Tag Archives: Liberalism

What Does Democracy Look Like? Not likely the Old Testament Thank You

I attended Occupy Denver’s forum “What Does Democracy Look Like?” this weekend to hear activist scholars of considerable repute throw in their two cents. The first day was a splendid gathering, except where a curated discussion of intentional community lapsed into theology. Yes, a distillation of mostly white reform literature (Fanon was dismissed as wayward) yielded three steps for The Way Forward: Egypt, Exodus and the Promised Land. Yep.

By which he meant: 1) Recognize your enslavement, 2) have the courage to leave all for an uncertain fate in the desert, and 3) seek/develop/discover your own promised land.

Even as metaphor it’s embarassing. Enlightened salvation from Old Testament mythology? No thank you, and for that matter, up yours! Unfortunately the language I used was less restrained, but his religious offensiveness had been compounding. He’d begun his presentation admonishing listeners that transformation begins with the self and so he’d already unmasked himself as spiritual. Worse, a monotheist.

Egypt: I’ll come back to “systems of oppression” in a moment.

The Exodus: a myth, it didn’t happen, even Hebrew scholars now agree with the historical and archeological records.

As to the Promised Land: that was a real estate scheme to backdate a deed, offered as divinely conceived proof of landlordship. The same title is being waived around to dispossess Palestinians today.

But really, isn’t the exodus-to-promised-land malarkey at the very foundation of Western Civilization’s expansion problem?! Are we really all entitled to virgin land? As if earth hasn’t been continuously and fully inhabited since before agrarian civilization, before monotheism was conceived to impose inequity, and justify slave-wages, interest and rent. The craddle of exploitation, that was Egypt.

But can we run from Egypt? The remedy staring us in the face, from which common men are deliberatly destracted, conspiring to emancipate Egypt, is to rid ourselves of the oppressor sociopaths. In practical terms understood more clearly by the better educated before us, we must strangle Egypt’s kings with the entrails of its priests.

I don’t care how academic your garb, when you tell your flock to reapply themselves to the sacred, and your “sacred” is biblical, supposing to transcend nature, you’re a priest.

Thank you WDDLL organizers but I do not go to church and I resent when devious means are employed to bring it to me. Actually those priests are the worst, they’re missionaries! If we’ve learned one thing as we discuss mankind’s break from his mille millenia of sustainable existance, resist the colonizer. Conquored peoples ourselves, we can only wish that indigenous peoples could have given Western missionaries the reception they deserved, and it’s no less true today: fire.

Alas as a result I heard a number of attendees today praise their faith. To each his own, but unhelpful. If you have to evangelize you’re a liability because nonsense is infectuous, especially as education levels recede. Can others entrust you with the battleplan while you commune with the adversary?

There’s a wonderful scene in AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD, Werner Herzog’s dramatic depiction of conquistadors wreaking havoc in the Amazon. Following a coup among the greedy Spaniards, the wife of the abruptly deposed leader appeals to the mission’s priest, as her last resort to restore order. The priest, her ally only moments before, turns on her thus: “Her ladyship must know that the church always stands on the side of the strong.”

Little to celebrate in the liberals’ pyrrhic election victory this week

A Pyrrhic victory for the Democratic Party tied liberals was slimly gained this past Tuesday in the presidential race. In the race against the weakest Republican candidate presidential imaginable, the great liberal hope, Right Wing centrist Barack Obama, was given another 4 more long years to work with Republicans in destroying hope for the ordinary working (or increasingly not working as it is) American. Let’s now take a brief look at what the liberal side of the divide got for the nation as they squeaked out a ‘victory’ by about 1,500,000 votes? In short, they got themselves an Obomber who will be saying, ‘Let’s all work together’ as the Republican Party Rightists put their nasty obscene hands around the American people’s collective throats trying to choke us all to death with their austerity programs for all that is not funding yet more and more police and military state power! War on, Droneland USA. The increasingly zombified liberals are getting for us all more Republican power and not less of it!

Yet a fourth term of Clintonism? Why US liberalism is bankrupt and without any bailout that would work for it

The Democratic Party has reduced our supposed US corporate financed and run ‘democracy’ down over the last quarter of a century down to whether we are all led by our throats to another 4 years of Country Bush and sons, or 4 more years of Slick Family Clinton, or not? That’s it. That’s what you get for ‘leadership’. You will be persuaded one way or the other by corporate advertising to choose Pepsi or Coke, depending on which image pulls your heart strings the most? Gurgle-Gurgle….. Gasp!!!!!! ‘Your Vote’ doesn’t really get counted when it is left to Pepsi and Coke to do the count.

So just how bankrupt is US liberalism? As bankrupt as those people they say they so totally oppose? Can’t be… can it? Let’s turn to the Time Magazine cover of this week and read its lead article behind the Slick Willy face and consider if that could actually be so? The title with Bill Clintons’ slimy mug and a globe in front of him is titled, ‘Five Ideas that are changing the world (for the better)’. After all, Slcik is now like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, a Democrat liberals’ treasure trove of supposed brilliant insight! Don’t laugh. You know that this is just exactly how American liberals believe! So what are the ‘5 ideas’ that our genius Bill speaks there of?

Idea Number 1 of the 5 in his ‘ the case for optimism’ is … don’t laugh now!…. ‘PHONES MEAN FREEDOM’!!!! Hey, all that cell phone proliferation is increasing Freedom around the world! Yes, I kid you not… Cell phones are cheap so everybody now is holding one, maybe even juggling several of them in the air all at one time?!!!! Bill says that this is leading to the proliferation of Freedom.

Idea Number 2 of the 5 is that the world medical community is winning the fight against AIDS and by extension, all disease! ‘HEALTH COMMUNITIES PROSPER’ says Bill, and now sodas are kept out of public schools in the US!

Idea Number 3 of the 5 is GREEN ENERGY EQUALS GOOD BUSINESS! Brazil is now planning to NOT cut down its last remaining rain forests at the same velocity as before, even as it no longer has them left standing to cut down. Slick is ecstatic! And Germany has more ‘sun power energy’ being made! And small farmers of South Africa are ‘selling carbon credits on the world market’! O’ Hallelujah and PTL!

Idea Number 4 of 5 is WOMEN RULE! Left unsaid in Slick’s arguments on this one is that wife Hillary, the Pentagon whore, is ruling over us. Nuf said… Bill says women are running the show in Rwanda, too. Gag us for that…

Idea Number 5 of 5 is THE FIGHT FOR THE FUTURE IS NOW because Slick says enemies are now talking to each other, I guess thinking of how the Democratic Party hacks are chatting it up so with the Republican Party hacks. And thus ends this episode’s wisdom of one of US liberalism’s senior spokes-dudes. US liberalism really is now all bankrupt and we cannot bailout it out no matter how hard we might ALL try. People like Slick Willy will have to be shot right alongside of all the Dick Cheney’s of our country. That’s your vote that can count.

The Democrats ‘stimulus’ package aggravates the economic disaster instead of fixing it

stimulus-package.jpg ……. It really is too much to see all those liberals getting on the Republicans’ case for their opposition to the Democratic Party’s economic ‘bailout’ plans. Barack’s giveaways to the rich corporate sectors do not alleviate the economic collapse but just pile on to it. So do liberals really want to be left holding the bag and later get blamed by the Republicans for helping pass these government give outs to all the wrong folk built on increasing the Federal debt?

Donkeys have never been so dumb as these American ones seem intent on being! True, Liberals have never been much more than just marginally smarter than the Conservatives are in the US and we’re seeing that in how they have been suckered into supporting an entirely conservative response to the unfolding worldwide disaster now being advocated by their supposed modern day Abraham Lincoln liberal liberator, Barack Obama. However….a real economic rescue plan for Americans would have to be built on several key ingredients, and Barack Obama has used and dealt with none of them.

1) Startup of a new single payer medical system that takes the insurance companies, the hospital and nursing home chains, and the medical equipment/ pharmaceutical companies right out of the control box they presently enjoy, and sets the patient and community into the driving seat where they have always belonged.

2) Nationalizing bankrupt financial institutions and companies in key areas of production (banks, automobile industries, energy companies that pollute, steel, vital medical institutions, major retail outlets that are going under like Circuit City, etc.) and encouraging workers control (unionization).

3) Increasing funding of Social Security programs of all kinds with an emphasis on doing away entirely with privatized retirement schemes that privilege some workers at the expense of others.

4) Instituting national equalization of funding and national Federal funding of the Educational System, and doing away with unequal privatized educational schemes and unequal local funding of education.

5) An immediate defunding of the bloated military-industrial welfare scheme centered on government contracts for the Pentagon’s toys.

When none of these key ingredients for a real economic restart of this country are approached by the Democratic Party-sunk American liberal community, you have a pure recipe for eventual political disaster, as the Republican Far Right will eventually move themselves back into position to retake political power in the White House once again. The Democratic Party truly is a gigantic sink hole that destroys all hope for real change ever being on the agenda, as long as liberals defend the package that is not defensible as being any sort of progress. Why be such gluttons for punishment, Liberals? You need to dump the entire idea of giving support to the Obama package, and sooner is much better than later when the damage will already be set in concrete and done.

Liberals cry out for ‘Regulation!’

Government regulationsDemocratic party-tied websites are spouting much the same analysis of the current economic crisis, which is simply that in their point of view, capitalism is great, it just needs ‘regulation.’ Give us a break, People!

The US Capitalist System is greatly regulated and you guys backed a political party that helped regulate it, in league with the other party. Liberal Democratic Party voters seemingly want us to forget that their party has regulated The System for a century PLUS now! And once again, their regulation has produced chaos and uncertainly.

It takes a lot of gall to demand something that your politics have been doing all along, which is that we ‘regulate’ the economy! What is really being demanded now by your Party leadership is more tinkering through the same old regulations, instead of proposing something different. It is your regulation that is every bit as much the cause of where the US economic system is today, as under the regulation of the Republicans. Alan Greenspan was your dog as well as theirs!

The regulatory system was basically to have the companies police themselves, and this was a policy of the Democrats every much as much as it was of the Republicans. A capitalist supporting government will simply turn over all regulation to its own corporate leaders. To propose that a capitalist government do something else is utterly meaningless.

So shout out ‘Regulation’ all you want, and it will not lead to anything than what was already being done, and is being done at this moment. The thieves will regulate themselves unless that power is taken away from them, something that the Democratic Party utterly opposes.

America’s liberal ‘Peace Community’ remains apathetically pro-war

Peace peopleAmerica’s liberal ‘Peace Community’ remains apathetically pro-war, which explains why most are planning to vote for Pro-war candidate, Barack Obama. Far from being non-mainstream Americans ‘liberals’, are just as pro-war as their Republican counterparts are despite some occassional bleatings about ‘Peace’ in the abstract, and temper tantrums that the US has not won the invasion and occupation of Iraq just quite yet.

Doubt this analysis? Then ask yourself why hardly any of these liberals turned out the last 2 weeks for the many US regional demonstrations to demand a stop to threatening a war against Iran? These demonstrations were national in scope and called by 2 separate coalitions, but nobody showed up! In Colorado Springs, the local yokel misleaders didn’t even bother doing a local action, but that won’t stop them from responding that they are committed to non-violence and yada yada yada.

This week will find the ‘Peace Community’ going through the motions and holding candle light vigils in memory of the atomic bomb victims of Japan in 1945, but you won’t find them demanding that the US and NATO get out of Afghanistan. That’s because many of them plan to vote for a pro-war candidate that wants to fight that Afghan war forever if it takes that long to ‘win’ it? Or at least until some folk get mad about it… which most won’t because they don’t seem to care that much.

Locally, this Friday we will find the liberal ‘Peace Community ritually going out to Fort Peterson Air Base for their annual quick show ‘picnic’ there. What you will not see is any sign of a demand that the base actually be closed down. You will see many signs though with their abstract new age religious belief that war and violence are bad stuff! It is kind of a game they play… …and almost all of these ‘peacenics’ will vote for the pro-war candidate, Barack, almost all of them.

The thing liberals most fear is being considered somehow outside the mainstream American community which is still quite solidly pro-military and pro-war. Like the greater community at large, liberal ‘Peace Community’ folk mainly are angry because George W. Bush did not give the country a quick and easy victory in Iraq, so they are angry at him for it. Other than that, they are not that pissed off though. Afghanistan? What? Don’t bother us!

Why is the liberal ‘Peace Community’ so pro-war, even as they talk ‘Peace’? It’s because their conservatized neighbors are also very pro-war and they don’t want to appear too oppositional or unfriendly to these people. They don’t want to stand out and in fact never do (at least they never do in large vigils or protests against war and torture and inequality, etc. They often say it doesn’t’ work to participate in public actions!)

The liberal ‘Peace Community’ is committed to national patriotism and in America that means the military. But they are also committed to their idea of the Holy Ghost Jesus, Man of Peace. They try to fuse the 2 ideas together, but what remains is only to remain apathetically pro-war just like The Others they say they always oppose.

The liberal ‘Peace Community’ doesn’t want to really end war except in the abstract, but principally wants to agree that the US wars fought be juster wars with a kinder military than the world norm. Massage them and you have their vote. They really don’t care if their Democratic Party candidates are liars and manipulators. Just sound good.

The liberal ‘Peace Community’ doesn’t like being called antiwar, and in fact is not that at all. Antiwar to them sounds way too ‘anti-‘! Instead, they like to be seen as FOR the troops. They remain apathetically pro-war, and unfortunately so does the rest of the population.

Victory to the Afghan people! Victory to the Somali people! Victory to the Iraqi people! Victory to the Palestinians! And, Americans, get your heads out of your rear ends and screw them on straight.

Liberal Americans, that goes double! Stop being pro-war! You are, you know? Despite your constant chatter for ‘Peace’ which is mainly a cover for you to hide from yourself the fact that you’re as pro-war as your neighbors most of the time.

The Democrats will change things?

Barney FrankAs the US government has used taxpayers money to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, many liberals have seen this as only yet another sign of Republican Party perfidy. But look at Barney Frank, Democrat for a second. His job is Chair of the Financial Services panel since the Democrats took the leadership of the House in 2007. What’s he been up to during this bailout sale of US Treasury dollars?

Many think that by Barney Frank being an openly Gay member of the US Congress has made him the epitome of radical liberalism, but there is a different story out there than the spoon fed media’s image for us. Check out “Equality is not good”
Barney Frank and the putrefaction of American liberalism
to see the real Barney Frank story.

So here is Mr. Liberal Democrat, Barney Frank, helping bail out the big guys with the small guys’ money. Are you really that surprised at his role as Democratic Party leader in championing inequality that benefits the well-to-do? Is any of this surprising any more after all the Democrats support to the Republican agendas in Iraq, Afghanistan, and building a bigger military-industrial-security State? Then I got some property to sell you in the swamp, Dudes.

Hey! The Democratic Party/ Obama Campaign HQ has already beat me to it!

Anarchism as applied to washing dishes

WASH YOUR OWN DISHES via CrimethInc

CAPITALISM
You wash the dishes, the ones who own them profit.
 
ANARCHISM
We all share in the dishwashing.

DEMOCRACY
Even as a dishwasher, you deserve a say in which politician is best suited to protect the economy that keeps you in the kitchen.

NATIONALISM
Forget about those dishes for a second — you’re a citizen of the proudest hation on earth!

LIBERTARIANISM
You wash the dishes, the owner profits even more.

FASCISM
The Mexicans who washed the dishes are deported, the Jews who owned the place are imprisoned, and everyone else is conscripted for military service.

UNEMPLOYMENT
The only thing worse than being trapped in a dish room is being trapped outside one.

NEO-LIBERALISM (AKA “Free Trade”)
The dishes are shipped overseas to be washed and you’re free to develop your own combination of Unemployment and Nationalism

REFORM
Smaller stack, warmer water, longer breaks –same dishes!

SOCIALISM
Dishwashers’ wages increase just enough to afford higher takes

COMMUNISM
From each according to his means, to each according to his need –as determined outside the dish room.

MARXISM
Between shifts, the dishwasher studies the intricacies of dialectical materialism. It turns out that thanks to his efforts, the dirty dishes have been accumulating value for his boss to invest in more dishes. The stuff about the dictatorship of the proletariat is more perplexing, but the party theorists reassure him that it makes perfect sense to them. Under their direction, he joins his fellow dishwashers in a risky coup d’etat. Afterwards, he is distraught to find himself still in the kitchen, washing dishes for the party bureaucrats. The bureaucrats reassure him that they will eventually wither away.

SYNDICALISM
The dishwashers join labor syndicates that send representatives to a council, at which it is decided which dishes are to be washed and when.

ANARCHA-FEMINISM
You wash the dishes for the boss — who washes the dishes at home?

ANARCHO-PRIMITIVISM
Down with dishes!

ANARCHO-PUNK
Down with washing!

INSURRECTIONARY ANARCHISM
A quixotic attempt to distill a political theory from the practice of smashing dishes.

-Crimethinc

Not in My Name

Hello, I participated in the most incredibly diverse rally in front of the United Nations at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. Here are my remarks:

Cynthia McKinney Remarks Al Nakba Rally,
“Not in My Name”
United Nations, New York
May 16, 2008

On my birthday last year, I declared my independence from a national
leadership that, through its votes in support of the war machine, is
now complicit in war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, and
crimes against the peace.

I declared my independence from every bomb dropped, every veteran
maimed, and every child killed.

I noted that the Democratic leadership in Congress had failed to
restore this country to Constitutional rule by repealing the Patriot
Acts, the Secret Evidence Act, and the Military Commissions Act.

That it had aided and abetted illegal spying against the American
people. And that it took impeachment off the table.

In addition, the Democratic Congressional leadership failed to
promote the economic integrity of this country by not repealing the
Bush tax cuts. They failed to institute a livable wage,
Medicare-for-all health care, and gave even more money to the
Pentagon as it misuses our hard-earned dollars.

We can add to that list, too, an abject failure to stand up for human
rights and dignity.

If the Democratic and Republican leadership won’t respect the right
of return for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita survivors, how can we
expect them to champion the right of return for Palestinians?

If this country’s leadership tolerates the wanton murder of unarmed
black and Latino men by law enforcement officials—extra-judicial
killings—how can we expect them to stop or even speak out against
targeted assassinations in the Middle East?

If the Democratic and Republican leadership accept ethnic cleansing
in this country by way of gentrification and predatory lending, why
should we expect them to put an end to it in Palestine?

If the leadership of this country impedes self-determination for
native peoples in this country, why should we expect them to support
indigenous rights for anyone abroad?

And sadly, the sensationalist corporate media would rather trick us
into thinking that reporting on a pastor, a former Vice Presidential
nominee, and a former cable TV magnate constitutes this country’s
much-needed discussion of its own apartheid past and present, so why
should we expect an honest discussion of apartheid and Zionism?

I hope by now it is clear. Our values will never be reflected in
public policy as long as our political parties and our country remain
hijacked.

Hijacked by false patriots who usurp the applause of the people and
all the while betray our values.

I’ve decided that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will
operate any longer as business as usual—not in my name.

That Democrats and Republicans will use my tax dollars and betray my
values, not one day longer—not in my name.

That neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have earned my most
precious political asset—my vote.

