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.



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 



 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.



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!



 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.



No comments: