Monday, March 6, 2017

Savant's Words in March of 2017


Probably the person to whose post you're responding is a troll. But as for your comments, what I find remarkable is that the VAST MAJORITY of Black people, male and female, are NOT tossing each other under the bus; and that's the important thing to remember. While I cannot claim that most Blacks are revolutionary and committed in a politically conscious way to Struggle, most do identify with each other. Even the often talked about "black on black crime" is essentially the activity of 1% of the population; and not even in the worst ghettoes (contrary to common belief) are anywhere near a majority of the people involved in violent activity. Most befriend and love each other however fraught are their relations with all kinds of social challenges and contradiction. Moreover, the REVOLUTIONARY women fomenting new movements are about BLACK PEOPLE--women, men and children. Conscious young brothers are doing likewise. And as I explained to Harrisson, these sisters and brothers are a lot more progressive in their gender politics than were even the most advanced activists of the 1960s. But they have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants. Malcolm X, friend and ally of Fannie Lou Hamer, only began to challenge conservative gender attitudes in the last year of his life. (He was apparently inspired by some of the more left wing leaders of the African revolution whom he met). The Panthers only began systematically challenging patriarchal gender ideas and politics in the early 1970s, by which time they were already declining under the weight of COINTELPRO repression. Contemporary activists BEGIN with advanced gender politics that it took the 1960s activists and thinkers years to reach. (And not all even reached it). We may be entering a new era of liberation if we can survive and overcome the horrors of Trumpist fascism.  (14 hrs ago | post #42)

Trump, I believe, is a fake populist, like the fascists in Germany and Italy about70-80 years ago. His job is to misdirect the potential rebellion of the white poor and middle class, and turn their ferocity on Latin immigrants, Muslims and African Americans. The important thing now is education of the people, and the building of a liberating movement, not the fascistic tendency of Il Duce Don Trump. And here, the work of revolutionary black women and men is vital. Fortunately, the political right wing gets little traction in Black America (even though many of s hold conservative cultural values). But we must prepare the Resistance to fascistic repression if it comes. I'm afraid our REVOLUTIONARY sisters may now be a primary target. We must have their backs.

Probably the same recommendation could be well made for white women, and white men too. Yet none of this would make one a revolutionary. You are a revolutionary insofar as you are committed to bringing on a FUNDAMENTAL transformation of society, a radical transformation of values, and a radical transformation of interhuman (and Human/Nature) relations. Mindless individuals sometimes do well in school. Some very creative thinkers have little or no formal schooling. When education is designed for LIBERATION (both in school and out) then we can talk about schooling and education as REVOLUTIONARY.  (20 hrs ago | post #40)

One point you make really does concern me: Negative fools like Uncle Tom Sotomayor or SBT are not a majority, not even CLOSE to a majority, that COULD change. That is why it is needful for positive and socially conscious Black folk, male and female, to do whatever we can to reconstruct community and support the new movements. It is true that the negative haters like Uncle Tom Soto or even "IT IS" are still a minority, they seem to get more support in both tradition media and much of the social media. If you limit yourself to the trash online, especially in YouTube or Topix, you'd get the impression that all or most Black men and women despise each other. You'd get the impression that Black men all (or mostly) regard our sisters as "bed wenches", "ratchet females," or what have you. You'd get the impression that all or most Black women think that all or most black men worship the ground that white women walk on, that we all dream of some "angelic white women" (in words of "IT IS," and that even the most politically conscious brother (no to mention the others) are all obsessed with pursuing white p**sy. If the majority of Black men and women could be convinced of the idiocies the run through the minds (or at least posts and videos) of these silly Negroes, the Struggle would be subverted and the community destroyed. So, this negative tendency must be fought.

Well OhReally (under whatever new name) is well known for his deficiencies. But assuming--for I cannot be certain and there's reason to doubt--but assuming you at capable of improvement, let me suggest that you take a look at Chapter 3 of A CONCISE INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC by Prof. Patrick Hurley. It's a chapter on "Informal Fallacies." The "fallacies of relevance" are to be found in 3.2, among which are listed "Argument Against the Person" (i.e. "Argumentum Ad Hominem"). Read it, indeed read the whole chapter, if you CAN read that well. But perhaps you should start with Chapter 1 first. Find out what an argument is, and how one distinguishes premises from conclusion. Examine carefully the sections on Induction and Deduction, and the criteria for evaluation of each. Then go to Chapter 3 to learn about fallacies which you and most of your contemporaries pour forth like water on line. If you can do just that--even if it takes you a year--it will probably boost your meagre intelligence--that is, if we can assume that improvement is possible for you.  (21 hrs ago | post #686)

