What next? Is candidate Obama going to say he’s against war again too? I recall some event last week which was held to be the kickoff of President Obama’s presidential campaign, but today’s statement confirms it, Candidate Obama is in the house, he’s for whatever you’re for, until it turns out, any expectations you had were too damn high, a president is powerless to do anything but what you’re against. President Obama rededicating May Day to be Loyalty Day leaves no words.
Tag Archives: presidential campaign
First look! US Boat to Gaza, Flotilla II blockade runner The Audacity of Hope
Democracy Now Producer Aaron Maté took a quick photo of the American boat scheduled shortly to sail with the upcoming aid flotilla to Gaza. How will President Obama respond to an effort named after his presidential campaign bestseller Audacity Of Hope? I’d suggest, by renaming his book, which he has to do anyway, the Audacity of Empty Promises. Obama has urged Palestinians to remain nonviolent, yet condemns the nonviolent convoy sailing to break Israel’s illegal siege and relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Did Obama hear you on election day?
Here’s a quarter-page size flier you can use to spread the word about tonight’s event. Obama’s announcement will be momentous, no matter which course of action he decides. It will be either the first sign of delivering on his promise of change, or a hopeful public betrayed.
And thousands more Afghan dead. Let’s not forget who suffers the most from America’s reckless decisions.
Come to Acacia Park tonight at 5pm. Let him hear your voice!
Below is the Coloradans For Peace December 1 press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Colorado Springs peace community urges President Obama to chose withdrawal from Afghanistan over escalation
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO, 12/1/09 — Coloradans For Peace (CFP) will gather with area community activists on Tuesday, December 1, at 5pm, in Acacia Park downtown, to urge President Barack Obama: NO ESCALATION OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.
The nonviolent assembly in Acacia Park will be part of nationwide peace demonstrations in response to President Barack Obama’s forthcoming announcement about a new US strategy in Afghanistan. National organizers include CODE PINK, UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE, WORLD CAN’T WAIT, ACT NOW TO STOP WAR AND END RACISM (ANSWER), and many others.
Speculation has been rising that our president intends to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, but CFP remains hopeful that President Obama will make a decision in the spirit of his presidential campaign. We will assemble in Acacia Park in advance of the televised presidential address, in unison with other US cities, to remind the president of the electorate’s call for an end to our nation’s military conflicts.
The CFP believes the unprecedented turnout for the 2008 election was strongly motivated by the American public’s alarm over the ongoing foreign wars. We believe President Obama would be ignoring a profound mandate given him by his voters if he decided to expand the conflict in Afghanistan instead of bring it to a close.
In urging an end to America’s foreign occupations, citizens can show their true support for the troops. More than ever before, soldiers are contacting antiwar organizations to say that they support the peace efforts to bring them home.
# # #
Sarah Palin’s Victorian Secrets
Sarah Palin spent $148 at two different Victoria’s Secret locations in Philadelphia and Cincinnati in the last weeks of her Vice Presidential campaign! The buys were listed under the heading of “campaign accessories.” That’s one hot and sexy Momma there! I wonder if she shops at Fredericks of Hollywood too? All one can really say is, “Move over Monica Lewinsky! Sarah Palin’s got her thong on now!” Despite earlier furor, Palin shopping continued… GOP spent $4,383 at Saks, $34,384 for makeup artist in race’s final weeks
Defining ourselves by what others fear
It could be confused for being contrarian or reactionary, but how else do you build upon what you learn? Instead of letting life buffet you while you strap yourself to a mast to drift to a predestined shore, why not sail a bit? You’ve got a rudder and centerboard to limit your drift. Let those who live back in the age of the square sail think that weather can only lead downwind.
In public protest, as in arguments, I can tell I’m on the right tack when authorities object to what I’m saying. I’ve learned this much, if they don’t like where you’re standing, you’re closing in on the sweet spot.
The 2008 presidential campaign offered some great insight on political positioning. I’d like to consider the attempts to slander Barack Obama as a point of reference. A good place to start for what most scares authority.
Middle name Hussein?
Sounds like a fine middle name to me. Adopted by any of us, “Hussein” commemorates cultural tolerance, specifically, irreverence for ethnocentric bigotry and false fear-mongering.
Paling around with Bill Ayers?
We should all be so lucky to know a real 60s Weatherman. Where were you on the Vietnam War? Any less radical ideology would probably be indefensible now. Maybe “Bill Ayers” makes an even better middle name to adopt, if you want to pay tribute to youthful idealism and audacity.
(BTW- The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), was a militant antiwar group known originally as The Weathermen, named from a Dylan lyric referencing Kerouac. Splintered from the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM), a subgroup of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weatherman formed a “white fighting force” in solidarity with the Black Liberation Movement after the murder of Blank Panther leader Fred Hampton.
BTW2- Neither Bill Ayers nor the WUO were terrorists. The bombs they planted were not to terrorize people but to symbolize the need to destroy the mechanisms of US imperialism. Warnings were always issued beforehand to prevent casualties.)
Agree with Reverend Jeremiah Wright?
Wow. Who could but hope to have the moral courage of Reverend Wright? Especially his temerity, eloquence and perseverance. “God Damn America?” If any Nationalist Hypocracy ever deserved a wrathful kick in the ass, we do. God Damn America most certainly. Americans joke about Hell in a Handbasket, but where are those who dare leap out and try to lead their companions to deserving a more honorable fate? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Stars and Stripes fly over monumental crimes for which Americans have never atoned. We worship false Gods if they do not damn our immoral economic enslavement of everyone in our grasp.
As a politician, Barack Obama would not have had the latitude to express agreement with Reverend Wright. Or admiration for Bill Ayers. It’s nothing to do with conviction and everything to do with the compromises of an elected office in the face of a slanderous press. But while Obama makes his pragmatic choices to get neared the seat of power, we needn’t delude ourselves about right and wrong, wisdom and ignorance. We don’t need to win popularity contests, so why not be our true, moral selves?
Socialist?
That old anti-capitalism Red Scare bugaboo? Too bad for the would-be critics, “socialist” doesn’t mean totalitarian commie, or puritanical dictator. Socialism means putting social concerns first. Socialized medicine. Socialized education. Socialized economy. Protecting ourselves and fellow beings from the baser human natures of predation and greed. I find a person who is opposed to socialism is, and it’s an instructive pun, anti-social.
Chomsky: the US public is irrelevant
Al Jazeera’s INSIDE USA has a recent interview with Noam Chomsky. Chomsky: US public irrelevant. The partial transcript is mirrored below, as is the 2-part video: part 1 and part 2.
Part 2 of the interview:
Partial transcript:
AVI LEWSI: I’d like to start by talking about the US presidential campaign. In writing about the last election in 2004, you called America’s system a “fake democracy” in which the public is hardly more than an irrelevant onlooker, and you’ve been arguing in your work in the last year or so that the candidates this time around are considerably to the right of public opinion on all major issues.
So, the question is, do Americans have any legitimate hope of change this time around? And what is the difference in dynamic between America’s presidential “cup” in 2008 compared to 2004 and 2000?
NOAM CHOMSKY: There’s some differences, and the differences are quite enlightening. I should say, however, that I’m expressing a very conventional thought – 80 per cent of the population thinks, if you read the words of the polls, that the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves not for the population [and] 95 per cent of the public thinks that the government ought to pay attention to public opinion but it doesn’t.
As far as the elections are concerned, I forget the exact figure but by about three to one people wish that the elections were about issues, not about marginal character qualities and so on. So I’m right in the mainstream.
There’s some interesting differences between 2004 and 2008 and they’re very revealing, it’s kind of striking that the commentators don’t pick that up because it’s so transparent.
The main domestic issue for years … is the health system – which is understandable as it’s a total disaster.
The last election debate in 2004 was on domestic issues … and the New York Times the next day had an accurate description of it. It said that [former Democratic presidential candidate John] Kerry did not bring up any hint of government involvement in healthcare because it has so little political support, just [the support of] the large majority of the population.
But what he meant was it was not supported by the pharmaceutical industry and wasn’t supported by the financial institutions and so on.
In this election the Democratic candidates all have [health] programmes that are not what the public are asking for but are approaching it and could even turn into it, so what happened between 2004 and 2008?
It’s not a shift in public opinion – that’s the same as before, what happened is a big segment of US corporate power is being so harmed by the healthcare system that they want it changed, namely the manufacturing industry.
So, for example, [car manufacturer] General Motors says that it costs them maybe $1,500 more to produce a car in Detroit then across the border in Windsor, Canada, just because they have a more sensible healthcare system there.
Well, when a big segment of corporate America shifts its position, then it becomes politically possible and has political support. So, therefore, you can begin to talk about it.
AL: But those aren’t changes coming from pressure from below?
CHOMSKY: No, the public is the same, it’s been saying the same for decades, but the public is irrelevant, is understood to be irrelevant. What matters is a few big interests looking after themselves and that’s exactly what the public sees.
AL: And yet, you can see people agitating against the official story, even within the electoral process. There is definitely a new mood in the US, a restlessness among populations who are going to political rallies in unprecedented numbers.
What do you make of this well branded phenomenon of hope – which is obviously part marketing – but is it not also part something else?
CHOMSKY: Well that’s Barack Obama. He has his way, he presents himself – or the way his handlers present him – as basically a kind of blank slate on which you can write whatever you like and there are a few slogans: Hope, unity …
AL: Change?
CHOMSKY: Understandable that Obama is generating “enthusiasm” [Reuters]
For most people in the US the past 30 years have been pretty grim. Now, it’s a rich country, so it’s not like living in southern Africa, but for the majority of the population real wages have stagnated or declined for the past 30 years, there’s been growth but it’s going to the wealthy and into very few pockets, benefits which were never really great have declined, work hours have greatly increased and there isn’t really much to show for it other than staying afloat.And there is tremendous dissatisfaction with institutions, there’s a lot of talk about Bush’s very low poll ratings, which is correct, but people sometimes overlook the fact that congress’s poll ratings are even lower.
In fact all institutions are just not trusted but disliked, there’s a sense that everything is going wrong.
So when somebody says “hope, change and unity” and kind of talks eloquently and is a nice looking guy and so on then, fine.
AL: If the elite strategy for managing the electorate is to ignore the will of the people as you interpret it through polling data essentially, what is an actual progressive vision of changing the US electoral system? Is it election finance, is it third party activism?
CHOMSKY: We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of years ago that you can’t even dream about in the US. It’s kind of interesting it’s not discussed; it’s a real democratic election.
A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that everyone knew about – control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious issues.
And, furthermore, they didn’t just do it on election day by pushing a button, they’ve been struggling about these things for years.
A couple of years before this they managed to drive Bechtel and the World Bank out of the country when they were trying to privatise the war. It was a pretty harsh struggle and a lot of people were killed.
Well, they reached a point where they finally could manifest this through the electoral system – they didn’t have to change the electoral laws, they had to change the way the public acts. And that’s the poorest country in South America.
Actually if we look at the poorest country in the hemisphere – Haiti – the same thing happened in 1990. You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, it’s ridiculous to say we can’t.
AL: The Democrats in this election campaign have been talking a lot, maybe less so more recently, about withdrawing from Iraq.
What are the chances that a new president will significantly change course on the occupation and might there be any change for the people of Iraq as a result of the electoral moment in the US?
CHOMSKY: Well, one of the few journalists who really covers Iraq intimately from inside is Nir Rosen, who speaks Arabic and passes for Arab, gets through society, has been there for five or six years and has done wonderful reporting. His conclusion, recently published, as he puts it, is there are no solutions.
This has been worse than the Mongol invasions of the 13th century – you can only look for the least bad solution but the country is destroyed.
The war on Iraq has been a catastrophe, Chomsky says [AFP]
And it has in fact been catastrophic. The Democrats are now silenced because of the supposed success of the surge which itself is interesting, it reflects the fact that there’s no principled criticism of the war – so if it turns out that your gaining your goals, well, then it was OK.We didn’t act that way when the Russians invaded Chechnya and, as it happens, they’re doing much better than the US in Iraq.
In fact what’s actually happening in Iraq is kind of ironic. The Iraqi government, the al-Maliki government, is the sector of Iraqi society most supported by Iran, the so-called army – just another militia – is largely based on the Badr brigade which is trained in Iran, fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war, was part of the hated Revolutionary Guard, it didn’t intervene when Saddam was massacring Shiites with US approval after the first Gulf war, that’s the core of the army.
The figure who is most disliked by the Iranians is of course Muqtada al-Sadr, for the same reason he’s disliked by the Americans – he’s independent.
If you read the American press, you’d think his first name was renegade or something, it’s always the “renegade cleric” or the “radical cleric” or something – that’s the phrase that means he’s independent, he has popular support and he doesn’t favour occupation.
Well, the Iranian government doesn’t like him for the same reason. So, they [Iran] are perfectly happy to see the US institute a government that’s receptive to their influence and for the Iraqi people it’s a disaster.
And it’ll become a worse disaster once the effects of the warlordism and tribalism and sectarianism sink in more deeply.
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.
The corporate press blanks out coverage of the antiwar demonstrations
The coverage of the antiwar demonstrations everywhere has been abysmal. There is a conspiracy of silence by the major press to use silence to try to demoralize us. Antiwar activists now have the majority of population with us, but due to poor organizing, poor strategy, and a feeling of hopelessness amongst many of us, we have failed to adequately engage the public to do much more than support us while remaining inactive.
It appears that the main demonstration in Washiington drew 100,000 plus, but it is impossible to tell yet the actual numbers, since the media has been so uninformative. It also appears that the demonstration in Denver of 1200 to 1500 was one of the largest in the county in a comparable city. Salt Lake City drew 500 to their rally. Thousands came out in Seattle and Portland, with perhaps 5,000 or more in both LA and San Francisco. These are not great turnouts considering that the US government is going to ramp up this war, rather than end it.
Where is the anger? I went ot Znet and antiwar.com this AM, and cannot even find reportagre of these events. Same with a marxist list, same with IndyMedia, same with commondreams, though that site screams out that 1/2 million turned out in the streets of Washington. If that is so, why is this the only site yet saying so? The lack of mainstream coverage with the lack of coverage and participation by our own media is contributing to a hopelessness amongst the general population that any successful fight can be waged.
The anger is building, but yet has not reached a sufficient boiling point. In fact, many amongst our ranks think it wrong to even display anger, since it conflicts with their wrong notions about nonviolence! To them I say, Jesus spoke out, he was not a church mouse like so many of you think it right to be.
I the other great immobilizer amongst us is the idea that electoral activity trumps all other politics. Have you guys and gals ever thought that it is what inactivates protest, instead of making it work? Why do you think that he presidential campaign has begun almost 2 years ahead of the election? It is simply because the media can use this campaign to hypnotize Democrats into a somnolent state of paralysis. They do it ever election period, and the campaigning gets longer and longer. I wouldn’t be surprised that some liberal Democratic party presidential nitwit doesn’t announce that he is a candidate for president in the 2112 race, all to paralyze us with false hope and inactivation for a yet longer time.
Even as I am writing this commentary now, the TV is telling us that the Democrats are planning legislation to stop funding. Hidden message for us from the boobtube, is that action is underway, and no need to do a thing personally to help stop the War. It’s already taken care of! Wrong, and if you buy it you are a fool.