AOR
AOR's JournalAndrews says he heard racist strategy from Clinton camp
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/topstories/index.ssf/2008/06/andrews_says_he_heard_racist_s.html-- Josh Margolin/Statehouse Bureau June 06, 2008
(Snip)
A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey said this week he is worried that unifying the party behind Barack Obama may be difficult because the Clinton camp "has engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have."
U.S. Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning over Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.
"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.
"Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."
Quotations From Madame Hillary
-- by Paul Street
"Hillary Clinton says the damnedest things, some more truthful than others. Below I run through some of my favorite Hillary quotes, adding some critical commentary and a concluding refection “lesser evil” voting."
(Snip)
Mrs. Clinton said something reliably factual at her high school alma mater in Park Ridge, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. “I was a [Barry] Goldwater Girl” as a teenager,” she recalled. “But…after leaving Main South [High School], I went to Wellesley [College], still a Republican, but [with] a different kind of attitude….and then gradually over time in college and [Yale] law school I evolved my own political beliefs, which frankly are in some ways neither easily defined, they’re not dogmatically Republican, dogmatically Democrat, [not] easily defined as liberal or conservative…”
This was an honest reflection on her evolution from right-wing Republican (Goldwater in 1964) to centrist “Rockefeller” Republican (pro-Nelson Rockefeller and anti-Richard Nixon in 1968) to centrist Democrat in the 1970s and since. Still, it’s not quite the whole story. There’s an accurate translation of the statement: “I became a neoliberal ‘third-way’ corporatist working in accord with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) to move the Democratic Party further to the Big Business-friendly right and away from its prior outward commitments to labor unions, working people, the poor, minorities, civil rights, feminism, social welfare, economic regulation, and environmental protection. Bill and I and other such conservative Democrats moved to the right of Rockefeller, Eisenhower and even Richard Nixon on social and economic policy.”
That neoliberal position is the essence of what dollar Democrats like Barack Obama and the Clintons mean when they call themselves “progressives who like to get things done.” It has defined her wealth- and power-serving career in “public service.” That is something Hillary didn’t wish to fully articulate for a very basic reason: it doesn’t fit very well with the fake-progressive populism-posturing Democratic presidential candidates engage in every four years, few more skillfully than her husband in 1992.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/quotations-from-madame-hillary/
Thanksgiving is the Expression of the Colonizer, Then and Now
--by Danny Haiphong
“As the capitalist economy developed, plantation elites created a system of white supremacy to empower every white settler to protect the profits of chattel slavery.”
(Snip)
"At this stage of history, most people outside of the US know that the dominant narrative of Thanksgiving is a pack of lies. But in the US, this is not the case. White supremacy and imperialism shape all aspects of life, making Thanksgiving day a politically useful tool for the ruling system. Every November, the ruling class greases its misinformation machine to erase its history of genocide and colonialism from historical memory in place of the myth of white benevolence. President Lincoln started the process by making Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863 to revive white racial solidarity in the midst of the Civil War that threatened to tear apart the nation. Ever since, white America and broad sections of the oppressed have sat down to a meal once a year to "celebrate" the supposedly peaceful dinner between the Wampanoags of New England and the English settlers in 1621."
(Snip)
"Historians differ on the facts of the 1621 feast and some believe the Wampanoags were not invited at all. Others believe Lincoln distorted the story from a multitude of meals because the English depended on the Wampanoags for survival. Yet, the significance of the Thanksgiving narrative is not limited to the facts of the meal. The same forces that plundered New England and North America remain the rulers of the imperialist system they set into motion. This historical truth is the reason why Thanksgiving continues to be an American tradition. For white America and the tiny minority of people around the world with a stake in US imperialism, the truth about Thanksgiving is worthy of the highest degree of suppression. The task of resistance forces, freedom fighters, and revolutionary organizations is to keep historical memory alive so we can erase the forces of suppression from existence."
(Snip)
"The truth is that the same English settlers who supposedly took part in a peaceful dinner with the Wampanoags went on a hunting expedition of each and every indigenous tribe in the region in their quest for expansion. It wasn’t until the settlers decimated the Wampanoags and traveled further into the New England region that Thanksgiving really began. In 1637, the English colonizers massacred the Pequot tribe in what is now Connecticut. Over 700 Pequots were killed in the massacre. Governor John Winthrop declared the day “Thanksgiving.” After each subsequent massacre, the settlers would celebrate gratitude for their plunder by giving thanks."
(Snip)
"But the plight of indigenous peoples of continental North America is not merely a side-story of the imperialist system. Rather, it marks the beginning of capitalist development and white supremacy in North America. The early English capitalists and colonizers paraded their colonial missions in North America as a service of "civilization" for the native. As the capitalist economy developed, plantation elites created a system of white supremacy to empower every white settler to protect the profits of chattel slavery. Today, US imperialism "civilizes" oppressed peoples of the world with a heavy dose of super-exploitation and repression. The difference between then and now is that instead of the ruling class rising to prominence off the backs of oppressed people, imperialism is crashing and burning."
Full article here...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/node/4208
Paris terrorist attacks - how should the workers' movement respond ?
--Written by In Defence of Marxism
"Reactionary Islamic fundamentalist terrorism has struck again last night in a coordinated attack on different sites in Paris leaving over 128 dead and more than 100 severely injured. This is a wholly reactionary attack against ordinary working people, many of them youth, enjoying a night out in restaurants, concert halls and a football stadium. We condemn the murderous gang which carried out these attacks and we express our solidarity with the people of Paris."
(Snip)
"The far right and reactionaries in France and elsewhere are already attempting to gain political capital out of this by blaming refugees who've recently come into Europe. We can expect more of this and not only from far right but also more "mainstream" right wing bourgeois politicians. They will also use these attacks to blame Muslim communities.
(Snip)
"Furthermore, the ruling class, as in previous occasions, will use this brutal attack to curtail democratic freedoms, increase the powers of the security forces, legalise further surveillance, etc. Similar measures taken after the Charlie Hebdo killing in January have not served to prevent yesterday’s attack."
(Snip)
"We must also reject the hypocrisy of the ruling class and its representatives, in France and elsewhere, who are not innocent victims of these attacks. These terrorist attacks are not separate from the recent rise of reactionary Islamic fundamentalism in countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. which is the direct and indirect consequence of imperialist intervention in these countries. US, UK and also French imperialism and their allies Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, have armed, backed and trained ISIS, Al Nusra, Taliban and other similar reactionary jihadi groups in order to further their own interests and undermine their opponents in the region."
(Snip)
"We must reject any attempt to present these attacks in the framework of a “clash of civilisations” or “Islam vs European values” in an attempt to justify national unity against the “common enemy”. This is false. The working people and the poor in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria and other countries in the Middle East and beyond also suffer from this same reactionary terrorism on a regular basis. On Thursday, ISIS terrorists carried out a suicide attack in Beirut in which dozens were killed. This same week hundreds of thousands have marched in Afghanistan against Taliban atrocities . In Afghanistan, of course, it was the US which first funded and backed the forces of dark reaction in their struggle against the PDPA regime and the USSR in the 1980s."
Full article here...
http://www.marxist.com/paris-terrorist-attacks-how-should-the-workers-movement-respond.htm
Toward a Marxist Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution
--Bertell Ollman
(Snip)
"When Moses invented ten fundamental laws for the Jewish people, he had God write them down on stone tablets, Lycurgus, too, represented the constitution he drew up for ancient Sparta as a divine gift. According to Plato, whose book, The Republic, offers another version of the same practice, attributing the origins of a constitution to godly intervention is the most effective way of securing the kind of support needed for it to work. Otherwise, some people are likely to remain skeptical, others passive, and still others critical of whatever biases
they perceive in these basic laws, and hence less inclined to follow their mandates. As learned men, the framers of the American Constitution were well aware of the advantages to be gained by enveloping their achievement in religious mystery, but most of the people for whom they labored were religious dissenters who favored a sharp separation between church and state; and since most of the framers were deists and atheists themselves, this particular tactic could not be used. So they did the next best thing, which was to keep the whole process of their work on the Constitution a closely guarded secret. Most Americans know that the framers met for three months in closed session, but this is generally forgiven on the grounds that the then Congress of the United States had not commissioned them to write a new Constitution, and neither revolutionaries nor counter-revolutionaries can do all their work in the open. What few modern-day Americans realize, however, is that the framers did their best to ensure that we would never know the details of their deliberations. All the participants in the convention were sworn to life-long secrecy, and when the debates were over, those who had taken notes were asked to hand them in to George Washington, whose final task as chairman of the convention was to get rid of the evidence. American's first president, it appears, was also its first shredder.