And that now is the time to do some things I’ve never done before in
order to have some things I’ve never had before.

And so here today, I declare my independence from weapons transfers:
including Apache Helicopters; F’16s; sidewinder, hellfire, and
Stinger missiles.

I declare my independence from occupation, demolished homes,
political prisoners, and babies dying at checkpoints.

I declare my independence from UN vetoes, expropriated land, stolen
resources, and the installation of puppet regimes.

I declare my independence from all forms of dehumanization and am not
afraid to speak truth to power.

And I am happy to join with peace-loving people around the world who
know that there can be no peace without justice.

Let us never tire in our work for justice.

Thank you.

Stokely Carmichael on liberal pitfalls

Most liberals are naive to other thinking or to the insightful speeches of the socialist black activists of the 60’s. Stokely Carmichael saw the powerlessness of the liberal that other moderate Negro leaders wouldn’t attempt or couldn’t see.

The Black Panthers saw through the petty liberal ideology that always sought cooperation with the capitalists, or as Stokely put it, the oppressors. He talked of liberals and peace activists rejection of violence as a means to achieve real change. Real change defined as eliminating capitalism which is the very root of our dilemma. Is it that the progressive/liberal ideology is largely bankrupt? That it goes nowhere often and deceives its followers into static worn out Gandhi-Goodman, no alternative strategies that always succumb to the real power that is the fascists source of control? Violence? Yes is the answer.

Less a massive armed militant mobilization and a clean break from the stink that is capitalism, there will never be a fair social system that works for the vast working class population. And a re-education of our children away from fascisms model and as to the truth about democratic socialism.

“What we want to do for our people, the oppressed, is to begin to legitimize violence in their minds. So that for us violence against the oppressor will be expedient. This is very important, because we have all been brainwashed into accepting questions of moral judgment when violence is used against the oppressor.”

The Pitfalls of Liberalism
by Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture)
(From the book; “Stokely Speaks – From Black Power to Pan Africanism”)

Whenever one writes about a problem in the United States, especially concerning the racial atmosphere, the problem written about is usually black people that they are either extremist, irresponsible, or ideologically naive.

What we want to do here is to talk about white society, and the liberal segment of white society, because we want to prove the pitfalls of liberalism, that is, the pitfalls of liberals in their political thinking.

Whenever articles are written, whenever political speeches are given, or whenever analysis are made about a situation, it is assumed that certain people of one group, either the left or the right, the rich or the poor, the whites or the blacks, are causing polarization. The fact is that conditions cause polarization, and that certain people can act as catalysts to speed up the polarization; for example, Rap Brown or Huey Newton can be a catalyst for speeding up the polarization of blacks against whites in the United States, but the conditions are already there. George Wallace can speed up the polarization of white against blacks in America, but again, the conditions are already there.

Many people want to know why, out of the entire white segment of society, we want to criticize the liberals. We have to criticize them because they represent the liaison between other groups, between the oppressed and the oppressor. The liberal tries to become an arbitrator, but he is incapable of solving the problems. He promises the oppressor that he can keep the oppressed under control; that he will stop them from becoming illegal (in this case illegal means violent). At the same time, he promises the oppressed that he will be able to alleviate their suffering – in due time. Historically, of course, we know this is impossible, and our era will not escape history.

The most perturbing question for the liberal is the question of violence. The liberals initial reaction to violence is to try to convince the oppressed that violence is an incorrect tactic, that violence will not work, that violence never accomplishes anything. The Europeans took America through violence and through violence they established the most powerful country in the world. Through violence they maintain the most powerful country in the world. It is absolutely absurd for one to say that violence never accomplishes anything.

Today power is defined by the amount of violence one can bring against one’s enemy – that is how you decide how powerful a country is; power is defined not by the number of people living in a country, it is not based on the amount of resources to be found in that country, it is not based upon the good will of the leaders or the majority of that people. When one talks about a powerful country, one is talking precisely about the amount of violence that that country can heap upon its enemy. We must be clear in our minds about that. Russia is a powerful country, not because there are so many millions of Russians but because Russia has great atomic strength, great atomic power, which of course is violence. America can unleash an infinite amount of violence, and that is the only way one considers American powerful. No one considers Vietnam powerful, because Vietnam cannot unleash the same amount of violence. Yet if one wanted to define power as the ability to do, it seems to me that Vietnam is much more powerful than the United States. But because we have been conditioned by Western thoughts today to equate power with violence, we tend to do that at all times, except when the oppressed begin to equate power with violence….then it becomes an “incorrect” equation.

Most societies in the West are not opposed to violence. The oppressor is only opposed to violence when the oppressed talk about using violence against the oppressor. Then the question of violence is raised as the incorrect means to attain one’s ends. Witness, for example, that Britain, France, and the United States have time and time again armed black people to fight their enemies for them. France armed Senegalese in World War 2, Britain of course armed Africa and the West Indies, and the United States always armed the Africans living in the United States. But that is only to fight against their enemy, and the question of violence is never raised. The only time the United States or England or France will become concerned about the question of violence is when the people whom they armed to kill their enemies will pick up those arms against them. For example, practically every country in the West today is giving guns either to Nigeria or the Biafra. They do not mind giving those guns to those people as long as they use them to kill each other, but they will never give them guns to kill another white man or to fight another white country.

The way the oppressor tries to stop the oppressed from using violence as a means to attain liberation is to raise ethical or moral questions about violence. I want to state emphatically here that violence in any society is neither moral nor is it ethical. It is neither right nor is it wrong. It is just simply a question of who has the power to legalize violence.

It is not a question of whether it is right to kill or it is wrong to kill; killing goes on. Let me give an example. If I were in Vietnam, if I killed thirty yellow people who were pointed out to me by white Americans as my enemy, I would be given a medal. I would become a hero. I would have killed America’s enemy – but America’s enemy is not my enemy. If I were to kill thirty white policemen in Washington, D.C. who have been brutalizing my people and who are my enemy, I would get the electric chair. It is simply a question of who has the power to legalize violence. In Vietnam our violence is legalized by white America. In Washington, D.C., my violence is not legalized, because Africans living in Washington, D.C., do not have the power to legalize their violence.

I used that example only to point out that the oppressor never really puts an ethical or moral judgment on violence, except when the oppressed picks up guns against the oppressor. For the oppressor, violence is simply the expedient thing to do.

Is it not violent for a child to go to bed hungry in the richest country in the world? I think that is violent. But that type of violence is so institutionalized that it becomes a part of our way of life. Not only do we accept poverty, we even find it normal. And that again is because the oppressor makes his violence a part of the functioning society. But the violence of the oppressed becomes disruptive. It is disruptive to the ruling circles of a given society. And because it is disruptive it is therefore very easy to recognize, and therefore it becomes the target of all those who in fact do not want to change the society. What we want to do for our people, the oppressed, is to begin to legitimize violence in their minds. So that for us violence against the oppressor will be expedient. This is very important, because we have all been brainwashed into accepting questions of moral judgment when violence is used against the oppressor.

If I kill in Vietnam I am allowed to go free; it has been legalized for me. I has not been legitimatized in my mind. I must legitimatize it in my own mind, and even though it is legal I may never legitimatize in in my own mind. There are a lot of people who came back from Vietnam, who have killed where killing was legalized, but who still have psychological problems over the fact that they have killed. We must understand, however, that to legitimatize killing in one’s mind does not make it legal. For example, I have completely legitimatized in my mind the killing of white policemen who terrorize black communities. However, if I get caught killing a white policeman, I have to go to jail, because I do not as yet have the power to legalize that type of killing. The oppressed must begin to legitimatize that type of violence in the minds of our people, even though it is illegal at this time, and we have to keep striving every chance we get to attain that end.

Now, I think the biggest problem with the white liberal in America, and perhaps the liberal around the world, is that his primary task is to stop confrontation, stop conflicts, not to redress grievances, but to stop confrontation. And this is very clear, it must become very, very clear in all our minds. Because once we see what the primary task of the liberal is, then we can see the necessity of not wasting time with him. His primary role is to stop confrontation. Because the liberal assumes a priori that a confrontation is not going to solve the problem. This of course, is an incorrect assumption. We know that.

We need not waste time showing that this assumption of the liberals is clearly ridiculous. I think that history has shown that confrontation in many cases has resolved quite a number of problems – look at the Russian revolution, the Cuban revolution, the Chinese revolution. In many cases, stopping confrontation really means prolonging suffering.

The liberal is so preoccupied with stopping confrontation that he usually finds himself defending and calling for law and order, the law and order of the oppressor. Confrontation would disrupt the smooth functioning of the society and so the politics of the liberal leads him into a position where he finds himself politically aligned with the oppressor rather than with the oppressed.

The reason the liberal seeks to stop confrontation – and this is the second pitfall of liberalism – is that his role, regardless of what he says, is really to maintain the status quo, rather than to change it. He enjoys economic stability from the status quo and if he fights for change he is risking his economic stability. What the liberal is really saying is that he hopes to bring about justice and economic stability for everyone through reform, that somehow the society will be able to keep expanding without redistribution the wealth.

This leads to the third pitfall of the liberal. The liberal is afraid to alienate anyone, and therefore he is incapable of presenting any clear alternative.

Look at the past presidential campaign in the United States between Nixon, Wallace, and Humphrey. Nixon and Humphrey, because they try to consider themselves some sort of liberals, did not offer any alternatives. But Wallace did, he offered clear alternatives. Because Wallace was not afraid to alienate, he was not afraid to point out who had caused errors in the past, and who should be punished. The liberals are afraid to alienate anyone in society. They paint such a rosy picture of society and they tell us that while things have been bad in the past, somehow they can become good in the future without restructuring society at all.

What the liberal really wants is to bring about change which will not in any way endanger his position. The liberal says, “It is a fact that you are poor, and it is a fact that some people are rich but we can make you rich without affecting those people who are rich”. I do not know how poor people are going to get economic security without affecting the rich in a given country, unless one is going to exploit other peoples. I think that if we followed the logic of the liberal to its conclusion we would find that all we can get from it is that in order for a society to become suitable we must begin to exploit other peoples.

Fourth, I do not think that liberals understand the difference between influences and power, and the liberals get confused seeking influence rather than power. The conservatives on the right wing, or the fascists, understand power, though, and they move to consolidate power while the liberal pushes for influence.

Let us examine the period before civil rights legislation in the United States. There was a coalition of the labor movement, the student movement, and the church for the passage of certain civil rights legislation; while these groups formed a broad liberal coalition, and while they were able to exert their influence to get certain legislation passed, they did not have the power to implement the legislation once it became law. After they got certain legislation passed they had to ask the people whom they were fighting to implement the very things that they had not wanted to implement in the past. The liberal fights for influence to bring about change, not for the power to implement the change. If one really wants to change a society, one does not fight to influence change and then leave the change to someone else to bring about. If the liberals are serious they must fight for power and not for influence.

These pitfalls are present in his politics because the liberal is part of the oppressor. He enjoys the status quo while he himself may not be actively oppressing other people, he enjoys the fruits of that oppression. And he rhetorically tries to claim the he is disgusted with the system as it is.

While the liberal is part of the oppressor, he is the most powerless segment within that group. Therefore when he seeks to talk about change, he always confronts the oppressed rather than the oppressor. He does not seek to influence the oppressor, he seeks to influence the oppressed. He says to the oppressed, time and time again, “You don’t need guns, you are moving too fast, you are too radical, you are too extreme.” He never says to the oppressor, “You are too extreme in your treatment of the oppressed,” because he is powerless among the oppressors, even if he is part of that group; but he has influence, or, at least, he is more powerful than the oppressed, and he enjoys this power by always cautioning, condemning, or certainly trying to direct and lead the movements of the oppressed.

To keep the oppressed from discovering his pitfalls the liberal talks about humanism. He talks about individual freedom, about individual relationships. One cannot talk about human idealism in a society that is run by fascists. If one wants a society that is in fact humanistic, one has to ensure that the political entity, the political state, is one that will allow humanism. And so if one really wants a state where human idealism is a reality, one has to be able to control the political state. What the liberal has to do is to fight for power, to go for the political state and then, once the liberal has done this, he will be able to ensure the type of human idealism in the society that he always talks about.

Because of the above reasons, because the liberal is incapable of bringing about the human idealism which he preaches, what usually happens is that the oppressed, whom he has been talking to finally becomes totally disgusted with the liberal and begins to think that the liberal has been sent to the oppressed to misdirect their struggle, to rule them. So whether the liberal likes it or not, he finds himself being lumped, by the oppressed, with the oppressor – of course he is part of that group. The final confrontation, when it does come about, will of course include the liberal on the side of the oppressor. Therefore if the oppressed really wants a revolutionary change, he has no choice but to rid himself of those liberals in his rank.

Kwame Ture
(aka Stokely Carmichael)

Kwame Ture was born Stokely Carmichael on June 29, 1941 in Port of Spain, Trinidad, the son of Adolphus and Mabel Carmichael. He immigrated to the United States in 1952 with his family and settled in New York, New York. He graduated from the academically elite Bronx High School of Science in 1960 and made the decision to attend Howard University. Howard University conferred on him a Bachelor of Science Degree in Philosophy in 1964.

It was while in Washington that Stokely became deeply involved in the “Freedom Rides,” “Sit-Ins,” and other demonstrations to challenge segregation in American society. He participated with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Nonviolent Action Group (NAG). He later joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and was elected its National Chairman in June 1966. While in Greenville, Mississippi, he along with his friend and colleague Willie Ricks, rallied the cry “Black Power” which became the most popular slogan of the Civil Rights era. Consequently, he became the primary spokesman for the Black Power ideology. In 1967, he coauthored with Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power, the Politics of Liberation in America. That same year, Stokely was disassociated from SNCC and he became the Prime Minister of the Black Panthers, headquartered in Oakland, California. He soon became disenchanted with the Panthers and moved to Guinea, West Africa.

While residing in Africa, Stokely Carmichael changed his name to “Kwame Ture” to honor Kwame Nkrumah, who led Ghana to independence from Britain, and, Sekou Toure, who was President of Guinea and his mentor. For more than 30 years, Ture led the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party and devoted the rest of his life to Pan Africanism, a movement to uproot the inequities of racism for people of African descent and to develop an economic and cultural coalition among the African Diaspora.

In 1998, at the age of 57, Kwame Ture died from complications of prostate cancer. To the end he answered the telephone, “ready for the revolution.” His marriage to Miriam Makeba and Guinean physician Marlyatou Barry ended in divorce. He has one son, Bokar, who resides in the United States.