Certainly no one in Toix has excelled me in capacity for analysis, and I doubt that any can--least of all you reactionaries in this thread and in AA Forum generally. I could probably teach you the rudiments of logic, of good deductive and inductive reasoning. But I suspect you are unwilling, possibly incapable, of learning.  (21 hrs ago | post #685)

An common feature of white privilege is that whites don't have to offer credible reasons for what they say. Indeed, they may feel that they don't have to have ANY reasons whatsoever. Don Trump can simply say--in bald contradiction to available facts--that he won the majority of the popular vote. He can later say--with ZERO evidence--that he was wire tapped by Obama. And, of course, when push comes to shove white reactionaries can claim that they have "alternative facts." In another thread some white simpleton said that I was a Muslim terrorist (without knowing anything about my alleged religious beliefs nor having any evidence of any terrorist activity or associations on my part). I don't recall him retracting his statement when I informed him that I was an AGNOSTIC, have NO record of violence, and an actually against terrorism--includi ng right wing white terrorism which is most common in the USA. I do recall other white racists chiming to defend his position, also without evidence. Or again, the lies about Obama. There are LEGITIMATE grounds upon which Obama can be critiqued. But the jibberish one normally heard was about Obama being an illegal alien, a Muslim Communist, someone plotting to "pull the plug on grandma," etc.---all of which were idiotic fabrications with either NO evidence or nothing remotely even resembling credible evidence. So, you can be an ANTI-RACIST, and white racists will insist that YOU are the racist. You may never has insulted ALL whites, or whites in general, as they continuously insult Blacks as a whole with stereotypical generalizations and denunciation. Yet minus ANY EVIDENCE those same white racist who have defamed you will accuse you of having defamed the white race. It is no surprise that hostility toward whites among some Blacks is intensified in this place; and that I hear at least more ENLIGHTENED whites saying things like "Even white people are getting tired of white folks b_."  (21 hrs ago | post #684)

Trump exchange with black journalist sparks outrage
That statement is objectively true no matter how many red "X" marks it received  (21 hrs ago | post #152)

Most beautiful women (or women, period) date and marry within their own race. And that includes Black women. Beautiful women-black, white, brown nd other--do date and even marry "out.". But they are (like all women) an exception rather than the rule. The claim that beautiful black women date only or mostly white men is a myth, just like the myth that rich or "successful " black men date only or mostly white (or other non-Black) women. As for IR couples, most are like all other couples: couples in which NEITHER is a gorgeous person, but mainly average. The average Black woman (or man) in an IR relation is, well, AVERAGE. Not surprising since MOST PEOPLE of all races and genders are average. At least this is so in the REAL WORLD. But who knows what happens in subjective perception and imagination?  (21 hrs ago | post #832)

I don't know that I'd call that mother revolutionary, though she was probably acting out of fear for the son's life. (In some Bmore Facebook sites she has been charged with defending white supremacy since, as the argument goes, she directed her anger at her son, not police or the Establishment. In her own words, "I don't want my son to end up like Freddie Gray.") . I don't regard the uprising as anti-social. Fratricidal violence in the community is another matter, and even that is mainly an expression of the dysfunction which oppression usually breeds. I would on that latter issue accede to the point sometimes made by the Black Panthers in the past: "We must transform the black criminal mentality into a black revolutionary mentality." You may know if you study our history that in times when there's a high level of liberation struggle, so called "black on black crime" declines. (Black crime rate dropped 50% in Montgomery during the famous Montgomery Buss Boycott. Dropped precipitously during riots of 1960s. There were whole projects in parts of NYC, especially Harlem, in which drugs, gang violence, homicide, prostitution and even common weekend brawls virtually disappeared when the Black Panthers in alliance with other black nationalist and revolutionary group gained hegemony and declared those communities "liberated territories." That happened in my neighborhood when I was a kid and the Panthers were organizing). But with regard to gender politics, I didn't specifically have Huey P. Newton in mind even though he'd be an example of what I'm talking about. Whether we're talking about the Panthers, SNCC, SCLC, NAACP, NOI, OAAU--most of the movements in the past were mainly male oriented in LEADERSHIP, but not overwhelmingly male in terms of grassroots activism. Women and men made the Movement at the grassroots level, and women were commonly in the majority. Over half of SNCC and the Black Panther members were women. To their credit SNCC (which Ella Baker helped to found) and the Black Panthers had more sisters in leadership than did NAACP or Dr. King's SCLC (not to mention Malcolm's OAAU). Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton began to question patriarchy, but either r died(Malcolm) or their movements eclipsed (Huey) shortly thereafter. Huey and the Panthers did make PUBLIC statements of support for the emerging women's movement and even the then nascent gay rights movement. But by that time both moderate and radical Black liberation movements were declining. Contemporary movements can now BEGIN with a more progressive gender politics rather than eventually reahing this after years of struggle. A revolutionary class consciousness needs als to be an integral part of the struggle for Black Liberation  (22 hrs ago | post #38)

SEXISM is a cancer.  (Friday | post #287)

Savant isn't playing checkers, and doubts that the persons whom he is criticizing possess enough sense to play checkers. Anybody who thinks you can be a "Muslim Communist"--- i.e. an Islamic theist and a Leninist atheist--is not playing with a full deck. And some ideas are too silly to dignify with an effort of rebuttal. I don't debate people who believe the earth is flat, or that flus are caused by witchcraft. When someone says--without knowing what my actual beliefs are--that I am an Islamic terrorist (even though I'm not a theist and have engaged in NO violent activity), then this person is too simpleminded (or emotionally unstable) to debate. Everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, but all opinions are not of equal value. And some opinions are not worth taking seriously at all.  (Friday | post #1637021)

Again, you need to seek professional help. Swallowing the right wing Kool-Aid can erode your reason, and yours is seriously eroded if you believe those fabrications to be facts. They're as eerily delusional as Nazi beliefs in international conspiracies of Jewish bankers and Communists. And no, the sky isn't falling Chicken Little. See a psychiatrist.  (Friday | post #1637018)

You and all those agreeing with or judging your comments to be brilliant really ought to seek professional help. Without psychological counseling you may be a danger to yourself and others. I won't blame you because you probably can't help yourself. But you do need help. Also, I happen to be an AGNOSTIC. Look it up. You might find it a surprising discovery that agnosticism isn't compatible with either Islam or Christianity. One other thing: If you accuse someone of being a terrorist and you don't have proof, you're guilty of libel. Just so you Know: People posting libelous attacks on others online have sometimes been sued. I don't see that as worth my time, and I suspect you cannot help yourself. But if you make such accusations against the wrong person, someone who doesn't understand that you suffer from emotional troubles, you could find yourself in court.  (Friday | post #1637013)

You need to lay off the Meth or crack or whatever you're taking if you REALLY believed that tired old line about Obama be "radical left" or "Muslim" . As for Trump, you'd better concern yourself about the mentally disturbed reactionary undermining America than Obama undermining him. If anything Trump may end up sinking his own administration, and maybe the nation as well  (Friday | post #1637010)

The common identity, to the extent it still exists, is a product of our history--of which ethnicity and culture is certainly a part. Diversity by itself doesn't preclude the existence of a common identity. Otherwise, you would not have such a thing as a Jewish identity, or a French or British one. But it can be said that Black people of the USA are less cohesive as a community than we were four or five decades ago. Yes, there has always been (even during slavery) some who found what you call opportunities to improve their lives. There's hardly a society in the world where that isn't the case. But the CLASS DIVIDE is greater now that it used to be, probably much greater. Class tensions have always existed, but the general feeling was we're ultimately in the same boat--whether we like it or not. The enabled at time solidarity in common struggle. You could be an illiterate sharecropper or a destitute brother and sister in the hood (called "ghetto" in the past), and may not have liked those "uppity bourgeois negroes who think they're better than anyone else." Or maybe you were a Black bourgeois, petit-bourgeois or intellectual who so 'embarrassed by those ignorant ghetto Negroes." But ALL face Jim Crow, and all were subject to the racist terrorism of police and the KKK. All had their mobility obstructed (even though the bourgeois still lived better than the masses). Even Dr. W.E.B Du Bois found that he could be denied the right to vote in Georgia. And to win certain rights Blacks of all classes, levels of education, gender or what have you were compelled to unite. I once pointed out in a lecture than in the riots that broke out in th e1960s, and which were far bigger than those that happened in Ferguson or in Baltimore in 2015, you wouldn't have had bourgeois leaders like ex-mayor Stephanie-Rawlings Blackor Barack Obama denouncing the rioters as '"thugs" --in the SAME language used by the racist president of Baltimore's Fraternal Order of Police. At least this wouldn't happen PUBLICLY What Black community and identity will evolve into going forward, or whether it will disintegrate rather than evolve new forms, is a question I can't answer. And I doubt anyone can.

No comments: