start--posed the question of why Black Americans and Africans usually don't date or marry. My posts regarding this theme have not PROMOTED, but discussed such relationships. And like TDL, I have surmised that relationships and marriages between Black Americans and Africans not only happen, but happen probably more often than we are aware. Obviously, there is little likelihood of an African with your attitudes befriending or forming love relations with African Americans. But all Africans don't have your attitude. My South African lady friend Mercy was as far from you as the moon. Similarly, someone with the attitudes of the American sister Dragonpat is not likely to form an intimate and romantic bond with an African man. Yet I've an older female cousin who married a man from Mozambique. I've a Black American colleague who has married a woman from Ghana, and while in France I dated a woman from Mali. A growing number of my students are offspring of AA and African marriages. And TDL not only mentions having dated an African man, but knowing AA men who dated African women. Moreover, I still recall reports of some study (which I'm trying to track down) which indicated that over the past two or three decades Black American relations with non-US Blacks has increased even faster than Black/White relations. Hence I offer as a speculations only--to be confirmed or disconfirmed by social scientific study--that AA/African romances and marriages are at least more common than most people believe. If it works out for them, fine. Even if it doesn't I don't know if that is any worse than all those--about 90%---who marry "in" rather than "out." But what bothers me about the antipathy of some Africans toward African Americans, and the antipathy of some African Americans toward Africans, is that something much larger than your choices of a mate is at stake. What's at stake---what is obstructed by this mutual animosity---is the SOLIDARITY need to achieve social justice and to join in joint struggles for the liberations of Black and poor people everywhere. That concerns me much more than who you choose to love, marry or share you bed with.

-Savant

________________________

Unfortunately, Abdurratln doesn't know what scholarly standards are, hasn't even a clue. As for the so-called "fraud" he alleges I perpetrate on the thought of King (especially with regard to King's democratic socialism), it's remarkable that no such fraud has been discovered by KING SCHOLARS--many of whom were working on this stuff since I was in high school (if not earlier). Rufus Burrows and Lewis Baldwin--two of the leading contemporary King scholars who saw my manuscript before it appeared--not only didn't discover any fraud, but regard my work is highly original, pioneering contribution to King scholarship. Thus far NO King scholar whose reviews I've read have CHALLENGED me on the issue of King being a democratic socialist. (In fact, some elder King scholars even pointed me in directions where I could discover more about the Christian and democratic socialist dimensions of King's vision of the Beloved Community. One very well known King scholar even personally emailed me with suggestions of developing further the Personalist philosophical foundations Kingian socialism in his vision of community. The thought this important that I explore this further if for no other reason than that Personalism was King's basic philosophical position, and the perspective from which he critique's Marx's materialism, as well as both Communism and capitalism. Thus far, NO King scholar has accused me of fraud. None has suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about--not even some who DISAGREED with me. And I'm supposed to be swayed by the ignorant ranting of an Assdurratin who hasn't even done one tenth of the research I've done on King, and who claims to be an Nkrumahist but shows less philosophical understanding of Nkrumah than I had at age 19? Really?

-Savant

 _______________

 Dex Sims • a month ago From the article: "Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share. White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits– again, much closer to their 64 percent population share." Well it seems that YOU don't read so well. I guess I have to explain something else to you, huh. Please, shut your mouth, racist

 _________________

 Dex Sims • 2 months ago It's so easy to just think of race as something that's done on an individual level, like Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. As long as it's looked at in that way, the larger and more pressing problems of structural and institutional racism go ignored. Why are Black and Brown people so over-represented in correctional facilities? Why is the wealth of White families 22 times the wealth of Black families? Why do economic hardships in this country disproportionally hit people of color harder than Whites? Why are Black and Brown children disproportionally targeted in zero-tolerance policies in the schools? This is real racism. Donald Sterling did far more damage as a slumlord where he was actively discriminating against Black and Brown tenants than he did when he was recorded talking about not wanting Black people at his games. America needs to have this conversation about race and come up with solutions to end racism

 ________________________


 Dex Sims • 4 months ago The US already gives to the moochers. They're called the big businesses, the defense contractors, the oil companies, et al. Those fat cats have been living high on the taxpayer hog for far too long while the working people are being squeezed. You're just too blind to realize that. And the Russians and Chinese cannot conquer, much less invade the US, Teabagger. Are you really that dumb to believe that they can? Please, get real. Stop listening to Rush Limpbrain and Bill O'Reilly and Faux News. Countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden care about their citizens and their social welfare. They believe that people should have universal health care, free education all the way through graduate school, social insurance, paid vacations, adequate minimum wage, and healthy and robust unions. They also don't spend all their money on military warfare, invading and dominating other countries, taking their resources to enrich the capitalists. America should be more like them. Hopefully, it will happen

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

 __________________


Saturday, June 28, 2014