(Snip)
"What is in danger of being lost among all the patriotic
non-sequiturs is the underside of criticism and protest that had
accompanied the Constitution form its very inception. Not everyone has
been satisfied to treat this product of men as if it came from God. Even
before the Constitution was officially adopted, many people, known to
history as Anti-Federalists, questioned whether what was good for the
property-owning factions that were so well represented in Philadelphia
would be as good for those who owned little or nothing. Then as
subsequently, the main questions raised dealt with the limitations on
suffrage, the inadequate defense of individual rights and freedoms, the
acceptance and even strengthening of the institution of slavery, and the
many other benefits given to men of property."
(Snip)
Unlike political theory, the Constitution not only offers us a picture
of reality but through the state's monopoly on violence it forces
citizens to act, or at least to speak, "as if." Acting as if the rule of
law, equality of opportunity, freedom of the individual, and the
neutrality of the state, all of which are inscribed in the Constitution,
are more than formally true inhibits people's ability to recognize that
they are all practically false, that the society set up with the help
of the Constitution simply does not operate in these ways. It is not a
matter of reality failing to live up to a set of commendable ideals but
of these ideals serving to help mask this reality through
misrepresenting what is legal for what is actual, what is permissible in
law for what is possible in society. When does an ideal become a
barrier to the realization of what it supposedly promotes? When people
are encouraged to treat the ideal as a description, however, imperfect,
of the real, as in the claim that ours is a society ruled by law, where
whatever actually exists that goes counter to this claim is relegated to
the role of a passing qualification. Viewed in this way, the dynamics
of who is doing what to whom and why, together with the structural
reforms needed to change things, can never be understood."
(Snip)
"But the most fundamental contradiction in the entire Constitution cannot be dismissed so easily. This is the contradiction between political democracy and economic servitude. The framers did everything they could—consistent with winning acceptance for the document—to avoid placing the loaded gun of popular sovereignty in the hands of the people. They had no doubt as to what would happen to the grossly unequal distribution of property in our country (at present, 1 percent of the population owns 50 percent of all wealth) should this even occur (Carter, 35). Well, it has occurred, the mass of America's citizens has made little use of political democracy to obtain economic democracy. For some, therefore, the trial is over, and the verdict is in. For us, the jury, is still out. Capitalism in extremis had many catastrophes in store for all of us. And with the stakes so high, history can afford to take its time. Meanwhile, more informed criticism of the one-sided, deceptive, and biased rules of the game by which we are all forced to play can hurry history along just that little bit, and in the process encourage thinking on the role—if any—of the Constitution in the transition to a socialist society."
Full piece here...
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/us_constitution.php
The Historic Plague of Individualism Continues Under Present Day US Capitalism
--by Danny Haiphong
"Capitalists hoodwink the masses into belief in an ideal of individualism, which “places sole blame for the misery of capitalism on the individual person experiencing it.” The U.S. Founding Fathers – a group of very rich white men – created a political infrastructure in which “the oppressed are coerced into competing among themselves for the crumbs the capitalist class has stolen from them.”
(Snip)
"Individualism is a founding ideology of American capitalism. American capitalism is rooted in the colonial policy of the British Empire. Racism and "individual liberty" was a modification of the feudal "divine right," which to the English colonialists, more suitably justified the enslavement and murder of hundreds of millions Black Africans and Indigenous nations. The emerging profitability of the agricultural and merchant capitalist economy in the British colonies of North America created conflict between the interests of the British aristocracy and the growing colonial bourgeoisie. Individualism united the colonial bourgeoisie in opposition to the Crown’s demand to abolish slavery and pay outstanding debt (“taxation without representation”). What the English colonialists in North America meant by "individual freedom" was the ability of the American capitalist class to profit from African slavery and stolen land without having to politically or financially answer to the Crown. This conflict of capitalist interests led to the war of "independence" and the eventual formation of the United States of America."
Individualism flourished following the establishment of the American capitalist state. The "Founding Fathers," or more correctly the first “American” capitalists, primarily concerned themselves with a problem they deemed the "tyranny of the majority" while drafting the US Constitution. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the propertied interests they represented, feared popular revolt from indebted whites, African slaves, indigenous people, and women. The drafters of the constitution envisioned a federal state that would socially control exploited populations. In its early years, the US government was used to smoke out slave rebellions and create unfair treaties for indigenous land robbed directly from tribes and Nations. American individualism was never about "freedom" and "liberty” for just any individual, but rather an ideological weapon the capitalist class wielded to maintain and further the exploitation of the “tyrannical majority.”
Full article here...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/historic-plague-individualism-continues-under-present-day-us-capitalism
The Bernie and Trump Trap: Beyond the Dead-End of Imperial Politics
--by Danny Haiphong
“Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are here to rescue the system with a dose of fear and hope.” Trump’s open-air racism instills fear in racial minorities and people who consider themselves “liberal" or “progressive.” Sanders gives them foolish hope that the Democratic Party can be changed from within. Grassroots movement politics is sidetracked, because “presidential elections are where movements go to die, as the anti-war movement exemplified directly after the election of Barack Obama.”
(Snip)
"There are few moments more difficult for the development of a genuine mass movement against imperialism than the Presidential election season. Generally, this period involves massive investments on the part of the ruling class in candidates who will take the reigns of Washington and continue the reproduction of imperialism's crisis ridden system. For the last eight years, the ruling class developed a superstar in President Barack Obama. His regime was able to intensify the war on workers and oppressed people everywhere, especially Black people, without significant challenge. But in 2016, the conditions are different. The end of the Obama era means that the electoral trap will inevitably take a different form."
(Snip)
"This facade presents a steep trap for forces working to build a revolutionary mass movement in the US. The Bernie and Trump trap reveals the weaknesses inherent in imperialism’s crisis. A condition of stagnation plagues imperialism. And the crisis emanates directly from capitalist development itself. At this stage of development, capitalism has outstretched its capacity to advance a higher rate of profit over time for the capitalist class and simultaneously account for the expanding costs of upkeep. The exponential growth of technology (a fixed cost) has forced capitalists to wage a multifaceted and endless war on workers and nations everywhere to keep profits bloated. But this war has exacerbated the fact that production far outpaces consumption. And the increase in exploitation and war inevitably leads to more poverty and more chaos. These developments have created a non-stop search by the rulers of the system for temporary measures to score quick profits and extend the system’s hegemony."
(Snip)
"The Bernie and Trump trap is a critical weapon in this war on consciousness. Bernie's early success can be attributed in part by Occupy Wall Street's impact on the overall political debate and the growing debt and joblessness of former union workers and student professionals. Yet his supposed pro-worker orientation is completely contradicted by his support for the US-sponsored massacres in Yemen, Ukraine, and Palestine (to name a few). As for Trump, his success can be credited to the general rightward political direction of the US in the last three decades of capitalist development. This rightward direction is a product of capitalist consolidation in the political realm. Crisis has brought the Democratic and Republican Party together policy-wise in service of imperialism. The Democratic Party should share much of the blame, as it has worked hand over foot to save the profitability and power of the ruling system during the most delicate phase of its life.
(Snip)
"In the final analysis, Wall Street and the capitalist class will decide which imperialist party rules in 2016. Presidential elections are where movements go to die, as the anti-war movement exemplified directly after the election of Barack Obama. The bourgeoisie is not so much concerned as to whom the masses lean toward during elections but rather the effectiveness of the victorious candidate's rule. Capitalism's prolonged and endless crisis has created conditions that make this election cycle of 2016 critical for those in power. It will test the durability of the capitalist system in a post-Obama period where the seeds of resistance have been planted by the struggle against police brutality. Capitalism is banking that this election will draw people into electing politicians instead of building movements. This is the basis of the Bernie and Trump trap we must fight."
Article in full here...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie_and_trump_beyond_imperial_politics
On Black Lives Matter, Hillary Clinton, and the Necessity of Demands
-- by Danny Haiphong
“The Black Lives Matter conversation with Hillary Clinton teaches us critical lessons for future movement building efforts.”
(Snip)
"We came, we saw, he died," said then State Department head Hillary Clinton soon after leading the successful extrajudicial lynching of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Her statement came after the US-NATO imperialist invasion overthrew one of the few truly independent nations left on the African continent. But Hillary's grossly racist and paternalistic statement went largely unheard in the US precisely because the rule of imperialism has been so normalized and cleverly cloaked in the two-party corporate state. The election of 2016 is quickly approaching and the stars are aligned for Hilary Clinton to become the next Democratic Party presidential candidate. Black Lives Matter Boston and Worcester activists made a media splash following their encounter with Clinton earlier in the month. The encounter imparted two lessons: we must know who Hillary Clinton is and why demands are important for the struggle against imperialism as a whole."
