We will look at the right wing's push to eliminate all New Deal Federal Agencies since FDR created them and that includes Dept of Education, Federal Housing Agency, FDA, Dept of AG, EPA, et al. Each Federal agency has been used as global corporate fodder since REAGAN/CLINTON. Literally the looting of trillions from all these agencies funded the entire expansion of global Wall Street and corporations overseas to all Foreign Economic Zones. Far-right wing means extreme wealth so voting for Clinton/Bush/Obama created this mess---
TRUMP WILL SOLVE ALL THESE REAL ESTATE FRAUDS AND TITLE CORRUPTIONS BY SIMPLY ELIMINATING ALL THE AGENCIES TIED TO SEEING THIS HAPPENS.
Before we start next week's discussion we would like to open a very contentious topic----we must have open dialog over issues being presented as FAR-RIGHT WING FASCISM AND RACISM VS FAR-LEFT WING MARXISM ----as the global Wall Street tool to bringing the US to civil unrest. As a REAL left social Democrat from the 1960-70s civil rights, women rights, labor rights days I lived and worked my adult life in the north and west but lived and have relatives on Eastern Shore and from Baltimore. I went to college at VCU in Richmond and lived there for a decade so I have a feel of race and class issues around the nation---I would like to speak just a day or so about what WHITE SUPREMACY AND WHITE PRIVILEDGE means to a white middle-class women 60 years young. We are hearing from our black citizens rightly angry a venting that includes things like separation from white society----calling the US and capitalism WHITE SUPREMACY-----liberals are being targeted for these things----and there are those white citizens who back these ideas......people ask why do you always talk about race, class, religion---well, this is a political action FB site and politics is population groups and their alliances. Can a middle-class white woman KNOW what WHITE SUPREMACY is to citizens not white? No, but sharing what one THINKS it means to them helps everyone think what it means.
IF WE ARE GOING TO COME TOGETHER AS A 99% VS 1% ----AND STOP THIS MOVING FORWARD TO ONE WORLD AND CIVIL UNREST----WE MUST SPEAK HONESTLY ABOUT WHAT ALL POLITICS IS ABOUT-----POPULATION DYNAMICS.
Below we see A PUBLIC MEDIA RADIO outlet telling us Trump really is that wild-eyed far-right racist and fascist and not simply another global Wall Street PUPPET playing the part. Keep in mind St Louis is as right wing as Baltimore and so is its public media----
Overseas the global Wall Street LABOR AND JUSTICE PRETENDERS sent in to fuel civil tension between factions in nations wanting to be made Foreign Economic Zones always first install a far-right wing DICTATOR type who then sounded just like TRUMP today. Meanwhile those MERCHANTS OF VENICE posing as revolutionaries deceive the MASSES and whip up the dynamic of those with the far-right wing DICTATOR AND THE MILITIA----and those masses---always poor who they push to be MARXIST rebels----that is what Trump/Clinton neo-liberals like Pelosi and here we see it on public media---are doing in the US.
White backlash? Five intriguing points about immigration, race, politics and population dynamics
By Kelly Moffitt • Apr 6, 2016
St. Louis on the Air
On Wednesday, he’ll be at UMSL at Grand Center to discuss “Race, Turnout and Bias in Local Politics” at 4 p.m.
On Wednesday’s St. Louis on the Air, Hajnal joined host Don Marsh to discuss immigration, politics, race and population dynamics as it pertains to the predominant political parties today.
Listen
Listening...
26:52
Political scientist Zoltan Hajnal posits that our views on immigration and our political predilections are now inextricable. That wasn't the case ten years ago. Listen to why a discovery such as this matters on "St. Louis on the Air.
"Here are the five most intriguing points he made during the show:
The connection between your view of immigrants and your politics is increasingly inextricable
“Increasingly, over time, the connection between how you think about immigrants, whether you view them positively or negatively, and your political preferences has become increasingly tied,” Hajnal said. “Twenty to 30 years ago, those two things weren’t connected. Now, if you express concern, fear or anxiety about immigration/immigrants and undocumented immigrants, you are very likely to be Republican, vote Republican, identify with the Republican Party. If you view immigrants more positively, you are much more likely to be a Democrat. It has become central and driving the increasingly large share of white Americans who are supporting the Republican Party.”
White, working class hostility toward immigrants stems from a loss of economic power
“If you look at the reality of immigration, if we look at the economics of immigration, we know that immigrants aren’t a massive burden on American society. Most economists argue that immigration helps our economy grow. We also have lots of evidence of immigrants not hurting us in other ways. What is the fear? Part of it is a world view. There’s a segment of society that’s afraid of change and change in all sorts of forms: immigration, globalization, technology. Especially if you are A, concerned about those changes, and B, in a position not to capitalize on them. A lot of this is driven by the white, working class. They feel the world is passing them by and that they’re losing. They once had a lot of power and they feel like they’re losing more of that power as we move forward.”
Fears over immigration are dividing Americans along racial lines as well
“[Immigration] is dividing us racially as well. You have increasingly, whites on one side, and racial and ethnic minorities on the other. Muslim Americans, Asian Americans are a good example of where those communities weren’t politicized or partisan a decade ago and Asian Americans are now overwhelming Democratic when they do vote and you see that with Muslim Americans as well. As these issues become more central, we become more racially divided and that has all sorts of potentially negative implications as far as conflict and tension go.”
In terms of population dynamics, the Republican Party is in a difficult spot regarding immigration
Using California as an example, Hajnal showed that when minority populations grow, the tide against immigration shifts. There was a wave of immigrant backlash in California in the early 90s, which has since shifted due to the fact that minority populations have become the majority population in California. California has shifted Democratic in the past few years and the Republican Party has stopped focusing so much on immigration, Hajnal said.
“There may be a point at which power shifts and this polarization ends on a national level,” Hajnal said. “I wouldn’t predict it happening in the very near future. This year, I would imagine when the votes are tallied in November that we will be in the most racially polarized election in American history. You can’t have one party demonizing large swaths of the population, immigrants and Muslims, and not have that impact the way that whites and racial and ethnic minorities are voting.
“The national minority population is growing, so Democrats have an advantage over time. The white population is declining and Republicans have gotten 90% of their votes from white Americans. Structurally, at a national level, Republicans are in a difficult position.”
In politically disengaged immigrant populations, there’s room for Democrats and Republicans to grow
“One of the other elements that is not talked about with both Latinos and Asian-Americans, is that both groups, the largest segment of the populations, is either apolitical or nonpartisan,” Hajnal said. “Of the active Hispanics and Asian Americans, they vote Democrat. But the larger segment is inactive and doesn’t know where they fit in American politics or doesn’t like the options that are available. That’s important because both the Democrat and Republican parties could begin to target that population. There’s a reason for both parties to move away from polarization and using race and immigration as a wedge issue and motivation to engage the immigration population and to do so with compelling policies and softer rhetoric. I’m hopeful that would happen but I don’t predict it will any time soon.”
____________________________________________
A political system that includes all 99% of citizens will have lobbies coming from all kinds of alliances----women have issues unique to men----black, white, and brown citizens each have issues unique to them-----old and young citizens have different issues so this is why we talk about POPULATION GROUPS. Last century saw left social Democratic Party with all kinds of non-profit---local political action groups. Today, we still have many of these but as we said during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA these national groups were taken by far-right wing political stances----not left social Democrat---but these special interest groups still PRETEND to be doing the work of the 99%. I am a left social Democrat who stands as a SOCIAL LIBERAL---or SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE against the Clinton/Obama far-right wing global Wall Street NEO-liberals who are extreme wealth and corporate power ----ECONOMIC LIBERALS.
All of the leadership in the political groups below are tied to far-right wing global Wall Street Clinton/Obama NEO-liberals----economic liberals. When someone says LIBERALS ARE BAD FOR BLACK WOMEN---BLACK MEN----BLACK BUSINESS----that liberals have PRIVILEDGE---or when we hear US government has always been WHITE SUPREMACY----I think back to my 1960-70s years when I was fresh from working hard to get that degree from a public university with a family one generation from being poor. We have reminded the 99% of citizens that the revolutions bringing us to national American sovereignty was to escape a global white 1% who were enslaving---brutal---impoverishing European 99%. American colonists were mostly pushed to go to a strange undeveloped land---they did not want to leave family and culture. Black Americans often came as slaves sold from Africa brought to America ---white citizens were the same but many were indentured not sold----THIS IS WHERE WE SEE WHITE PRIVILEDGE ----America was colonized by global white 1% who pushed ship load after ship load of European and British POOR off to colonies. This is what made America a WHITE CULTURE-----WHITE 1% HAD THE MONEY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH.
10 Most Powerful Special
10 Most Powerful Special Interest Groups in America
From the eight-hour workday to social safety nets such as Medicare, we owe many of the rights we take for granted to the work of special interest groups. Yet many of these organizations have been criticized in recent years for their enormous influence on American politics, whether by endorsing candidates, funding political ads, or in lobbying for legislation favorable to their interests. There are thousands of such advocacy groups today in the U.S. We took a look at a number of factors, including membership numbers, finances and history, to rate the top 10 most influential special interest groups in the U.S.
10. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
The NAACP still retains great influence in the political arena.
Some believe the organization that helped stop lynching and racial segregation should also become a relic of the past. Pundits point to Barack Obama’s presidency as a symbol of the organization achieving its goals. Others acknowledge racial discrimination remains, but that the NAACP must expand its focus to champion a more diverse array of social issues and services. The NAACP makes a point of highlighting much more recent political victories, such as working to abolish the death penalty in Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico and Maryland; registering almost 375,000 new voters for the 2012 election; and leading the push to outlaw NYPD’s notorious “stop-and-frisk” policy.
9. National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
The NARAL’s efforts have helped defeat at least one Supreme Court nominee.
The Center for Responsive Politics reported this pro-choice group spent $170,000 on lobbying efforts in 2012. But as with every other group on this list, NARAL’s reputation and influence in swaying politicians and the public alike far exceed its monetary assets. Whenever a prospective new Supreme Court justice is nominated, for example, the NARAL examines the candidate’s past record and statements on abortion and reports them in position papers. In one notable instance, research the NARAL conducted on Robert Bork pointed out contradictions in his record, leading the U.S. Senate to vote against his confirmation to the high court in 1987. It should be mentioned that the country’s oldest and largest pro-life group, National Right to Life Committee, spent $2.3 million during the last presidential election. Another $1.5 million came from its Right to Life Victory Fund. One-hundred percent of its donations went to GOP candidates.
8. AFL-CIO
The AFL-CIO has expanded its membership in recent years, despite a lower level of unionization in America.
In the face of union membership falling from 35 percent in the 1950s to 11 percent today, the AFL-CIO has grown by 2.5 million members since 2009. The largest organization of its kind in the U.S., it now represents 12.5 million workers across 50-plus unions. Home health care workers, taxi drivers and domestic workers have driven recent growth. The AFL-CIO is also capitalizing on general frustration over stagnant wages, as well as momentum from nontraditional labor groups such as fast-food workers who have organized strikes. At the organization’s 2013 convention, leaders vowed to bolster member numbers and the group’s influence by partnering with other progressive groups, including the NAACP and Sierra Club. Some labor movement experts contend this combination of strong membership and alliances could turn the tide for the organization responsible for championing laws to mandate the 8-hour workday and safer working conditions.
7. American Israel Public Affairs Committee
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee actively promotes issues affecting Israel.
Fortune Magazine once labeled the AIPAC the second most powerful lobby in America. According to AIPAC’s website, the 100,000-member group has championed the passage of more than a dozen bills to impose tougher sanctions on Iran and bolster security assistance to Israel in the past 15 years. Israel has been by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II, to the tune of almost $3 billion per year over the past quarter-century. AIPAC certainly deserves some of the credit for that continuing cash flow. While AIPAC doesn’t officially make contributions to candidates, it does coordinate a political financing network of sorts, mobilizing wealthy Jewish-American donors on both sides of the political aisle — including tycoons Sheldon Adelson and George Soros.
6. MoveOn.org
Moveon.org has had great success mobilizing progressives on a variety of issues.
From its early days as an email group, this organization has used online tools to drive petitions on many liberal/progressive issues, from raising the minimum wage to protecting whales. It now counts more than 5 million members, many of whom were involved with Occupy Wall Street. What MoveOn.org lacks in donation size (individual donations in 2014 averaged $20), it makes up for in donor volume, boasting more than 300,000 different monetary supporters since 2010. The group claims several major achievements in recent years, including its work to end the Iraq war, pass health care reform, and elect and reelect President Barack Obama.
5. Americans For Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity is the best-known conservative group affiliated with the Koch brothers.
While the Koch brothers have been linked to conservative organizations from the Heritage Foundation to FreedomWorks, arguably their best-known effort is Americans for Prosperity. The Washington Post recently called Americans for Prosperity, “America’s Third-Biggest Political Party.” With a multistate reach, it staffs up for elections and conducts local endorsements for campaigns much like a political party. The Post also claims AFP’s planned spending on the 2014 electoral push heading into 2016 would reach an estimated $100 million, with messages specially tailored to reach veterans, Latinos and youths. Thus far, Americans for Prosperity has more than doubled staffing levels to 240 full-time employees, comparable to levels for the entire Republican Party.
4. AARP
The AARP has more than 37 million members.
The AARP, which began as the American Association of Retired Persons, claims 37 million members and represents the interests of Americans aged 50-plus. When the AARP expresses interest in an issue, politicians, the media and the public take note. Look no further than the AARP’s endorsement of the Affordable Care Act (aka health care reform). In addition to offering its endorsement of the law, the AARP championed provisions such as annual wellness and preventive screenings and measures to close the infamous Medicare Part D donut hole. Of course, the AARP also has additional influence through its role selling millions of supplemental health insurance policies to seniors.
While The Association of Mature American Citizens and other groups have emerged as “conservative” alternatives, the AARP contends it supports private options (a bone of contention among right-wingers) as long as Medicare remains a viable option. With 10,000 boomers turning 65 every day, the AARP shows no signs of becoming a fossil as more seniors of all backgrounds and political leanings are staying active and living longer.
3. American Medical Association
The American Medical Association spent $18.25 million on lobbying efforts in 2013.
A frequent supporter of Republican candidates, the AMA spent around $306 million in lobbying from 1998 to 2014, second only to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2013, it ranked eighth out of more than 4,100 organizations surveyed in terms of lobbying, spending $18.25 million. Again, money isn’t everything in the world of politics. When the AMA announced its support of the Affordable Care Act legislation in 2010, health-care supporters widely trumpeted the news; when a group with more than 200,000 members in a highly respected occupation — physician — supports your cause, that type of influence is almost priceless. Not surprisingly, Medicare and Medicaid represent the top issues lobbied by the AMA in 2013.
2. U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends more money on lobbying than any other U.S. organization.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the biggest organizational spender in American politics, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org site. Between 1998 and 2014, this organization representing more than 3 million members spent a whopping $1 billion — equivalent to the GDP of countries like Mongolia and Belize. This figure dwarfs the second-biggest spender on the list, the American Medical Association, at a comparatively paltry $306 million. Not surprisingly, the Chamber has overwhelmingly supported GOP candidates — so much so that donations to the group have been deemed “controversial” for some companies with a broad, global customer base; in 2009, for instance, Apple and Nike were among the corporations that “quit” the member-organization, due to its opposition of policies to proactively address climate change.
1. National Rifle Association
The National Rifle Association has successfully lobbied against stricter gun control measures.
An active membership and hefty bank account make the NRA the envy of other special interest groups. The NRA claims 5 million members, and according to BusinessInsider.com, in 2010 it boasted revenues of almost $228 million and assets of $163 million. The NRA’s membership and financial health give it enormous clout both in influencing the public and politicians. Think back to the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. While polls showed public support for more restrictive gun-control legislation, and President Barack Obama pushed extensively for changes, the NRA’s lobbying — and the omnipresent threat it posed to Democrats in conservative districts and states — defeated the effort to impose new gun controls. In fact, the NRA cited recent federal efforts to enact new gun-control measures with bringing in hundreds of thousands of new members.
_____________________________________________
The comment below is from a white man who takes exception to the term of WHITE PRIVILEDGE BEING RACIST. I think this is where for many white left social Democrats these terms are being used to be DELIBERATELY DIVISIVE. As is said here---it feels like someone is trying to create a tension that is not perceived by many left social Democratic WHITE CITIZENS. Left social Democrats do not see WHITE SUPREMACY---we don't think of ourselves as SUPREME----that's the point of being the civil rights---equal rights side of politics----to say someone thinks another race is SUPREME I have read often from black activists this admission is SURRENDER. So, this is why a left social Democrat will say they do not see WHITE SUPREMACY----we do see WHITE PRIVILEDGE but not necessarily meaning RACIST. Cultural definitions come to each race----each feels more comfortable----many migrate to that cultural comfort----and since cultural identification comes naturally as well as environmentally a person who is white can say or do something thought to be racist without even KNOWING.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO BE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE IN ALL INTERACTIONS--
Left social Democrats take exception to being called RACIST simply because we have WHITE PRIVILEDGE. We work HARD to balance that priviledge with actions both civil and political.
'First of all, white privilege is a racist term. We know it is racist because in her essay in support of her white privilege conclusion, McIntosh writes, "we (whites) are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way."'
'White privilege' is a racist, divisive term: Guest opinion
By Guest Columnist
Follow on Twitter
on November 22, 2014 at 12:25 PMBy Kurt Miller
A friend of mine recently shared an article on "white privilege" from The New York Times. In it, columnist Charles M. Blow wrote, "When one (i.e., a white person) has the luxury of not being forced to compensate for societal oppression based on basic (racial) identity, one is in fact privileged in that society."
My friend shared this article with me because she knows that I am passionate about supporting diversity and inclusion. I've twice been our company's diversity committee chairperson. I wrote our business case for diversity, and I've stood alongside Marlee Matlin at the Oregon Convention Center in support of inclusive practices in our community and businesses.
While well-meaning, I take issue with the article and with the entire white privilege concept that has been gaining traction since its introduction in 1988, when Peggy McIntosh wrote her famous essay, "White Privilege and Male Privilege."
First of all, white privilege is a racist term. We know it is racist because in her essay in support of her white privilege conclusion, McIntosh writes, "we (whites) are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way."
If one is going to describe an entire race of people (i.e., whites) with a derogatory term (i.e., "oppressive"), by definition one has made a racist statement — a race-based negative generalization. White privilege further fits the definition of a racist term because it neglects all of the experiences that are part of who I am. It doesn't look at the individual but instead paints me with a broad racial brush and stereotypes my experience according to the color of my skin.
Second, using the term white privilege is highly divisive. Think of replacing "white" with "black," "Chinese" or "gay" privilege. The minute you throw around a racially polarizing term, you have created an atmosphere of divisiveness, which makes it very difficult for people to hear each other's concerns. Put another way: What white person would want to support a concept that describes her or him as a white-structural-racial-oppressor?
Third, you cannot use a wedge to bring two things together — even a well-meaning wedge. A wedge divides, always and by definition. From a practical perspective, a diversity mentor of mine once told me, "If you want the majority to come along, you have to show them what is in it for them. People don't like to be accused, but they do want to be a part of building something meaningful."
So, I urge us, instead of dividing, let's build something meaningful together. To do that, we need to rally around inclusive ideals. Let us help out our neighbor. Let us volunteer at our schools. Let us look for areas of need and lend a hand. Let us each contribute to a society where we treat each other as equals, not stereotype people according to groups. The first step is to leave harmful stereotyping behind, and that includes the stereotype of "white privilege."
_____________________________________________
America was founded by people fighting for freedom from a global 1% white EMPIRE-BUILDING tyranny----99% of white citizens worked over 2 centuries to gain these rights they have-----they were not landed so we did not have PRIVILEDGE----although no doubt far from our black citizens tied to slavery. The South was plantation country and the few landed white plantation owners were the 1% of that time. The rest of white citizens in the South were basically the same level of SERF ----as in Europe. The connection to CULTURE tied southern poor to southern rich even though they were abused. Divisions between poor white poor black were CLASS ---one group marginalized trying to be one step over another ---this is economic slavery that should be labelled WHITE SUPREMACY----WHITE PRIVILEDGE. Again, it is that very small 1% and their 2% of white citizens falling into a PRIVILEDGED status----even with voting. White men not landed did not vote for some time.
The priviledge of being white in a nation founded by global 1% white rich does bring benefit----it does make climbing out of indenturement and into an economic ladder easier. White colonial citizens were moving west to try to establish some freedom and stability while black citizens were still in slavery. When life is tough the tough get going and yes, white citizens back then were looking to their own and not addressing black slavery. White 99% of citizens at that time were told go west or face no employment and poverty and they went west.
COLONIZATION OF AMERICA WAS GENOCIDAL----IT INVOLVED ENSLAVEMENT BUT ALL THAT WAS DRIVEN BY THE MANIFEST DESTINY OF A WHITE 1%.
We are not denying complicity with all of the above----the 99% of white citizens fought the native wars----they supported the enslaving plantation owners and industrialists.......this was racist and white supremacy drove these expansions west.
What we are hearing today often ties the abuses of white citizens hundreds of years ago to today----we are hearing today's white citizen is as culpable to black slavery and abuses and this is where these issues begin to become questionable to left social Democrats. Does WHITE SUPREMACY follow white citizens through centuries>
I absolutely DO NOT feel any connection to WHITE SUPREMACY----and the WHITE PRIVILEDGE I do admit to I don't feel is RACIST.
Here’s Why It’s Not Racist To Talk About White Privilege
No one is saying that your life is easy or that you're supposed to feel guilty; it's about understanding where you fall in a messed up system.
Katherine Speller 06/29/2015As we get ready for the premiere (July 22) of the new documentary "White People" by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and filmmaker Jose Antonio Vargas, we wanted to take some time to check in with how you (our lovely readers) are feeling. We noticed that a lot of you found our recent posts "9 Ways To Use Your White Privilege For Good" and "What Do Band-Aids, Bras And Bilbo Baggins Have To Do With White Privilege?" a little troubling -- you thought they were racist.
We know these conversations can be really hard to have: They involve taking a critical look at not only our lives, but the society we live in and the power structures that have been in place since way before we were born.
It's okay to be frustrated and confused when you hear some of the more critical comments about the ways whiteness impacts people of color, but it really helps to keep an open mind and understand that these are not attacks on you as a human being, but on a culture of inequality (one that we unfortunately all experience.) And, if you hear these ideas out, do a little reflecting and take some time to hear the stories of people who encounter racism every day, you may start to see that talking about privilege helps everyone take steps toward a better future. We promise.
Here's a few reasons it's not racist to talk about white privilege:
America even during the height of Hitler's Nazism did not have that many signs of Nazi fascism-----
All white citizens are NOT white SUPREMACISTS-----having white priviledge is not white supremacy----but these terms are being used intermittently. We discussed yesterday how a few hundred thousand citizens openly identify as WHITE SUPREMACISTS. That would be the number of people fitting into South Baltimore ----we do not want to make this issue unimportant----we want to show MOVING FORWARD IS MANUFACTURING THESE TENSIONS. I live in Baltimore which is steeped in race and class----but Baltimore is also completely captured by that white 1% who are indeed WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Most white citizens in Baltimore I find are SEPARATISTS. They like many in the south want to remain separate ----white left social Democrats want diversity and inclusion----today we are hearing black citizens calling for SEPARATION.
In the 1960s-70s civil rights women rights----Malcolm X vs MLK was the debate. Malcolm X himself called for black separation and know what? He was probably right. The failure of today's black communities to have their own economies comes from that strong tie to global Wall Street ----that 1% white rich and yes, WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Economic politics will always divide on culture ----with that race. Is that RACIST? It is if as in Baltimore there is orchestrated and targeted policies to keep black citizens unemployed and unable to create economies. Do all white citizens want that for black citizens? ABSOLUTELY NOT----WHITE LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER CREATE THESE CONDITIONS so we are not tied to what is in fact RACIST ECONOMIC POLICIES in cities controlled by that 1% white citizens. Make no mistake---all of Baltimore's economy is controlled by a very small number of white men.
When media shows these kinds of heated encounters----we must think THIS IS A VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS INVOLVING A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. We have our black citizens and activists doing a great job of shouting against Baltimore's racism in media for example---
Modern history has shown we can keep white supremacy from spreading. A Trump who for some reason before his election was shown all the time in company of all sorts of black and brown business people, artists and musicians, global citizens now all of a sudden has media blasting how far-right racist and white supremacist he is ---AND THAT SHOULD BE A RED FLAG TO EVERYONE. IT IS MANUFACTURED.
The articles I see written showing all these encounters are all CLINTON GLOBAL WALL STREET NEO-LIBERAL OUTLETS---HERE IS SLATE.COM----we see HUFFINGTON POST----sold to neo-liberal owners----
Watch Shia LaBeouf Shut Down a White Supremacist (Without Punching Him)
By Matthew Dessem
Shia LaBeouf and an unidentified Nazi.He Will Not Divide Us
“He Will Not Divide Us,” the four-year-long anti-Trump participatory art installation from Shia LaBeouf, Nastja Sade Ronkko, and Luke Turner, was the site of a showdown between actor LaBeouf and an unidentified white supremacist on Sunday, Raw Story reports. The project, at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York, invites visitors to say the words “He will not divide us” into a camera for a 24-hour livestream, which will be broadcast on the web for the entirety of the Trump presidency.
The problem was that not everyone wanted to say “He will not divide us.” To be more specific, a Nazi showed up who wanted to say “1488,” instead. (Calling modern-day white supremacists Nazis may be imprecise in many cases, but this guy was literally wearing a SS M43 field cap, though he at least was ashamed of himself enough to remove the Totenkopf.) “1488,” of course, is a white supremacist code number that combines white supremacy’s 14-word creed with a reference to “Heil Hitler,” H being the eighth letter of the alphabet. It was created by white supremacist murderer David Lane, the same charmer who invented the “white genocide” myth. (Saying “Heil Hitler,” even in code, is another cutoff point where it probably ought to be ok to call someone a Nazi.)
LaBeouf, who was there at the time, sensed that a man wearing the uniform of a long-defeated army of racists might not be in the spirit of the thing, and, as can be seen in a video posted to a fan account for the project, successfully shut him down:*
Rather than engaging in the morally controversial act of Nazi-punching, LaBeouf decided that the answer to hate speech was more speech. He followed the guy around until he returned to the microphone (to tell the world, “We must secure the existence of the white race”) then simply out-yelled him while edging him out of frame. Watching the Nazi try to work his way back to the camera (and fail) is another bittersweet pleasure of the Trump era. Yes, the Nazi looks pathetic, and yes, this is a punch-free Nazi fiasco that we can all enjoy. But a funny web video is a poor consolation for the time—not so long ago!—when fewer Americans thought it was ok to become Nazis to begin with.
_________________________________________
Again, it is absolutely ridiculous to listen to global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberals who spent these few decades literally being the most racists and classist 5% to the 1% in world history----telling us NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RACE OR WHITE SUPREMACY----the global Wall Street 1% are WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Nancy Pelosi is 100% raging global Wall Street. So, Clinton neo-liberals build a global human capital distribution system deliberately changing from calling people citizens and moving to calling them HUMAN CAPITAL ----spend several decades installing Foreign Economic Zones enslaving global citizens in the billions -----calls Bannon WHITE SUPREMACIST. This is CNN----which indeed is FAKE NEWS.
"It's a stunning thing, that a white supremacist would be a permanent member of the National Security Council," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference'.
REAL left social Democrats have spent decades fighting Clinton and global neo-liberalism because it is WHITE SUPREMACIST AND RACIST.
What percentage of white citizens fall into these categories? Well, Hillary did not receive more than 30% of Democratic votes because left white men and women hate Clinton neo-liberalism because it is racist, classist, and global 1% WHITE SUPREMACY.
Pelosi: 'white supremacist' Bannon making America 'less safe'
By Deirdre Walsh, CNN Senior Congressional Producer
Updated 5:39 PM ET, Fri February 3, 2017
"It's a stunning thing, that a white supremacist would be a permanent member of the National Security Council," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
The move is "making America less safe," the California Democrat added.The Democratic National Committee doubled down on that criticism Friday, labeling Bannon Trump's "white supremacist chief strategist" in an email and asking recipients to demand his resignation.
Pelosi has been critical of early moves by the Trump administration, but she also Thursday seemed to raise question about the President's fitness for the job.
She brought up a proposal that House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, was reportedly considering that would require an independent medical assessment of the condition of the President, including mental health.
"If you're going to have your hands on the nuclear codes, you probably -- we should probably know what mental state you're in," Pelosi said.
"I can't wait until he introduces that legislation, to be able to join him as cosponsor of that," telling reporters, "I think it's a very good idea."
When asked about her early overtures to Trump -- attending the inauguration and expressing willingness to work with the new President -- Pelosi cautioned reporters: "Please don't mistake courtesy for approval or anything else positive."
Pelosi repeated her vow that she and her party would fight the Republican effort to dismantle the health care law. She criticized the administration's decision to stop paying for advertisements ahead of the Obamacare enrollment deadline and predicted about the Republican effort to do away with the law.
"This will lead to suffering, death, disability," Pelosi said.
___________________________________________
I know most Americans were very disturbed by these numbers of police killings in our US cities of black men. Here in Baltimore many white citizens were as disturbed by the complete impunity our US police force was allowed these several years. What we were seeing is this-----Obama and Congress moved to militarized policing with global military trainers-----bringing what exists overseas into our US cities. This indeed included some officers who were clearly RACIST----but the policies of shoot first etc were installed in police training. Who is behind the training? The global Wall Street 1% of white men. Johns Hopkins is in fact tied to the global corporations who trained US police officers in cities across the nation with this militarized stance. Was that RACIST? YES------ Was that WHITE SUPREMACY-----YES-------but these policies came from a white 1% of men.
These same white 1% of men behind these policing policies are Bush/Cheney GLOBAL MILITARY CORPORATIONS----and no doubt are tied to whatever Trump brings upon WE THE PEOPLE.
More Than 250 Black People Were Killed By Police In 2016 [Updated]Too many.
07/07/2016 09:45 am ET | Updated Jan 01, 2017
U.S. police killed at least 258 black people in 2016, according to a project by The Guardian that tracks police killings in America.
Thirty-nine of these people were unarmed. Four were killed by police stun guns and another nine died in custody, a continuing problem in American jails. But the majority of black people killed by police were fatally shot.
Based on a tracker from The Washington Post, at least 232 black folks were shot and killed. (The Guardian’s figures include all deaths resulting directly from encounters with law enforcement, while the Post counts only people who were shot and killed by police.)
U.S. police killed at least 258 black people in 2016, according to a project by The Guardian that tracks police killings in America.
Thirty-nine of these people were unarmed. Four were killed by police stun guns and another nine died in custody, a continuing problem in American jails. But the majority of black people killed by police were fatally shot.
Based on a tracker from The Washington Post, at least 232 black folks were shot and killed. (The Guardian’s figures include all deaths resulting directly from encounters with law enforcement, while the Post counts only people who were shot and killed by police.)
A woman who identified herself as Scott’s daughter recorded the shooting’s aftermath on Facebook Live. Scott, according to her and other witnesses, did not have a gun and was disabled. Scott’s killing has touched off violent protests in Charlotte.
A day before Scott was killed, police in Tulsa, Oklahoma, released several videos depicting the death of Terence Crutcher. The 40-year-old was shot and killed by police on Friday after officers saw his stalled SUV in the middle of the road. Initially, the police department said Crutcher had not followed orders to put his hands up.
The released videos, however, show Crutcher walking toward his car with his hands in the air.
__________________________________________
I read a post by a black man that shared an article showing the Texas legal actions against AFFIRMATIVE ACTION----a white student went to court to fight for entry into a university saying black affirmative action kept her out. Republicans have fought from the beginning against all affirmative actions whether for women or citizens of color----this was a right wing stance---the woman involved was Republican and yet----that black man posted the woman was a LIBERAL saying it was OK for white liberal women to get affirmative action ---but not black citizens. Again, left white social Democratic women fought hard for access for ALL EQUALLY and the need to gain entry into workplace was what the EQUAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION was about. Who embraced FEDERALISM ACT to pretend Federal government did not have to enforce EQUAL PROTECTION? Bill Clinton and global Wall Street neo-liberals who are indeed that global 1% white citizens WHO ARE WHITE SUPREMACISTS. As a REAL left white social Democrat fighting all my life for equality for all ----we KNOW our far-right global Wall Street Clinton/Obama POSERS are behind creating these tensions. The 2016 election media outlets went crazy just to promote all these race and class tensions.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES----THINK WHO IS BEHIND ALL OF WHAT IS INDEED POLICIES BRINGING THE US FURTHER AND FURTHER AND FURTHER RIGHT WING----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---NOW TRUMP represent a 5% to the 1% and THEY are indeed WHITE SUPREMACISTS and racist in their extreme wealth and extreme poverty policies.
Left social liberals----left social progressives---that is the FDR social Democratic policies from last century-----NOT the far-right wing CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-liberal which is the opposite economic stance.
The Democratic Party is filled with left white citizens who do not use WHITE PRIVILEDGE in racist ways----who do not identify with WHITE SUPREMACY. Unfortunately we are not allowed to HAVE OUR VOTE COUNTED.
White Privilege and the Real Racist Attitudes of the Left
Posted: January 2, 2017 at 12:00 pm / by David Risselada
Across the nation public universities continue to push the false “white privilege” narrative. Liberal colleges, in an attempt to prove America is a racist, white supremacist nation, push the idea that white people are the beneficiaries of unearned privileges in American society. They insist that minority populations are oppressed victims and that American institutions, being set up only to benefit the white man, systematically discriminate against them. Not only is this false ideology limiting the potential of minorities in America by insisting they cannot succeed in such a racist country, it is creating a new racial hatred which if left unchecked, will surely end in violence. We have already seen this take shape in the revolutionary movement against police known as Black Lives Matter. Sadly, blacks and other minorities are being exploited in America. They are being used to stir up chaos and discontent in a strategy designed to fundamentally transform the nation, and the teaching of white privilege is but a means to this end.
White privilege education originated in Wisconsin in 2009 when the Department of Public Instruction developed a program called Create Wisconsin. The program was supposedly developed to address the achievement gap between white and black students. Educators argued that too many minority students were being placed in special education programs because public education was geared too much toward the “white culture” without addressing cultural differences between whites and minorities. From here, the idea that our society created conditions which made it impossible for minority students to succeed took hold. Every year there is an annual White Privilege Conference hosted by a group bearing that name. Their goal, as noted on their public website is to “deconstruct the white culture” in order to achieve racial justice. Looking at the way racial identity politics have taken a hold in America it could be argued that they are succeeding in their efforts.
As mentioned in the first paragraph, white privilege education is a means to an end. White privilege, or the idea of using racial conflict for societal change is Marxist in origin, and the people behind the scenes are not in search of racial or social justice but absolute control. Karl Marx argued that conflict between the social classes, the rich and the poor, would lead to a perfect classless society. This of course failed to materialize as the world’s workers failed to unite against their alleged oppressors. People like Antonio Gramsci picked up Karl Marx’s mantle and further elaborated on ways to create the needed conflict to bring about communism. Gramsci’s idea was to create several different oppressed classes and put their values against the values of the dominant social group. This is called counter-hegemony. The word hegemony simply means the social influence exerted by the dominant class. So, counter-hegemony would mean creating a value system that is antithetical to this group. Looking at America today we see a society where everyone is a victim of the unfairness of American Republicanism. We have the feminist movement, the LGBT movement, various minority groups claiming to be discriminated against and a media working feverishly to make sure we know our values are not aligned. This is the work of the Marxist’s in our society following Gramsci’s plan for social change.
Further examining the left wing view of man, and the relationship between Marxist and Darwinian thinking leads to the understanding that it is in fact, the left that harbors a racist attitude. Our society has nearly become a full blown welfare state, and it is the promise of free money and benefits that the left relies upon to organize the minority vote. The constant pushing of the white privilege fable coupled with the idea that American society was developed so only certain people could reap the financial benefits has been a winning combination for the left.
To most people racism implies a hatred for a group of people simply because of their skin color. This is certainly the narrative developed by the left; however, it is taking on a new definition today as Democrats insist that blacks and other minorities need their social programs in order to compete on a level playing field. Every time someone speaks out against the massive spending on social welfare, which does little to alleviate poverty mind you, they are attacked as being a racist. Speaking out against programs like affirmative action, which again, the left insists is needed for minorities to have an equal footing, will get you labeled as a racist as well. The definition of racism has changed from being a hatred of someone because of their skin color to believing they are equal and not in need of special treatment.
In Economic Determinism vs. Freewill and the Destruction of our Morality, the belief that man is not in possession of a will of his own was discussed. Rather, communists tend to believe that mans actions will be controlled by the economic times in which he is forced to endure. This belief stems from Darwinian thinking in the sense that man, according to Darwin, is not a special being and has no more significance on Earth than any other animal. Our behavior is not ours to control but the product of our evolutionary roots. Taking this belief to its logical conclusion, it would be reasonable to argue that evolutionists believe that certain races are further along the evolutionary chain than others. In other words, the left truly believes that blacks and other minorities cannot succeed in a society such as ours without their intervention.
‘a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that in-between links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped.” (Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, p. 27, 1982)
Benjamin Rush, who is known as the father of modern Psychiatry, held the belief that black people could not be free and needed government to survive. He believed they suffered from a disease that he compared to Leprosy which he called Negritude. He believed that because of Negritude black people should receive from whites double of what society has to offer. In other words, he didn’t believe black people were capable of producing on their own. Furthermore, the term Drapetomania was coined by other psychologists of the time to describe a mental illness they ascribed to slaves who attempted to leave the plantation. They believed that a black man was better suited to a life of slavery than to one of freedom. Today, the Democrat party viciously attacks any minority who attempts to speak out against their destructive policies. Do today’s Democrats share these beliefs? It would seem so as they continually argue for the need of social programs aimed at helping minorities when in reality, they are further enslaving them.
Before the progressive movement black people were just as able to compete and succeed in this society as white people were. They had strong families, businesses and they loved their country. It was the promise of welfare and the creation of resentment politics that has decimated the black family and destroyed their free will to the point they believe they need government. The teaching of white privilege has done nothing but limit the possibilities for minorities to succeed while enslaving them to the idea that white society hates them and systematically discriminates against them. It is the left that is oppressing them through white privilege education and other Marxist programs just as it has been the Democrat party that had been their oppressors since the days of slavery.
You would have to be a racist in the first place to believe in white privilege anyway.
__________________________________________
When watching 2016 elections especially the Democratic primary with Bernie vs Hillary there was much written on our young adults having a majority voting for Bernie and it was stated over and over these young adults did NOT ASSOCIATE WITH MARXISM----they identified as FDR left social Democrats. Our national media---here is UK doing the same----pushing and pushing MARXISM----at the same time we are told our national leaders are far-right wing fascist----HOW OBVIOUS IS THAT?
Global Wall Street 1% are MOVING FORWARD with BASIC INCOME ----that is the MARXISM they are pushing---$3-6 a day -----not racist when the Asian, Latin American, Middle East brown global citizens are facing this several decades!
Is Marxism becoming mainstream with younger people?
07.06.2012
05:09 pm
There’s a “must read” article that appeared on The Guardian’s website—ironically on the 4th of July, America’s national celebration of revolution—about a new-found interest in the ideas of Karl Marx among younger people. Going on in London this week is a five-day seminar/festival, organized by the Socialist Workers’ Party, called Marxism 2012. The festival is expected to draw several thousand people, many of them in their 20s and early 30s.
At the start of the piece, French Marxist thinker Jacques Rancière lays out a remarkably blunt truth to Guardian editor Stuart Jeffries: “The domination of capitalism globally depends today on the existence of a Chinese Communist party that gives de-localised capitalist enterprises cheap labour to lower prices and deprive workers of the rights of self-organisation. Happily, it is possible to hope for a world less absurd and more just than today’s.”
Aren’t Marx’s venerable ideas as useful to us as the hand loom would be to shoring up Apple’s reputation for innovation? Isn’t the dream of socialist revolution and communist society an irrelevance in 2012? After all, I suggest to Rancière, the bourgeoisie has failed to produce its own gravediggers. Rancière refuses to be downbeat: “The bourgeoisie has learned to make the exploited pay for its crisis and to use them to disarm its adversaries [Tea party dupes, he is talking about YOU—RM]. But we must not reverse the idea of historical necessity and conclude that the current situation is eternal. The gravediggers are still here, in the form of workers in precarious conditions like the over-exploited workers of factories in the far east. And today’s popular movements – Greece or elsewhere – also indicate that there’s a new will not to let our governments and our bankers inflict their crisis on the people.”
That, at least, is the perspective of a seventysomething Marxist professor. What about younger people of a Marxist temper? I ask Jaswinder Blackwell-Pal, a 22 year-old English and drama student at Goldsmiths College, London, who has just finished her BA course in English and Drama, why she considers Marxist thought still relevant. “The point is that younger people weren’t around when Thatcher was in power or when Marxism was associated with the Soviet Union,” she says. “We tend to see it more as a way of understanding what we’re going through now. Think of what’s happening in Egypt. When Mubarak fell it was so inspiring. It broke so many stereotypes – democracy wasn’t supposed to be something that people would fight for in the Muslim world. It vindicates revolution as a process, not as an event. So there was a revolution in Egypt, and a counter-revolution and a counter-counter revolution. What we learned from it was the importance of organisation.”
This, surely is the key to understanding Marxism’s renaissance in the West: for younger people, it is untainted by association with Stalinist gulags. For younger people too, Francis Fukuyama’s triumphalism in his 1992 book The End of History – in which capitalism seemed incontrovertible, its overthrow impossible to imagine – exercises less of a choke-hold on their imaginations than it does on those of their elders.
This is extremely significant, as Jeffries rightly points out. Even in America this is increasingly the case. Young people who have graduated from college with crushing amounts of debt, no health insurance, and who work in dead end jobs (if they can get a job at all) with no clear path to begin their careers are becoming quite interested in understanding what the hell happened. It’s really no surprise that they’ve started to google Capitalism’s greatest critic and read up on his ideas. Many people who joined in various OWS protests around the country were further exposed to Marxist critiques of Capitalism and Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek who has become an unlikely intellectual rockstar to young, politically active American leftists who hang on his every word. These recent “converts,” if you will, have only just started to do more research and talk to and exchange ideas with other like-minded people.