Bleeding Hearted Liberals running small check-list businesses make my heart bleed

All around America there are bleeding hearted liberals running small businesses… small social service businesses. As a general rule, too, liberals don’t run businesses very well. They’re too damn dumbly soft and sweet, that’s why. So we can begin to understand why all these ‘reform groups’ (like the local area’s Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission.. for just one example) don’t make much profit for the people they claim to be serving (even as they keep them out in droves from their social advocacy groups, run as small ‘businesses’).

Here is the type of thing I am talking about,

…from an article appearing in The Nation…
‘Check off the boxes, copy the paragraph from two years ago, mail it in. As an election year approaches, I again face the piles of questionnaires that progressive organizations use to evaluate public officials. Environmentalists, feminists, campaign finance reformers, housing advocates and labor unions have all come to rely on these lists of our positions–often on issues that never even come up for a vote. It should come as no surprise that, for the most part, all we get out of this cumbersome process is a long line of “checklist liberals” who answer correctly but do little to advance the progressive causes that underlie the questionnaires.’

The rest of this article can be found on the liberal’s very own Nation Magazine at Transforming the Liberal Checklist

OK, OK! So the rest of the article is not very good, much like the liberal organizations themselves, and The Nation Magazine is not very good, either. It was still a good and insightful first paragraph of an article at least!

And the commentary reminded me of all those fund raising letters, free stamps with animal pictures on them, and ‘surveys’ to find out my learned opinions, etc. Reminds me of all the wasted time sitting in meetings where bleeding hearted liberals talk about running THEIR small businesses. You see? The bleeding hearted liberals are most always the ‘owners’ of small socially aware businesses calling themselves community’ groups, which these groups having small office staffs then try to run the group like it was a church or tiny corner store of some sort.

Yes, the small office staff always begin to behave as if they were real owners of the store, much in the same way that some convenience store minimum wage workers will try to stop a robber of some sort or other, by risking their own lives over pennies that supposedly belong to the stock owners instead. These small would be owners can snarl and bite quite hard if given an opportunity to do so. They often overpower the petty ‘robbers’ of their unit with their forceful indignations than can border on madness of sorts. Some times they get popped for being so dimwitted, too.

So what to do about all the PEACE and GREEN and SOCIAL JUSTICE groups’ ‘leaders’ acting in our name? They operate much as the Democratic Party does, which is to impede rather than progress the people forward.

The runners of these small businesses calling themselves ‘peace and justice’ outfits, most often see themselves not as an elected group of leaders for exploited workers struggling for justice and peace, but as a group of independent networkers and business operators, forcefully headed for making more profit for their own personal businesses, the social groups. They spend more time being angry at any of the lower levels of the ‘co-ops’ managed by themselves than at the power elites that cause the social injustice they are supposedly fighting against. When angered by the lower elements, their faces can become quite bulldog-like.

Recently a certain word has come into great popularity with this sort of manager owner of social cause… that word being the word SUSTAINABILITY. Why so popular this word, and with these people? It is because it strikes a chord with the small manager/owner and his small manager/owner mindset. They want to know if their small business is SUSTAINABLE and if their position as head of the operation is SUSTAINABLE most of all? SUSTAINABILITY is their biggest goal of them all. And now of course, corporate America wants to help them become SUSTAINABLE.

This sort of group run as a small business with paid staff who think themselves owners is a very huge impediment to any real social action taking place. The main technique of ‘the owners’ who are salaried is simply to eat up other people’s time. They know that they can out last them in energy by simply doing this, and can come out on top when actual decisions are to be made. In other words, they are well positioned to stifle.

Like owners of any corporation, ‘the owners’ of supposed social groups get paid real money for their time while the volunteers do not. Is this the model of a social action group that will get things done? Most certainly not. Unfortunately though, it is the model structure for liberals and their do-nothing liberalism everywhere today in America…. small groups with a paid ‘leader’ or two, spouting ‘good things’, and doing next to nothing besides appearing to be seeminglygood people.

At the recent meeting of the executive board of the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission, it was totally noticeable that nobody there had anything of a working class background. In fact, the idea of justice for workers is totally absent from this group with ‘justice’ in its name. Being so church-like, this group throws the word in as if it were a bone to the lower classes so next to being sweet dogs in the eyes of these nice people. They were about as working class in composition as the ACLU is!… to give an idea of what the meeting was actually like. Nobody was ‘angry’, just sad. Or happy when seemingly a crumb from real power is thrown in their direction. And at this meeting it had been.

The City of Colorado Springs was going to let the group march in the St Pat’s Day Parade! All Hallelujah, Jesus! But that is about more than this little essay can talk about for the time being. Just let it be said, that liberals running small businesses that should be action groups make my heart bleed. Bleeding hearted liberals make poor businessmen and the conservative business men will tear them to part. Antiwar groups should not be run like they are small businesses. Probably enough said at this point.