As today’s disillusioned, but media-savvy 20-somethings begin their own inroads to influencing the culture, expect that music, film, TV, blogs and even our mainstream news outlets will become more friendly to the ideas of Marx and Engels, even if they aren’t always given credit for them. Ideas that 160 years after they were originally formulated, are starting to make so much sense to intelligent young people living through an age of Capitalism in deep crisis. Will American ever embrace “Marxism,” per se? That seems doubtful, of course, simply due to the cultural knee-jerk taboo around this particular “ism,” but still there is the rather pressing issue of Marxism’s historical inevitability:
Call it whatever you want to, but a situation where a mere 1% of the population control most of the wealth doesn’t seem like it’s going end so well for the ones doing the hoarding.
There’s a big problem that Capitalism increasingly faces: Because of the Internet, over the past fifteen years or so, the average person has easy access to information sources that they never dreamed of or knew existed in the first place. Before the mid-90s, it was much more difficult for the man on the street to be able draw a connection between the price of a particular drug and the net worth of the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that manufactures it. Today, they are beginning to understand that when a CEO of a pharmaceutical company is making $50,000,000 a year that they are paying a TAX ON THEIR OWN HEALTH for the sake of that rich asshole’s obscene salary with EVERY PILL THEY TAKE. Or consider the tax paid directly to the billionaire Walton family from EVERY product sold in a Wal-Mart. It’s a breath-taking con when you consider that ONE GODDAMN FAMILY basically gets to add their own personal tariff to every product sold in the world’s largest retail behemoth!
HOORAY FOR FUCKING CAPITALISM.
HOORAY FOR WALL STREET VAMPIRES.
Only a delusional idiot, the Royal family, the Walton family or a charter member of the 1%, would even wish for the current system to stand as it is. And the opinion of anyone who thinks America or Europe (or China or Russia for that matter) is still going to be doing business the same way in 2032 as it is done in 2012 should be dismissed with extreme derision.
Of course, the American people aren’t going to tip sales of The Communist Manifesto (the world’s #2 selling book of all time) to overtake The Bible any time soon, but then again they needn’t read a German philosophical treatise on how the price of a particular commodity is derived, either, when they’ve got folks like Jon Stewart, Cenk Uygur, Martin Bashir and Rachel Maddow to explain it to them.
In the same sense that ideas once common to the lunatic fringe of the John Birch Society have now achieved mainstream “respect” via Glenn Beck and Fox News, so will covertly Marxist ideas become mainstreamed as younger people coming of age with their eyes wide open in this shitty economy have their day. Eventually the major tenants of Marxism will arrive in the American marketplace of ideas in the guise of plain-talking, good old-fashioned common sense.
Back to Jeffries:
For a different perspective I catch up with Owen Jones, 27-year-old poster boy of the new left and author of the bestselling politics book of 2011, Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class. He’s on the train to Brighton to address the Unite conference. “There isn’t going to be a bloody revolution in Britain, but there is hope for a society by working people and for working people,” he counsels.
Indeed, he says, in the 1860s the later Marx imagined such a post-capitalist society as being won by means other than violent revolution. “He did look at expanding the suffrage and other peaceful means of achieving socialist society. Today not even the Trotskyist left call for armed revolution. The radical left would say that the break with capitalism could only be achieved by democracy and organisation of working people to establish and hold on to that just society against forces that would destroy it.”
Owen Jones is right. A violent revolution in America seems beyond a remote possibility, as well, whether from the left (not enough stomach for violence) or right (stomachs too fat for being able to inflict much violence). The future American revolution will be one won at the ballot box and through superior demographic numbers. As has been pointed out many, many times, in many, many places, the heyday of the reactionary right that began with Reagan is increasingly being seen in the country’s rear view mirror, demographically speaking. America will always have its conservative wingnuts, it’s just that we’ll have far fewer of them as the Tea partiers and Fox News viewers start to die off in the coming years. Democracy is a numbers game. It always has been.
Having toiled at a major daily newspaper myself, I won’t hold it against Stuart Jeffries that he was obliged to quote at least one “Debbie Downer” about the common, hackneyed misconception of what “Marxism” means, in this case Prof. Alan Johnson, of Edge Hill University, who thinks Communism, “[a] worldview recently the source of immense suffering and misery, and responsible for more deaths than fascism and Nazism, is mounting a comeback; a new form of leftwing totalitarianism that enjoys intellectual celebrity but aspires to political power,” on the World Affairs blog:
“The New Communism matters not because of its intellectual merits but because it may yet influence layers of young Europeans in the context of an exhausted social democracy, austerity and a self-loathing intellectual culture,” wrote Johnson. “Tempting as it is, we can’t afford to just shake our heads and pass on by.”
That’s the fear: that these nasty old left farts such as Žižek, Badiou, Rancière and Eagleton will corrupt the minds of innocent youth. But does reading Marx and Engels’s critique of capitalism mean that you thereby take on a worldview responsible for more deaths than the Nazis? Surely there is no straight line from The Communist Manifesto to the gulags, and no reason why young lefties need uncritically to adopt Badiou at his most chilling. In his introduction to a new edition of The Communist Manifesto, Professor Eric Hobsbawm suggests that Marx was right to argue that the “contradictions of a market system based on no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’, a system of exploitation and of ‘endless accumulation’ can never be overcome: that at some point in a series of transformations and restructurings the development of this essentially destabilising system will lead to a state of affairs that can no longer be described as capitalism”.
That is post-capitalist society as dreamed of by Marxists. But what would it be like? “It is extremely unlikely that such a ‘post-capitalist society’ would respond to the traditional models of socialism and still less to the ‘really existing’ socialisms of the Soviet era,” argues Hobsbawm, adding that it will, however, necessarily involve a shift from private appropriation to social management on a global scale. “What forms it might take and how far it would embody the humanist values of Marx’s and Engels’s communism, would depend on the political action through which this change came about.”
This is surely Marxism at its most liberating, suggesting that our futures depend on us and our readiness for struggle. Or as Marx and Engels put it at the end of The Communist Manifesto: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
________________________________________
We all shout to our black citizens---YES there has not been a solution to race and class in America----it is indeed driven by a global 1% white men. Yes, there is a voting group of citizens who are right wing and indeed racist. What is the solution for black activists who feel there is no solution? Left white social Democrats want black citizens to know we are fighting hard to stop and reverse these far-right policies----we still believe MLK's peaceful protests will work if done in mass----we simply need to WAKE UP AND OCCUPY OUR US CITIES.
Most citizens understand that 2016 elections were rigged----from Democratic and Republican primaries that sent a HILLARY TRUMP to the general election. We also know voter turnout for both parties was not high----Republicans are just as frustrated with their election primaries and candidates that rise to final elections as the left Democrats are.......do right wing Republicans really want WHITE SUPREMACY or do all Americans want their AMERICA BACK---
LET'S WORK TOGETHER AS A 99% VS 1% TO DO THAT----NO ONE WINS IN ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---especially that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street who are THE REAL RACISTS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS.
2016
Donald Trump Is Not Expanding the GOP
A POLITICO analysis of early-voting data shows little evidence for one of the Republican nominee’s core claims.
By Shane Goldmacher
May 17, 2016
Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
This Is What White Supremacy Looks Like
Don’t be confused. Trump’s voters didn’t vote against their own interests, they voted for the preservation of white privilege—their paramount interest.
By Damon YoungNovember 9, 2016
A version of this post initially appeared on VSB.com.
This is not particularly untrue. But it misses the point—as I did.
In this election, they (white people) did not vote against their self-interests. They may have voted against a self-interest—several self-interests, actually—but not their most important one: the preservation of white supremacy.
Retaining the value of a whiteness they believed to be increasingly devalued superseded everything else. Including their own livelihoods; their own intellects; their own physical and financial well-beings; their own Christianity; their own consciences; their own agency; their own money; their own educations; their own employment; their own neighborhoods; their own homes; their own futures; their own children’s futures, their own country’s legacy; their own country’s status with the rest of the world; their own environment; their own food, air, and water; their own planet; their own rights; their own dignity; their own integrity; and their own lives.
And please note that I am not including any qualifiers. For working-class whites. Or whites from Rust Belt cities. Or white men. Or white people who didn’t graduate from college—or rural whites, or Midwestern whites, or Southern whites. Or whites disillusioned with Washington. Or whites who hate Clinton. Or whites who felt ignored by politicians. This is on all white people—who are complicit even if they didn’t vote for Trump.
Yes, there exists a difference between allies and racial antagonists. They are not the same. But those allies obviously haven’t done enough collectively to repudiate the mindsets existing in their families and among their friends, possessed by their co-workers and neighbors, shared during private holiday gatherings and public town-hall meetings. Millions of white voters have shown us that nothing existing on earth or in heaven or hell matters more to them than being white, and whichever privileges—real or fabricated, concrete or spiritual—existing as White in America provides.
The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.
I admit: I underestimated them. Of course, I knew of the presence of white supremacy and the appeal of perpetuating it. You cannot exist as a black person in America without at least a rudimentary and peripheral understanding of it. What I didn’t realize, however, was exactly how powerful this want to retain whiteness is.
I assumed, wrongly, that enough of them would value their own lives, their own humanity, more than the need for white supremacy to be preserved. But I failed to realize how intertwined these things are for them. There apparently is no point in even existing without existing as white. Whiteness is past an identity or status; it is their oxygen, their plasma, their connective tissue.
I’m trying very hard to find silver linings today, some source of comfort or consolation. But I cannot. Maybe I will eventually. But right now, this, the idea that white people are so possessed with clutching and cultivating and elevating white supremacy that they will endanger and outright sacrifice their own fucking lives to do so, is all I can think about. And if they feel that way about their own lives, why would they give a damn about mine?
____________________________________________
The feelings of black citizens being under attack ARE REAL-----when US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones was installed by Congress late Clinton early Bush all US Rule of Law was ignored----all civil rights and liberties were ignored---and as with all marches to global corporate fascism ---there is always a group who is scapegoated to deliberately create societal tensions. Left white citizens must step up----this will not abate unless we FILL OUR US CITIES FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS---TO GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% AND THEIR 1%!
White supremacists shoot 5 Black Lives Matter activists protesting Jamar Clark’s killing in Minneapolis
Travis Gettys
24 Nov 2015 at 06:39 ET
A group of suspected white supremacists fired into a crowd of Black Lives Matter activists protesting the Minneapolis police killing of Jamar Clark.At least five people were wounded when the gunmen opened fire about 10:45 p.m. Monday at the city’s Fourth Precinct, reported the Star Tribune.
Police said all five victims were treated for non-life-threatening gunshot wounds, although authorities said additional victims may have been wounded and sought treatment on their own.
Investigators have not released much information so far about the possible suspects, saying only they were seeking three white men, but protesters said they had a pretty clear idea of who fired the gunshots.
“A group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights,” said Miski Noor, a Black Lives Matter activist.
Another demonstrator said one of the three men wore a mask and stayed at the protest site since early morning Monday, taunting the protesters.
The men, who police said were wearing bulletproof vests, opened fire on six activists who angrily attempted to herd them away from the protest site, witnesses said.
A witness said she initially believed the gunshots were firecrackers and thought, “surely they’re not shooting human beings,” but then she saw two black men had been wounded — one shot in the back and leg and the other man in the arm.
Another protester was shot in the stomach and later underwent surgery.
The masked and armed gunmen then fled the scene — and witnesses said police fired chemical irritant into the crowd, although city officials dispute those claims.
Witnesses also claim the gunshot victims waited 15 minutes before emergency crews arrived to treat their injuries.
The shootings came just three days after a Black Lives Matter protester was beaten and kicked by Donald Trump supporters at an Alabama campaign rally, and the Republican candidate said afterward the demonstrator was “disgusting” and arguably “should have been roughed up.”
Black Lives Matter activists have been protesting the Nov. 15 fatal police shooting of the 24-year-old Clark, who witnesses say was handcuffed when he was killed.
Clark’s brother called for an end to the demonstrations hours after the shootings. “Thank you to the community for the incredible support you have shown for our family in this difficult time,” said Eddie Sutton, Clark’s brother. “We appreciate Black Lives Matter for holding it down and keeping the protests peaceful. But in light of tonight’s shootings, the family feels out of imminent concern for the safety of the occupiers, we must get the occupation of the 4th precinct ended and onto the next step.”
Demonstrators have complained throughout the protest that Minneapolis police officers have pointed their weapons at them without justification.
TRUMP WILL SOLVE ALL THESE REAL ESTATE FRAUDS AND TITLE CORRUPTIONS BY SIMPLY ELIMINATING ALL THE AGENCIES TIED TO SEEING THIS HAPPENS.
Before we start next week's discussion we would like to open a very contentious topic----we must have open dialog over issues being presented as FAR-RIGHT WING FASCISM AND RACISM VS FAR-LEFT WING MARXISM ----as the global Wall Street tool to bringing the US to civil unrest. As a REAL left social Democrat from the 1960-70s civil rights, women rights, labor rights days I lived and worked my adult life in the north and west but lived and have relatives on Eastern Shore and from Baltimore. I went to college at VCU in Richmond and lived there for a decade so I have a feel of race and class issues around the nation---I would like to speak just a day or so about what WHITE SUPREMACY AND WHITE PRIVILEDGE means to a white middle-class women 60 years young. We are hearing from our black citizens rightly angry a venting that includes things like separation from white society----calling the US and capitalism WHITE SUPREMACY-----liberals are being targeted for these things----and there are those white citizens who back these ideas......people ask why do you always talk about race, class, religion---well, this is a political action FB site and politics is population groups and their alliances. Can a middle-class white woman KNOW what WHITE SUPREMACY is to citizens not white? No, but sharing what one THINKS it means to them helps everyone think what it means.
IF WE ARE GOING TO COME TOGETHER AS A 99% VS 1% ----AND STOP THIS MOVING FORWARD TO ONE WORLD AND CIVIL UNREST----WE MUST SPEAK HONESTLY ABOUT WHAT ALL POLITICS IS ABOUT-----POPULATION DYNAMICS.
Below we see A PUBLIC MEDIA RADIO outlet telling us Trump really is that wild-eyed far-right racist and fascist and not simply another global Wall Street PUPPET playing the part. Keep in mind St Louis is as right wing as Baltimore and so is its public media----
Overseas the global Wall Street LABOR AND JUSTICE PRETENDERS sent in to fuel civil tension between factions in nations wanting to be made Foreign Economic Zones always first install a far-right wing DICTATOR type who then sounded just like TRUMP today. Meanwhile those MERCHANTS OF VENICE posing as revolutionaries deceive the MASSES and whip up the dynamic of those with the far-right wing DICTATOR AND THE MILITIA----and those masses---always poor who they push to be MARXIST rebels----that is what Trump/Clinton neo-liberals like Pelosi and here we see it on public media---are doing in the US.
White backlash? Five intriguing points about immigration, race, politics and population dynamics
By Kelly Moffitt • Apr 6, 2016
St. Louis on the Air
- Zoltan Hajnal argues that immigration and political preferences have become inextricably linked in the United States.
Kelly Moffitt | St. Louis Public Radio
On Wednesday, he’ll be at UMSL at Grand Center to discuss “Race, Turnout and Bias in Local Politics” at 4 p.m.
On Wednesday’s St. Louis on the Air, Hajnal joined host Don Marsh to discuss immigration, politics, race and population dynamics as it pertains to the predominant political parties today.
Listen
Listening...
26:52
Political scientist Zoltan Hajnal posits that our views on immigration and our political predilections are now inextricable. That wasn't the case ten years ago. Listen to why a discovery such as this matters on "St. Louis on the Air.
"Here are the five most intriguing points he made during the show:
The connection between your view of immigrants and your politics is increasingly inextricable
“Increasingly, over time, the connection between how you think about immigrants, whether you view them positively or negatively, and your political preferences has become increasingly tied,” Hajnal said. “Twenty to 30 years ago, those two things weren’t connected. Now, if you express concern, fear or anxiety about immigration/immigrants and undocumented immigrants, you are very likely to be Republican, vote Republican, identify with the Republican Party. If you view immigrants more positively, you are much more likely to be a Democrat. It has become central and driving the increasingly large share of white Americans who are supporting the Republican Party.”
White, working class hostility toward immigrants stems from a loss of economic power
“If you look at the reality of immigration, if we look at the economics of immigration, we know that immigrants aren’t a massive burden on American society. Most economists argue that immigration helps our economy grow. We also have lots of evidence of immigrants not hurting us in other ways. What is the fear? Part of it is a world view. There’s a segment of society that’s afraid of change and change in all sorts of forms: immigration, globalization, technology. Especially if you are A, concerned about those changes, and B, in a position not to capitalize on them. A lot of this is driven by the white, working class. They feel the world is passing them by and that they’re losing. They once had a lot of power and they feel like they’re losing more of that power as we move forward.”
Fears over immigration are dividing Americans along racial lines as well
“[Immigration] is dividing us racially as well. You have increasingly, whites on one side, and racial and ethnic minorities on the other. Muslim Americans, Asian Americans are a good example of where those communities weren’t politicized or partisan a decade ago and Asian Americans are now overwhelming Democratic when they do vote and you see that with Muslim Americans as well. As these issues become more central, we become more racially divided and that has all sorts of potentially negative implications as far as conflict and tension go.”
In terms of population dynamics, the Republican Party is in a difficult spot regarding immigration
Using California as an example, Hajnal showed that when minority populations grow, the tide against immigration shifts. There was a wave of immigrant backlash in California in the early 90s, which has since shifted due to the fact that minority populations have become the majority population in California. California has shifted Democratic in the past few years and the Republican Party has stopped focusing so much on immigration, Hajnal said.
“There may be a point at which power shifts and this polarization ends on a national level,” Hajnal said. “I wouldn’t predict it happening in the very near future. This year, I would imagine when the votes are tallied in November that we will be in the most racially polarized election in American history. You can’t have one party demonizing large swaths of the population, immigrants and Muslims, and not have that impact the way that whites and racial and ethnic minorities are voting.
“The national minority population is growing, so Democrats have an advantage over time. The white population is declining and Republicans have gotten 90% of their votes from white Americans. Structurally, at a national level, Republicans are in a difficult position.”
In politically disengaged immigrant populations, there’s room for Democrats and Republicans to grow
“One of the other elements that is not talked about with both Latinos and Asian-Americans, is that both groups, the largest segment of the populations, is either apolitical or nonpartisan,” Hajnal said. “Of the active Hispanics and Asian Americans, they vote Democrat. But the larger segment is inactive and doesn’t know where they fit in American politics or doesn’t like the options that are available. That’s important because both the Democrat and Republican parties could begin to target that population. There’s a reason for both parties to move away from polarization and using race and immigration as a wedge issue and motivation to engage the immigration population and to do so with compelling policies and softer rhetoric. I’m hopeful that would happen but I don’t predict it will any time soon.”
____________________________________________
A political system that includes all 99% of citizens will have lobbies coming from all kinds of alliances----women have issues unique to men----black, white, and brown citizens each have issues unique to them-----old and young citizens have different issues so this is why we talk about POPULATION GROUPS. Last century saw left social Democratic Party with all kinds of non-profit---local political action groups. Today, we still have many of these but as we said during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA these national groups were taken by far-right wing political stances----not left social Democrat---but these special interest groups still PRETEND to be doing the work of the 99%. I am a left social Democrat who stands as a SOCIAL LIBERAL---or SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE against the Clinton/Obama far-right wing global Wall Street NEO-liberals who are extreme wealth and corporate power ----ECONOMIC LIBERALS.
All of the leadership in the political groups below are tied to far-right wing global Wall Street Clinton/Obama NEO-liberals----economic liberals. When someone says LIBERALS ARE BAD FOR BLACK WOMEN---BLACK MEN----BLACK BUSINESS----that liberals have PRIVILEDGE---or when we hear US government has always been WHITE SUPREMACY----I think back to my 1960-70s years when I was fresh from working hard to get that degree from a public university with a family one generation from being poor. We have reminded the 99% of citizens that the revolutions bringing us to national American sovereignty was to escape a global white 1% who were enslaving---brutal---impoverishing European 99%. American colonists were mostly pushed to go to a strange undeveloped land---they did not want to leave family and culture. Black Americans often came as slaves sold from Africa brought to America ---white citizens were the same but many were indentured not sold----THIS IS WHERE WE SEE WHITE PRIVILEDGE ----America was colonized by global white 1% who pushed ship load after ship load of European and British POOR off to colonies. This is what made America a WHITE CULTURE-----WHITE 1% HAD THE MONEY FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH.
10 Most Powerful Special
10 Most Powerful Special Interest Groups in America
- BY Michelle Leach
- IN Politics
- July 2, 2014
From the eight-hour workday to social safety nets such as Medicare, we owe many of the rights we take for granted to the work of special interest groups. Yet many of these organizations have been criticized in recent years for their enormous influence on American politics, whether by endorsing candidates, funding political ads, or in lobbying for legislation favorable to their interests. There are thousands of such advocacy groups today in the U.S. We took a look at a number of factors, including membership numbers, finances and history, to rate the top 10 most influential special interest groups in the U.S.
10. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
The NAACP still retains great influence in the political arena.
Some believe the organization that helped stop lynching and racial segregation should also become a relic of the past. Pundits point to Barack Obama’s presidency as a symbol of the organization achieving its goals. Others acknowledge racial discrimination remains, but that the NAACP must expand its focus to champion a more diverse array of social issues and services. The NAACP makes a point of highlighting much more recent political victories, such as working to abolish the death penalty in Illinois, Connecticut, New Mexico and Maryland; registering almost 375,000 new voters for the 2012 election; and leading the push to outlaw NYPD’s notorious “stop-and-frisk” policy.
9. National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
The NARAL’s efforts have helped defeat at least one Supreme Court nominee.
The Center for Responsive Politics reported this pro-choice group spent $170,000 on lobbying efforts in 2012. But as with every other group on this list, NARAL’s reputation and influence in swaying politicians and the public alike far exceed its monetary assets. Whenever a prospective new Supreme Court justice is nominated, for example, the NARAL examines the candidate’s past record and statements on abortion and reports them in position papers. In one notable instance, research the NARAL conducted on Robert Bork pointed out contradictions in his record, leading the U.S. Senate to vote against his confirmation to the high court in 1987. It should be mentioned that the country’s oldest and largest pro-life group, National Right to Life Committee, spent $2.3 million during the last presidential election. Another $1.5 million came from its Right to Life Victory Fund. One-hundred percent of its donations went to GOP candidates.
8. AFL-CIO
The AFL-CIO has expanded its membership in recent years, despite a lower level of unionization in America.
In the face of union membership falling from 35 percent in the 1950s to 11 percent today, the AFL-CIO has grown by 2.5 million members since 2009. The largest organization of its kind in the U.S., it now represents 12.5 million workers across 50-plus unions. Home health care workers, taxi drivers and domestic workers have driven recent growth. The AFL-CIO is also capitalizing on general frustration over stagnant wages, as well as momentum from nontraditional labor groups such as fast-food workers who have organized strikes. At the organization’s 2013 convention, leaders vowed to bolster member numbers and the group’s influence by partnering with other progressive groups, including the NAACP and Sierra Club. Some labor movement experts contend this combination of strong membership and alliances could turn the tide for the organization responsible for championing laws to mandate the 8-hour workday and safer working conditions.
7. American Israel Public Affairs Committee
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee actively promotes issues affecting Israel.
Fortune Magazine once labeled the AIPAC the second most powerful lobby in America. According to AIPAC’s website, the 100,000-member group has championed the passage of more than a dozen bills to impose tougher sanctions on Iran and bolster security assistance to Israel in the past 15 years. Israel has been by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II, to the tune of almost $3 billion per year over the past quarter-century. AIPAC certainly deserves some of the credit for that continuing cash flow. While AIPAC doesn’t officially make contributions to candidates, it does coordinate a political financing network of sorts, mobilizing wealthy Jewish-American donors on both sides of the political aisle — including tycoons Sheldon Adelson and George Soros.
6. MoveOn.org
Moveon.org has had great success mobilizing progressives on a variety of issues.
From its early days as an email group, this organization has used online tools to drive petitions on many liberal/progressive issues, from raising the minimum wage to protecting whales. It now counts more than 5 million members, many of whom were involved with Occupy Wall Street. What MoveOn.org lacks in donation size (individual donations in 2014 averaged $20), it makes up for in donor volume, boasting more than 300,000 different monetary supporters since 2010. The group claims several major achievements in recent years, including its work to end the Iraq war, pass health care reform, and elect and reelect President Barack Obama.
5. Americans For Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity is the best-known conservative group affiliated with the Koch brothers.
While the Koch brothers have been linked to conservative organizations from the Heritage Foundation to FreedomWorks, arguably their best-known effort is Americans for Prosperity. The Washington Post recently called Americans for Prosperity, “America’s Third-Biggest Political Party.” With a multistate reach, it staffs up for elections and conducts local endorsements for campaigns much like a political party. The Post also claims AFP’s planned spending on the 2014 electoral push heading into 2016 would reach an estimated $100 million, with messages specially tailored to reach veterans, Latinos and youths. Thus far, Americans for Prosperity has more than doubled staffing levels to 240 full-time employees, comparable to levels for the entire Republican Party.
4. AARP
The AARP has more than 37 million members.
The AARP, which began as the American Association of Retired Persons, claims 37 million members and represents the interests of Americans aged 50-plus. When the AARP expresses interest in an issue, politicians, the media and the public take note. Look no further than the AARP’s endorsement of the Affordable Care Act (aka health care reform). In addition to offering its endorsement of the law, the AARP championed provisions such as annual wellness and preventive screenings and measures to close the infamous Medicare Part D donut hole. Of course, the AARP also has additional influence through its role selling millions of supplemental health insurance policies to seniors.
While The Association of Mature American Citizens and other groups have emerged as “conservative” alternatives, the AARP contends it supports private options (a bone of contention among right-wingers) as long as Medicare remains a viable option. With 10,000 boomers turning 65 every day, the AARP shows no signs of becoming a fossil as more seniors of all backgrounds and political leanings are staying active and living longer.
3. American Medical Association
The American Medical Association spent $18.25 million on lobbying efforts in 2013.
A frequent supporter of Republican candidates, the AMA spent around $306 million in lobbying from 1998 to 2014, second only to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2013, it ranked eighth out of more than 4,100 organizations surveyed in terms of lobbying, spending $18.25 million. Again, money isn’t everything in the world of politics. When the AMA announced its support of the Affordable Care Act legislation in 2010, health-care supporters widely trumpeted the news; when a group with more than 200,000 members in a highly respected occupation — physician — supports your cause, that type of influence is almost priceless. Not surprisingly, Medicare and Medicaid represent the top issues lobbied by the AMA in 2013.
2. U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spends more money on lobbying than any other U.S. organization.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the biggest organizational spender in American politics, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org site. Between 1998 and 2014, this organization representing more than 3 million members spent a whopping $1 billion — equivalent to the GDP of countries like Mongolia and Belize. This figure dwarfs the second-biggest spender on the list, the American Medical Association, at a comparatively paltry $306 million. Not surprisingly, the Chamber has overwhelmingly supported GOP candidates — so much so that donations to the group have been deemed “controversial” for some companies with a broad, global customer base; in 2009, for instance, Apple and Nike were among the corporations that “quit” the member-organization, due to its opposition of policies to proactively address climate change.
1. National Rifle Association
The National Rifle Association has successfully lobbied against stricter gun control measures.
An active membership and hefty bank account make the NRA the envy of other special interest groups. The NRA claims 5 million members, and according to BusinessInsider.com, in 2010 it boasted revenues of almost $228 million and assets of $163 million. The NRA’s membership and financial health give it enormous clout both in influencing the public and politicians. Think back to the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. While polls showed public support for more restrictive gun-control legislation, and President Barack Obama pushed extensively for changes, the NRA’s lobbying — and the omnipresent threat it posed to Democrats in conservative districts and states — defeated the effort to impose new gun controls. In fact, the NRA cited recent federal efforts to enact new gun-control measures with bringing in hundreds of thousands of new members.
_____________________________________________
The comment below is from a white man who takes exception to the term of WHITE PRIVILEDGE BEING RACIST. I think this is where for many white left social Democrats these terms are being used to be DELIBERATELY DIVISIVE. As is said here---it feels like someone is trying to create a tension that is not perceived by many left social Democratic WHITE CITIZENS. Left social Democrats do not see WHITE SUPREMACY---we don't think of ourselves as SUPREME----that's the point of being the civil rights---equal rights side of politics----to say someone thinks another race is SUPREME I have read often from black activists this admission is SURRENDER. So, this is why a left social Democrat will say they do not see WHITE SUPREMACY----we do see WHITE PRIVILEDGE but not necessarily meaning RACIST. Cultural definitions come to each race----each feels more comfortable----many migrate to that cultural comfort----and since cultural identification comes naturally as well as environmentally a person who is white can say or do something thought to be racist without even KNOWING.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO BE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE IN ALL INTERACTIONS--
Left social Democrats take exception to being called RACIST simply because we have WHITE PRIVILEDGE. We work HARD to balance that priviledge with actions both civil and political.
'First of all, white privilege is a racist term. We know it is racist because in her essay in support of her white privilege conclusion, McIntosh writes, "we (whites) are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way."'
'White privilege' is a racist, divisive term: Guest opinion
By Guest Columnist
Follow on Twitter
on November 22, 2014 at 12:25 PMBy Kurt Miller
A friend of mine recently shared an article on "white privilege" from The New York Times. In it, columnist Charles M. Blow wrote, "When one (i.e., a white person) has the luxury of not being forced to compensate for societal oppression based on basic (racial) identity, one is in fact privileged in that society."
My friend shared this article with me because she knows that I am passionate about supporting diversity and inclusion. I've twice been our company's diversity committee chairperson. I wrote our business case for diversity, and I've stood alongside Marlee Matlin at the Oregon Convention Center in support of inclusive practices in our community and businesses.
While well-meaning, I take issue with the article and with the entire white privilege concept that has been gaining traction since its introduction in 1988, when Peggy McIntosh wrote her famous essay, "White Privilege and Male Privilege."
First of all, white privilege is a racist term. We know it is racist because in her essay in support of her white privilege conclusion, McIntosh writes, "we (whites) are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don't see ourselves that way."
If one is going to describe an entire race of people (i.e., whites) with a derogatory term (i.e., "oppressive"), by definition one has made a racist statement — a race-based negative generalization. White privilege further fits the definition of a racist term because it neglects all of the experiences that are part of who I am. It doesn't look at the individual but instead paints me with a broad racial brush and stereotypes my experience according to the color of my skin.
Second, using the term white privilege is highly divisive. Think of replacing "white" with "black," "Chinese" or "gay" privilege. The minute you throw around a racially polarizing term, you have created an atmosphere of divisiveness, which makes it very difficult for people to hear each other's concerns. Put another way: What white person would want to support a concept that describes her or him as a white-structural-racial-oppressor?
Third, you cannot use a wedge to bring two things together — even a well-meaning wedge. A wedge divides, always and by definition. From a practical perspective, a diversity mentor of mine once told me, "If you want the majority to come along, you have to show them what is in it for them. People don't like to be accused, but they do want to be a part of building something meaningful."
So, I urge us, instead of dividing, let's build something meaningful together. To do that, we need to rally around inclusive ideals. Let us help out our neighbor. Let us volunteer at our schools. Let us look for areas of need and lend a hand. Let us each contribute to a society where we treat each other as equals, not stereotype people according to groups. The first step is to leave harmful stereotyping behind, and that includes the stereotype of "white privilege."
_____________________________________________
America was founded by people fighting for freedom from a global 1% white EMPIRE-BUILDING tyranny----99% of white citizens worked over 2 centuries to gain these rights they have-----they were not landed so we did not have PRIVILEDGE----although no doubt far from our black citizens tied to slavery. The South was plantation country and the few landed white plantation owners were the 1% of that time. The rest of white citizens in the South were basically the same level of SERF ----as in Europe. The connection to CULTURE tied southern poor to southern rich even though they were abused. Divisions between poor white poor black were CLASS ---one group marginalized trying to be one step over another ---this is economic slavery that should be labelled WHITE SUPREMACY----WHITE PRIVILEDGE. Again, it is that very small 1% and their 2% of white citizens falling into a PRIVILEDGED status----even with voting. White men not landed did not vote for some time.
The priviledge of being white in a nation founded by global 1% white rich does bring benefit----it does make climbing out of indenturement and into an economic ladder easier. White colonial citizens were moving west to try to establish some freedom and stability while black citizens were still in slavery. When life is tough the tough get going and yes, white citizens back then were looking to their own and not addressing black slavery. White 99% of citizens at that time were told go west or face no employment and poverty and they went west.
COLONIZATION OF AMERICA WAS GENOCIDAL----IT INVOLVED ENSLAVEMENT BUT ALL THAT WAS DRIVEN BY THE MANIFEST DESTINY OF A WHITE 1%.
We are not denying complicity with all of the above----the 99% of white citizens fought the native wars----they supported the enslaving plantation owners and industrialists.......this was racist and white supremacy drove these expansions west.
What we are hearing today often ties the abuses of white citizens hundreds of years ago to today----we are hearing today's white citizen is as culpable to black slavery and abuses and this is where these issues begin to become questionable to left social Democrats. Does WHITE SUPREMACY follow white citizens through centuries>
I absolutely DO NOT feel any connection to WHITE SUPREMACY----and the WHITE PRIVILEDGE I do admit to I don't feel is RACIST.
Here’s Why It’s Not Racist To Talk About White Privilege
No one is saying that your life is easy or that you're supposed to feel guilty; it's about understanding where you fall in a messed up system.
Katherine Speller 06/29/2015As we get ready for the premiere (July 22) of the new documentary "White People" by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and filmmaker Jose Antonio Vargas, we wanted to take some time to check in with how you (our lovely readers) are feeling. We noticed that a lot of you found our recent posts "9 Ways To Use Your White Privilege For Good" and "What Do Band-Aids, Bras And Bilbo Baggins Have To Do With White Privilege?" a little troubling -- you thought they were racist.
We know these conversations can be really hard to have: They involve taking a critical look at not only our lives, but the society we live in and the power structures that have been in place since way before we were born.
It's okay to be frustrated and confused when you hear some of the more critical comments about the ways whiteness impacts people of color, but it really helps to keep an open mind and understand that these are not attacks on you as a human being, but on a culture of inequality (one that we unfortunately all experience.) And, if you hear these ideas out, do a little reflecting and take some time to hear the stories of people who encounter racism every day, you may start to see that talking about privilege helps everyone take steps toward a better future. We promise.
Here's a few reasons it's not racist to talk about white privilege:
- First off: Let's get technical.This is the word-y part, sorry, but terminology does help to clear things up sometimes: "Racism" doesn't just describe a member of one race saying something bad about another race. It's a little more complicated than that. When you talk about racism, it always involves different power structures -- in this case, power structures that benefit white people -- and it involves using race as a means of holding on to that power. Conversations about inequality are sometimes framed as "[insert group of people here] are treated bad and it stinks," without mentioning that the ways they are treated are often tied directly to systems that benefit another group of people. If you leave that last part out, it's significantly harder to get real about what the problem is and where it's coming from.
That's the thing about racism: It's not necessarily a thing you do, it's a system you're born into (and a system you can choose to criticize and reject.) Sure, people of color can be prejudiced against white people, but it's not the same thing as racism (their prejudices aren't written into the legal system.)
Likewise: talking critically about privilege, micro-aggressions and everyday symbols of racial bias are not racist (or even prejudiced, necessarily) because they are addressing the things about our culture that still reinforce (centuries old) inequality. - It doesn't mean your life is easy.Privilege is not the same as saying that you're rich or spoiled or never had to work for anything. Instead, it's referring to certain things about you that our society rewards (like your gender, skin color, physical abilities or sexual orientation) in small but impactful ways. Having some privileges doesn't mean you have never been hurt by inequality, but that doesn't invalidate the experiences of another person who lacks those same privileges.
Yes, you might've had a hard life -- but if you're white, your race is not one of the things that influenced your hardships (classism on the other hand? Let a rip.) Talking about privilege just helps put a name to the problems that could otherwise fly under the radar because most privileged people don't even notice that their privileges exist (it's just always been a part of their experiences.) - Most people have some kind of privilege (and they're all very different.)Not everyone has the same privileges and it's never a contest to see who has it worse. There is no point system to privilege or oppression — they are just realities that, once acknowledged, can hopefully help us move toward some productive change.
Some examples: Thinking hard about why we consider Band-Aids or bras that match white skin tones "flesh-colored" can springboard us into thinking more critically about whose flesh companies are designing things for and whether we think that's right. Then, maybe, we can create companies that design and create for every kind of flesh. Thinking about why certain fantasy novels are written with all-white characters can inspire new writers to create and shore more diverse stories. These are small, but ultimately really cool ways to challenge the lame idea that white is the default race, right? - No one wants you to feel guilty.No one is saying you should feel guilty about the color of your skin (that'd be hella hypocritical.) Typically, when people of color make comments about whiteness or white people (sometimes via jokes, like in this week's episode of "Decoded") it's meant to get you thinking about some of the smaller ways that privilege exists on the periphery of your life. Because, more often than not, white privilege exists in so many tiny corners of our society without ever being questioned.
You're not expected to apologize for looking the way you do or being who you are; it's just supposed to make you think about how other people interact with the same world you do. If we can all have just a little more empathy, we can put ourselves in a better position to make things fair for real.
And that's something we can all get behind, right?
America even during the height of Hitler's Nazism did not have that many signs of Nazi fascism-----
All white citizens are NOT white SUPREMACISTS-----having white priviledge is not white supremacy----but these terms are being used intermittently. We discussed yesterday how a few hundred thousand citizens openly identify as WHITE SUPREMACISTS. That would be the number of people fitting into South Baltimore ----we do not want to make this issue unimportant----we want to show MOVING FORWARD IS MANUFACTURING THESE TENSIONS. I live in Baltimore which is steeped in race and class----but Baltimore is also completely captured by that white 1% who are indeed WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Most white citizens in Baltimore I find are SEPARATISTS. They like many in the south want to remain separate ----white left social Democrats want diversity and inclusion----today we are hearing black citizens calling for SEPARATION.
In the 1960s-70s civil rights women rights----Malcolm X vs MLK was the debate. Malcolm X himself called for black separation and know what? He was probably right. The failure of today's black communities to have their own economies comes from that strong tie to global Wall Street ----that 1% white rich and yes, WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Economic politics will always divide on culture ----with that race. Is that RACIST? It is if as in Baltimore there is orchestrated and targeted policies to keep black citizens unemployed and unable to create economies. Do all white citizens want that for black citizens? ABSOLUTELY NOT----WHITE LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS WOULD NEVER CREATE THESE CONDITIONS so we are not tied to what is in fact RACIST ECONOMIC POLICIES in cities controlled by that 1% white citizens. Make no mistake---all of Baltimore's economy is controlled by a very small number of white men.
When media shows these kinds of heated encounters----we must think THIS IS A VERY, VERY, VERY SMALL NUMBER OF ENCOUNTERS INVOLVING A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. We have our black citizens and activists doing a great job of shouting against Baltimore's racism in media for example---
Modern history has shown we can keep white supremacy from spreading. A Trump who for some reason before his election was shown all the time in company of all sorts of black and brown business people, artists and musicians, global citizens now all of a sudden has media blasting how far-right racist and white supremacist he is ---AND THAT SHOULD BE A RED FLAG TO EVERYONE. IT IS MANUFACTURED.
The articles I see written showing all these encounters are all CLINTON GLOBAL WALL STREET NEO-LIBERAL OUTLETS---HERE IS SLATE.COM----we see HUFFINGTON POST----sold to neo-liberal owners----
Watch Shia LaBeouf Shut Down a White Supremacist (Without Punching Him)
By Matthew Dessem
Shia LaBeouf and an unidentified Nazi.He Will Not Divide Us
“He Will Not Divide Us,” the four-year-long anti-Trump participatory art installation from Shia LaBeouf, Nastja Sade Ronkko, and Luke Turner, was the site of a showdown between actor LaBeouf and an unidentified white supremacist on Sunday, Raw Story reports. The project, at the Museum of the Moving Image in New York, invites visitors to say the words “He will not divide us” into a camera for a 24-hour livestream, which will be broadcast on the web for the entirety of the Trump presidency.
The problem was that not everyone wanted to say “He will not divide us.” To be more specific, a Nazi showed up who wanted to say “1488,” instead. (Calling modern-day white supremacists Nazis may be imprecise in many cases, but this guy was literally wearing a SS M43 field cap, though he at least was ashamed of himself enough to remove the Totenkopf.) “1488,” of course, is a white supremacist code number that combines white supremacy’s 14-word creed with a reference to “Heil Hitler,” H being the eighth letter of the alphabet. It was created by white supremacist murderer David Lane, the same charmer who invented the “white genocide” myth. (Saying “Heil Hitler,” even in code, is another cutoff point where it probably ought to be ok to call someone a Nazi.)
LaBeouf, who was there at the time, sensed that a man wearing the uniform of a long-defeated army of racists might not be in the spirit of the thing, and, as can be seen in a video posted to a fan account for the project, successfully shut him down:*
Rather than engaging in the morally controversial act of Nazi-punching, LaBeouf decided that the answer to hate speech was more speech. He followed the guy around until he returned to the microphone (to tell the world, “We must secure the existence of the white race”) then simply out-yelled him while edging him out of frame. Watching the Nazi try to work his way back to the camera (and fail) is another bittersweet pleasure of the Trump era. Yes, the Nazi looks pathetic, and yes, this is a punch-free Nazi fiasco that we can all enjoy. But a funny web video is a poor consolation for the time—not so long ago!—when fewer Americans thought it was ok to become Nazis to begin with.
_________________________________________
Again, it is absolutely ridiculous to listen to global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberals who spent these few decades literally being the most racists and classist 5% to the 1% in world history----telling us NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RACE OR WHITE SUPREMACY----the global Wall Street 1% are WHITE SUPREMACISTS. Nancy Pelosi is 100% raging global Wall Street. So, Clinton neo-liberals build a global human capital distribution system deliberately changing from calling people citizens and moving to calling them HUMAN CAPITAL ----spend several decades installing Foreign Economic Zones enslaving global citizens in the billions -----calls Bannon WHITE SUPREMACIST. This is CNN----which indeed is FAKE NEWS.
"It's a stunning thing, that a white supremacist would be a permanent member of the National Security Council," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference'.
REAL left social Democrats have spent decades fighting Clinton and global neo-liberalism because it is WHITE SUPREMACIST AND RACIST.
What percentage of white citizens fall into these categories? Well, Hillary did not receive more than 30% of Democratic votes because left white men and women hate Clinton neo-liberalism because it is racist, classist, and global 1% WHITE SUPREMACY.
Pelosi: 'white supremacist' Bannon making America 'less safe'
By Deirdre Walsh, CNN Senior Congressional Producer
Updated 5:39 PM ET, Fri February 3, 2017
- "It's a stunning thing," Pelosi said
- The move is "making America less safe," she said
"It's a stunning thing, that a white supremacist would be a permanent member of the National Security Council," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.
The move is "making America less safe," the California Democrat added.The Democratic National Committee doubled down on that criticism Friday, labeling Bannon Trump's "white supremacist chief strategist" in an email and asking recipients to demand his resignation.
Pelosi has been critical of early moves by the Trump administration, but she also Thursday seemed to raise question about the President's fitness for the job.
She brought up a proposal that House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, was reportedly considering that would require an independent medical assessment of the condition of the President, including mental health.
"If you're going to have your hands on the nuclear codes, you probably -- we should probably know what mental state you're in," Pelosi said.
"I can't wait until he introduces that legislation, to be able to join him as cosponsor of that," telling reporters, "I think it's a very good idea."
When asked about her early overtures to Trump -- attending the inauguration and expressing willingness to work with the new President -- Pelosi cautioned reporters: "Please don't mistake courtesy for approval or anything else positive."
Pelosi repeated her vow that she and her party would fight the Republican effort to dismantle the health care law. She criticized the administration's decision to stop paying for advertisements ahead of the Obamacare enrollment deadline and predicted about the Republican effort to do away with the law.
"This will lead to suffering, death, disability," Pelosi said.
___________________________________________
I know most Americans were very disturbed by these numbers of police killings in our US cities of black men. Here in Baltimore many white citizens were as disturbed by the complete impunity our US police force was allowed these several years. What we were seeing is this-----Obama and Congress moved to militarized policing with global military trainers-----bringing what exists overseas into our US cities. This indeed included some officers who were clearly RACIST----but the policies of shoot first etc were installed in police training. Who is behind the training? The global Wall Street 1% of white men. Johns Hopkins is in fact tied to the global corporations who trained US police officers in cities across the nation with this militarized stance. Was that RACIST? YES------ Was that WHITE SUPREMACY-----YES-------but these policies came from a white 1% of men.
These same white 1% of men behind these policing policies are Bush/Cheney GLOBAL MILITARY CORPORATIONS----and no doubt are tied to whatever Trump brings upon WE THE PEOPLE.
More Than 250 Black People Were Killed By Police In 2016 [Updated]Too many.
07/07/2016 09:45 am ET | Updated Jan 01, 2017
U.S. police killed at least 258 black people in 2016, according to a project by The Guardian that tracks police killings in America.
Thirty-nine of these people were unarmed. Four were killed by police stun guns and another nine died in custody, a continuing problem in American jails. But the majority of black people killed by police were fatally shot.
Based on a tracker from The Washington Post, at least 232 black folks were shot and killed. (The Guardian’s figures include all deaths resulting directly from encounters with law enforcement, while the Post counts only people who were shot and killed by police.)
U.S. police killed at least 258 black people in 2016, according to a project by The Guardian that tracks police killings in America.
Thirty-nine of these people were unarmed. Four were killed by police stun guns and another nine died in custody, a continuing problem in American jails. But the majority of black people killed by police were fatally shot.
Based on a tracker from The Washington Post, at least 232 black folks were shot and killed. (The Guardian’s figures include all deaths resulting directly from encounters with law enforcement, while the Post counts only people who were shot and killed by police.)
A woman who identified herself as Scott’s daughter recorded the shooting’s aftermath on Facebook Live. Scott, according to her and other witnesses, did not have a gun and was disabled. Scott’s killing has touched off violent protests in Charlotte.
A day before Scott was killed, police in Tulsa, Oklahoma, released several videos depicting the death of Terence Crutcher. The 40-year-old was shot and killed by police on Friday after officers saw his stalled SUV in the middle of the road. Initially, the police department said Crutcher had not followed orders to put his hands up.
The released videos, however, show Crutcher walking toward his car with his hands in the air.
__________________________________________
I read a post by a black man that shared an article showing the Texas legal actions against AFFIRMATIVE ACTION----a white student went to court to fight for entry into a university saying black affirmative action kept her out. Republicans have fought from the beginning against all affirmative actions whether for women or citizens of color----this was a right wing stance---the woman involved was Republican and yet----that black man posted the woman was a LIBERAL saying it was OK for white liberal women to get affirmative action ---but not black citizens. Again, left white social Democratic women fought hard for access for ALL EQUALLY and the need to gain entry into workplace was what the EQUAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION was about. Who embraced FEDERALISM ACT to pretend Federal government did not have to enforce EQUAL PROTECTION? Bill Clinton and global Wall Street neo-liberals who are indeed that global 1% white citizens WHO ARE WHITE SUPREMACISTS. As a REAL left white social Democrat fighting all my life for equality for all ----we KNOW our far-right global Wall Street Clinton/Obama POSERS are behind creating these tensions. The 2016 election media outlets went crazy just to promote all these race and class tensions.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES----THINK WHO IS BEHIND ALL OF WHAT IS INDEED POLICIES BRINGING THE US FURTHER AND FURTHER AND FURTHER RIGHT WING----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---NOW TRUMP represent a 5% to the 1% and THEY are indeed WHITE SUPREMACISTS and racist in their extreme wealth and extreme poverty policies.
Left social liberals----left social progressives---that is the FDR social Democratic policies from last century-----NOT the far-right wing CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-liberal which is the opposite economic stance.
The Democratic Party is filled with left white citizens who do not use WHITE PRIVILEDGE in racist ways----who do not identify with WHITE SUPREMACY. Unfortunately we are not allowed to HAVE OUR VOTE COUNTED.
White Privilege and the Real Racist Attitudes of the Left
Posted: January 2, 2017 at 12:00 pm / by David Risselada
Across the nation public universities continue to push the false “white privilege” narrative. Liberal colleges, in an attempt to prove America is a racist, white supremacist nation, push the idea that white people are the beneficiaries of unearned privileges in American society. They insist that minority populations are oppressed victims and that American institutions, being set up only to benefit the white man, systematically discriminate against them. Not only is this false ideology limiting the potential of minorities in America by insisting they cannot succeed in such a racist country, it is creating a new racial hatred which if left unchecked, will surely end in violence. We have already seen this take shape in the revolutionary movement against police known as Black Lives Matter. Sadly, blacks and other minorities are being exploited in America. They are being used to stir up chaos and discontent in a strategy designed to fundamentally transform the nation, and the teaching of white privilege is but a means to this end.
White privilege education originated in Wisconsin in 2009 when the Department of Public Instruction developed a program called Create Wisconsin. The program was supposedly developed to address the achievement gap between white and black students. Educators argued that too many minority students were being placed in special education programs because public education was geared too much toward the “white culture” without addressing cultural differences between whites and minorities. From here, the idea that our society created conditions which made it impossible for minority students to succeed took hold. Every year there is an annual White Privilege Conference hosted by a group bearing that name. Their goal, as noted on their public website is to “deconstruct the white culture” in order to achieve racial justice. Looking at the way racial identity politics have taken a hold in America it could be argued that they are succeeding in their efforts.
As mentioned in the first paragraph, white privilege education is a means to an end. White privilege, or the idea of using racial conflict for societal change is Marxist in origin, and the people behind the scenes are not in search of racial or social justice but absolute control. Karl Marx argued that conflict between the social classes, the rich and the poor, would lead to a perfect classless society. This of course failed to materialize as the world’s workers failed to unite against their alleged oppressors. People like Antonio Gramsci picked up Karl Marx’s mantle and further elaborated on ways to create the needed conflict to bring about communism. Gramsci’s idea was to create several different oppressed classes and put their values against the values of the dominant social group. This is called counter-hegemony. The word hegemony simply means the social influence exerted by the dominant class. So, counter-hegemony would mean creating a value system that is antithetical to this group. Looking at America today we see a society where everyone is a victim of the unfairness of American Republicanism. We have the feminist movement, the LGBT movement, various minority groups claiming to be discriminated against and a media working feverishly to make sure we know our values are not aligned. This is the work of the Marxist’s in our society following Gramsci’s plan for social change.
Further examining the left wing view of man, and the relationship between Marxist and Darwinian thinking leads to the understanding that it is in fact, the left that harbors a racist attitude. Our society has nearly become a full blown welfare state, and it is the promise of free money and benefits that the left relies upon to organize the minority vote. The constant pushing of the white privilege fable coupled with the idea that American society was developed so only certain people could reap the financial benefits has been a winning combination for the left.
To most people racism implies a hatred for a group of people simply because of their skin color. This is certainly the narrative developed by the left; however, it is taking on a new definition today as Democrats insist that blacks and other minorities need their social programs in order to compete on a level playing field. Every time someone speaks out against the massive spending on social welfare, which does little to alleviate poverty mind you, they are attacked as being a racist. Speaking out against programs like affirmative action, which again, the left insists is needed for minorities to have an equal footing, will get you labeled as a racist as well. The definition of racism has changed from being a hatred of someone because of their skin color to believing they are equal and not in need of special treatment.
In Economic Determinism vs. Freewill and the Destruction of our Morality, the belief that man is not in possession of a will of his own was discussed. Rather, communists tend to believe that mans actions will be controlled by the economic times in which he is forced to endure. This belief stems from Darwinian thinking in the sense that man, according to Darwin, is not a special being and has no more significance on Earth than any other animal. Our behavior is not ours to control but the product of our evolutionary roots. Taking this belief to its logical conclusion, it would be reasonable to argue that evolutionists believe that certain races are further along the evolutionary chain than others. In other words, the left truly believes that blacks and other minorities cannot succeed in a society such as ours without their intervention.
‘a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that in-between links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped.” (Wilder-Smith, B., The Day Nazi Germany Died, Master Books, San Diego, p. 27, 1982)
Benjamin Rush, who is known as the father of modern Psychiatry, held the belief that black people could not be free and needed government to survive. He believed they suffered from a disease that he compared to Leprosy which he called Negritude. He believed that because of Negritude black people should receive from whites double of what society has to offer. In other words, he didn’t believe black people were capable of producing on their own. Furthermore, the term Drapetomania was coined by other psychologists of the time to describe a mental illness they ascribed to slaves who attempted to leave the plantation. They believed that a black man was better suited to a life of slavery than to one of freedom. Today, the Democrat party viciously attacks any minority who attempts to speak out against their destructive policies. Do today’s Democrats share these beliefs? It would seem so as they continually argue for the need of social programs aimed at helping minorities when in reality, they are further enslaving them.
Before the progressive movement black people were just as able to compete and succeed in this society as white people were. They had strong families, businesses and they loved their country. It was the promise of welfare and the creation of resentment politics that has decimated the black family and destroyed their free will to the point they believe they need government. The teaching of white privilege has done nothing but limit the possibilities for minorities to succeed while enslaving them to the idea that white society hates them and systematically discriminates against them. It is the left that is oppressing them through white privilege education and other Marxist programs just as it has been the Democrat party that had been their oppressors since the days of slavery.
You would have to be a racist in the first place to believe in white privilege anyway.
__________________________________________
When watching 2016 elections especially the Democratic primary with Bernie vs Hillary there was much written on our young adults having a majority voting for Bernie and it was stated over and over these young adults did NOT ASSOCIATE WITH MARXISM----they identified as FDR left social Democrats. Our national media---here is UK doing the same----pushing and pushing MARXISM----at the same time we are told our national leaders are far-right wing fascist----HOW OBVIOUS IS THAT?
Global Wall Street 1% are MOVING FORWARD with BASIC INCOME ----that is the MARXISM they are pushing---$3-6 a day -----not racist when the Asian, Latin American, Middle East brown global citizens are facing this several decades!
Is Marxism becoming mainstream with younger people?
07.06.2012
05:09 pm
There’s a “must read” article that appeared on The Guardian’s website—ironically on the 4th of July, America’s national celebration of revolution—about a new-found interest in the ideas of Karl Marx among younger people. Going on in London this week is a five-day seminar/festival, organized by the Socialist Workers’ Party, called Marxism 2012. The festival is expected to draw several thousand people, many of them in their 20s and early 30s.
At the start of the piece, French Marxist thinker Jacques Rancière lays out a remarkably blunt truth to Guardian editor Stuart Jeffries: “The domination of capitalism globally depends today on the existence of a Chinese Communist party that gives de-localised capitalist enterprises cheap labour to lower prices and deprive workers of the rights of self-organisation. Happily, it is possible to hope for a world less absurd and more just than today’s.”
Aren’t Marx’s venerable ideas as useful to us as the hand loom would be to shoring up Apple’s reputation for innovation? Isn’t the dream of socialist revolution and communist society an irrelevance in 2012? After all, I suggest to Rancière, the bourgeoisie has failed to produce its own gravediggers. Rancière refuses to be downbeat: “The bourgeoisie has learned to make the exploited pay for its crisis and to use them to disarm its adversaries [Tea party dupes, he is talking about YOU—RM]. But we must not reverse the idea of historical necessity and conclude that the current situation is eternal. The gravediggers are still here, in the form of workers in precarious conditions like the over-exploited workers of factories in the far east. And today’s popular movements – Greece or elsewhere – also indicate that there’s a new will not to let our governments and our bankers inflict their crisis on the people.”
That, at least, is the perspective of a seventysomething Marxist professor. What about younger people of a Marxist temper? I ask Jaswinder Blackwell-Pal, a 22 year-old English and drama student at Goldsmiths College, London, who has just finished her BA course in English and Drama, why she considers Marxist thought still relevant. “The point is that younger people weren’t around when Thatcher was in power or when Marxism was associated with the Soviet Union,” she says. “We tend to see it more as a way of understanding what we’re going through now. Think of what’s happening in Egypt. When Mubarak fell it was so inspiring. It broke so many stereotypes – democracy wasn’t supposed to be something that people would fight for in the Muslim world. It vindicates revolution as a process, not as an event. So there was a revolution in Egypt, and a counter-revolution and a counter-counter revolution. What we learned from it was the importance of organisation.”
This, surely is the key to understanding Marxism’s renaissance in the West: for younger people, it is untainted by association with Stalinist gulags. For younger people too, Francis Fukuyama’s triumphalism in his 1992 book The End of History – in which capitalism seemed incontrovertible, its overthrow impossible to imagine – exercises less of a choke-hold on their imaginations than it does on those of their elders.
This is extremely significant, as Jeffries rightly points out. Even in America this is increasingly the case. Young people who have graduated from college with crushing amounts of debt, no health insurance, and who work in dead end jobs (if they can get a job at all) with no clear path to begin their careers are becoming quite interested in understanding what the hell happened. It’s really no surprise that they’ve started to google Capitalism’s greatest critic and read up on his ideas. Many people who joined in various OWS protests around the country were further exposed to Marxist critiques of Capitalism and Slovenian Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek who has become an unlikely intellectual rockstar to young, politically active American leftists who hang on his every word. These recent “converts,” if you will, have only just started to do more research and talk to and exchange ideas with other like-minded people.
As today’s disillusioned, but media-savvy 20-somethings begin their own inroads to influencing the culture, expect that music, film, TV, blogs and even our mainstream news outlets will become more friendly to the ideas of Marx and Engels, even if they aren’t always given credit for them. Ideas that 160 years after they were originally formulated, are starting to make so much sense to intelligent young people living through an age of Capitalism in deep crisis. Will American ever embrace “Marxism,” per se? That seems doubtful, of course, simply due to the cultural knee-jerk taboo around this particular “ism,” but still there is the rather pressing issue of Marxism’s historical inevitability:
Call it whatever you want to, but a situation where a mere 1% of the population control most of the wealth doesn’t seem like it’s going end so well for the ones doing the hoarding.
There’s a big problem that Capitalism increasingly faces: Because of the Internet, over the past fifteen years or so, the average person has easy access to information sources that they never dreamed of or knew existed in the first place. Before the mid-90s, it was much more difficult for the man on the street to be able draw a connection between the price of a particular drug and the net worth of the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that manufactures it. Today, they are beginning to understand that when a CEO of a pharmaceutical company is making $50,000,000 a year that they are paying a TAX ON THEIR OWN HEALTH for the sake of that rich asshole’s obscene salary with EVERY PILL THEY TAKE. Or consider the tax paid directly to the billionaire Walton family from EVERY product sold in a Wal-Mart. It’s a breath-taking con when you consider that ONE GODDAMN FAMILY basically gets to add their own personal tariff to every product sold in the world’s largest retail behemoth!
HOORAY FOR FUCKING CAPITALISM.
HOORAY FOR WALL STREET VAMPIRES.
Only a delusional idiot, the Royal family, the Walton family or a charter member of the 1%, would even wish for the current system to stand as it is. And the opinion of anyone who thinks America or Europe (or China or Russia for that matter) is still going to be doing business the same way in 2032 as it is done in 2012 should be dismissed with extreme derision.
Of course, the American people aren’t going to tip sales of The Communist Manifesto (the world’s #2 selling book of all time) to overtake The Bible any time soon, but then again they needn’t read a German philosophical treatise on how the price of a particular commodity is derived, either, when they’ve got folks like Jon Stewart, Cenk Uygur, Martin Bashir and Rachel Maddow to explain it to them.
In the same sense that ideas once common to the lunatic fringe of the John Birch Society have now achieved mainstream “respect” via Glenn Beck and Fox News, so will covertly Marxist ideas become mainstreamed as younger people coming of age with their eyes wide open in this shitty economy have their day. Eventually the major tenants of Marxism will arrive in the American marketplace of ideas in the guise of plain-talking, good old-fashioned common sense.
Back to Jeffries:
For a different perspective I catch up with Owen Jones, 27-year-old poster boy of the new left and author of the bestselling politics book of 2011, Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Class. He’s on the train to Brighton to address the Unite conference. “There isn’t going to be a bloody revolution in Britain, but there is hope for a society by working people and for working people,” he counsels.
Indeed, he says, in the 1860s the later Marx imagined such a post-capitalist society as being won by means other than violent revolution. “He did look at expanding the suffrage and other peaceful means of achieving socialist society. Today not even the Trotskyist left call for armed revolution. The radical left would say that the break with capitalism could only be achieved by democracy and organisation of working people to establish and hold on to that just society against forces that would destroy it.”
Owen Jones is right. A violent revolution in America seems beyond a remote possibility, as well, whether from the left (not enough stomach for violence) or right (stomachs too fat for being able to inflict much violence). The future American revolution will be one won at the ballot box and through superior demographic numbers. As has been pointed out many, many times, in many, many places, the heyday of the reactionary right that began with Reagan is increasingly being seen in the country’s rear view mirror, demographically speaking. America will always have its conservative wingnuts, it’s just that we’ll have far fewer of them as the Tea partiers and Fox News viewers start to die off in the coming years. Democracy is a numbers game. It always has been.
Having toiled at a major daily newspaper myself, I won’t hold it against Stuart Jeffries that he was obliged to quote at least one “Debbie Downer” about the common, hackneyed misconception of what “Marxism” means, in this case Prof. Alan Johnson, of Edge Hill University, who thinks Communism, “[a] worldview recently the source of immense suffering and misery, and responsible for more deaths than fascism and Nazism, is mounting a comeback; a new form of leftwing totalitarianism that enjoys intellectual celebrity but aspires to political power,” on the World Affairs blog:
“The New Communism matters not because of its intellectual merits but because it may yet influence layers of young Europeans in the context of an exhausted social democracy, austerity and a self-loathing intellectual culture,” wrote Johnson. “Tempting as it is, we can’t afford to just shake our heads and pass on by.”
That’s the fear: that these nasty old left farts such as Žižek, Badiou, Rancière and Eagleton will corrupt the minds of innocent youth. But does reading Marx and Engels’s critique of capitalism mean that you thereby take on a worldview responsible for more deaths than the Nazis? Surely there is no straight line from The Communist Manifesto to the gulags, and no reason why young lefties need uncritically to adopt Badiou at his most chilling. In his introduction to a new edition of The Communist Manifesto, Professor Eric Hobsbawm suggests that Marx was right to argue that the “contradictions of a market system based on no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’, a system of exploitation and of ‘endless accumulation’ can never be overcome: that at some point in a series of transformations and restructurings the development of this essentially destabilising system will lead to a state of affairs that can no longer be described as capitalism”.
That is post-capitalist society as dreamed of by Marxists. But what would it be like? “It is extremely unlikely that such a ‘post-capitalist society’ would respond to the traditional models of socialism and still less to the ‘really existing’ socialisms of the Soviet era,” argues Hobsbawm, adding that it will, however, necessarily involve a shift from private appropriation to social management on a global scale. “What forms it might take and how far it would embody the humanist values of Marx’s and Engels’s communism, would depend on the political action through which this change came about.”
This is surely Marxism at its most liberating, suggesting that our futures depend on us and our readiness for struggle. Or as Marx and Engels put it at the end of The Communist Manifesto: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.”
________________________________________
We all shout to our black citizens---YES there has not been a solution to race and class in America----it is indeed driven by a global 1% white men. Yes, there is a voting group of citizens who are right wing and indeed racist. What is the solution for black activists who feel there is no solution? Left white social Democrats want black citizens to know we are fighting hard to stop and reverse these far-right policies----we still believe MLK's peaceful protests will work if done in mass----we simply need to WAKE UP AND OCCUPY OUR US CITIES.
Most citizens understand that 2016 elections were rigged----from Democratic and Republican primaries that sent a HILLARY TRUMP to the general election. We also know voter turnout for both parties was not high----Republicans are just as frustrated with their election primaries and candidates that rise to final elections as the left Democrats are.......do right wing Republicans really want WHITE SUPREMACY or do all Americans want their AMERICA BACK---
LET'S WORK TOGETHER AS A 99% VS 1% TO DO THAT----NO ONE WINS IN ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---especially that 5% to the 1% global Wall Street who are THE REAL RACISTS AND WHITE SUPREMACISTS.
2016
Donald Trump Is Not Expanding the GOP
A POLITICO analysis of early-voting data shows little evidence for one of the Republican nominee’s core claims.
By Shane Goldmacher
May 17, 2016
Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he's bragged.
But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.
This Is What White Supremacy Looks Like
Don’t be confused. Trump’s voters didn’t vote against their own interests, they voted for the preservation of white privilege—their paramount interest.
By Damon YoungNovember 9, 2016
- Donald Trump supporters pose with a Confederate flag at a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Florida. (AP Photo / Matt Rourke)
A version of this post initially appeared on VSB.com.
This is not particularly untrue. But it misses the point—as I did.
In this election, they (white people) did not vote against their self-interests. They may have voted against a self-interest—several self-interests, actually—but not their most important one: the preservation of white supremacy.
Retaining the value of a whiteness they believed to be increasingly devalued superseded everything else. Including their own livelihoods; their own intellects; their own physical and financial well-beings; their own Christianity; their own consciences; their own agency; their own money; their own educations; their own employment; their own neighborhoods; their own homes; their own futures; their own children’s futures, their own country’s legacy; their own country’s status with the rest of the world; their own environment; their own food, air, and water; their own planet; their own rights; their own dignity; their own integrity; and their own lives.
And please note that I am not including any qualifiers. For working-class whites. Or whites from Rust Belt cities. Or white men. Or white people who didn’t graduate from college—or rural whites, or Midwestern whites, or Southern whites. Or whites disillusioned with Washington. Or whites who hate Clinton. Or whites who felt ignored by politicians. This is on all white people—who are complicit even if they didn’t vote for Trump.
Yes, there exists a difference between allies and racial antagonists. They are not the same. But those allies obviously haven’t done enough collectively to repudiate the mindsets existing in their families and among their friends, possessed by their co-workers and neighbors, shared during private holiday gatherings and public town-hall meetings. Millions of white voters have shown us that nothing existing on earth or in heaven or hell matters more to them than being white, and whichever privileges—real or fabricated, concrete or spiritual—existing as White in America provides.
The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.
I admit: I underestimated them. Of course, I knew of the presence of white supremacy and the appeal of perpetuating it. You cannot exist as a black person in America without at least a rudimentary and peripheral understanding of it. What I didn’t realize, however, was exactly how powerful this want to retain whiteness is.
I assumed, wrongly, that enough of them would value their own lives, their own humanity, more than the need for white supremacy to be preserved. But I failed to realize how intertwined these things are for them. There apparently is no point in even existing without existing as white. Whiteness is past an identity or status; it is their oxygen, their plasma, their connective tissue.
I’m trying very hard to find silver linings today, some source of comfort or consolation. But I cannot. Maybe I will eventually. But right now, this, the idea that white people are so possessed with clutching and cultivating and elevating white supremacy that they will endanger and outright sacrifice their own fucking lives to do so, is all I can think about. And if they feel that way about their own lives, why would they give a damn about mine?
____________________________________________
The feelings of black citizens being under attack ARE REAL-----when US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones was installed by Congress late Clinton early Bush all US Rule of Law was ignored----all civil rights and liberties were ignored---and as with all marches to global corporate fascism ---there is always a group who is scapegoated to deliberately create societal tensions. Left white citizens must step up----this will not abate unless we FILL OUR US CITIES FOR WEEKS AND MONTHS---TO GET RID OF GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% AND THEIR 1%!
White supremacists shoot 5 Black Lives Matter activists protesting Jamar Clark’s killing in Minneapolis
Travis Gettys
24 Nov 2015 at 06:39 ET
A group of suspected white supremacists fired into a crowd of Black Lives Matter activists protesting the Minneapolis police killing of Jamar Clark.At least five people were wounded when the gunmen opened fire about 10:45 p.m. Monday at the city’s Fourth Precinct, reported the Star Tribune.
Police said all five victims were treated for non-life-threatening gunshot wounds, although authorities said additional victims may have been wounded and sought treatment on their own.
Investigators have not released much information so far about the possible suspects, saying only they were seeking three white men, but protesters said they had a pretty clear idea of who fired the gunshots.
“A group of white supremacists showed up at the protest, as they have done most nights,” said Miski Noor, a Black Lives Matter activist.
Another demonstrator said one of the three men wore a mask and stayed at the protest site since early morning Monday, taunting the protesters.
The men, who police said were wearing bulletproof vests, opened fire on six activists who angrily attempted to herd them away from the protest site, witnesses said.
A witness said she initially believed the gunshots were firecrackers and thought, “surely they’re not shooting human beings,” but then she saw two black men had been wounded — one shot in the back and leg and the other man in the arm.
Another protester was shot in the stomach and later underwent surgery.
The masked and armed gunmen then fled the scene — and witnesses said police fired chemical irritant into the crowd, although city officials dispute those claims.
Witnesses also claim the gunshot victims waited 15 minutes before emergency crews arrived to treat their injuries.
The shootings came just three days after a Black Lives Matter protester was beaten and kicked by Donald Trump supporters at an Alabama campaign rally, and the Republican candidate said afterward the demonstrator was “disgusting” and arguably “should have been roughed up.”
Black Lives Matter activists have been protesting the Nov. 15 fatal police shooting of the 24-year-old Clark, who witnesses say was handcuffed when he was killed.
Clark’s brother called for an end to the demonstrations hours after the shootings. “Thank you to the community for the incredible support you have shown for our family in this difficult time,” said Eddie Sutton, Clark’s brother. “We appreciate Black Lives Matter for holding it down and keeping the protests peaceful. But in light of tonight’s shootings, the family feels out of imminent concern for the safety of the occupiers, we must get the occupation of the 4th precinct ended and onto the next step.”
Demonstrators have complained throughout the protest that Minneapolis police officers have pointed their weapons at them without justification.
RSS Feed