"First, just who is Hillary Clinton? I wrote about the former secretary of state in 2014, detailing how the prospect of her taking the reigns from the Obama Administration meant more of the same imperialist Democratic Party politics to come. Hillary has never seen a war she did not like, whether waged on Black people in the US or nations abroad. Hillary supported the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the Afghan invasion before that. She was instrumental in the destabilization of Libya and remains actively involved in doing the same to Syria. Hillary has stated many times that her presidency would mean the obliteration of Iran and further provocations toward Russia. And this only skims the surface of Hilary Clinton's imperialist war policy."
"Furthermore, Hillary Clinton is a capitalist. Her racist and anti-working class policies have ruined countless lives. She began her career as a corporate lawyer and Wal-Mart board member. In these roles, Hillary worked tirelessly to keep wages low for Wal-Mart workers and austerity and bank bailouts high on the imperial agenda. When she became the "First Lady" of President Bill Clinton, she was an outspoken supporter of her husband's expansion of the Mass Black Incarceration State, his destruction of welfare, and his facilitation of the genocidal war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which continues to this day. She currently receives millions in donations from the largest banks to protect their predatory lending, austerity, and privatization measures. Hillary Clinton has always been, and will always be, an enemy of the oppressed for as long as her class is in power."
"So when Black Lives Matter Boston and Worcester activists attempted to appeal to her sensibilities and feelings, they quickly learned that she possesses none that overrule her thirst for profit and power. Hillary lectured the activists about what she believed was their flawed strategy. She told them to change laws and policies, not minds. But the activists lacked demands that could have forced Hillary to explain just how she would change laws and policies related to the Mass Black Incarceration State. Hillary used the space to paternalistically treat the activists like children in typical white supremacist fashion. The activists’ response to her racist paternalism included a request for Hilary to come up with a plan to reverse the US regime’s racist criminal justice policies. One activist even stated she "looked up" to Hillary Clinton as a young feminist. To “look up” to Hillary and expect her to reverse policies that have shaped her very career sheds light on both the importance of demands and a larger crisis of consciousness."
Full article here...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/black_lives_matter_hilllary_demands
Confronting Columbus: Revisionism Versus Reality
--by Colin Jenkins
(Snip)
" Regarding the painstaking process of historiography, someone of relative importance once remarked, "History is written by the victors." A statement which echoes Plato's dictum that, "those who tell the stories also hold the power," its modern source is unclear. Still, many do not hesitate to attach these words to Winston Churchill, Britain's renowned Prime Minister during the Second World War. Considering Churchill's own history – born into an aristocratic family; his grandfather the 7th Duke of Marlborough; his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, a wealthy British statesman; his mother, Jennie Jerome, an "American socialite," herself the daughter of a financier, speculator, and mass landowner – and the fact that he made an early living overseeing the mass killing of indigenous Africans and Indians located everywhere from Bombay to Sudan to South Africa, such a statement would hardly come as a surprise. If "victory" is defined in terms of deploying one's immense privilege – whether socioeconomic, "racial," or national – to enslave, oppress, and murder others who lack such privilege in order to maintain that very system for oneself and generations to come, then Winston Churchill was certainly one of history's "victors."
(Snip)
"The act of whitewashing history – whether literally through the domination of Eurocentric perspectives, or figuratively through blatant omission and revisionism – is certainly common practice. It is the "victors" main tool in shaping history. Historical revisionism has been defined as "a consciously falsified or distorted interpretation of the past to serve partisan or ideological purposes in the present;" "a collective task in a nation's cultural development, the full significance of which is emerging only now: to redefine a nation's status in a changing world;" or the act "of 'truth-seekers' finding different truths to fit the needed political, social, or ideological context." In the United States of America, such revisionism becomes immediately apparent when one steps into a public school classroom, where histories of indigenous genocide and human enslavement are, at best, minimized and, at worst, utilized to stroke a false sense of superiority and exceptionalism; and where the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity are magically transformed from conquerors to "explorers," from murderers to "adventurers," and from slave masters to "patriots" and "founding fathers," all in the stroke of a pen or the voice of a lecture."
(Snip)
"Historiography is the proving ground for this ongoing struggle between revisionism and reality. The ruling classes deploy their army of "traditional intellectuals," born and bred of privilege and churned through the most prestigious schools and universities, to protect the dominant ideology through a sophisticated presentation of revisionism. The working classes, struggling to maintain actualities, look upon their own ranks to create a semblance of reality as the torchbearers of truth. Hanging in the balance is the direction of society: towards continued polarization, inequities, and dehumanization, or towards a sense of being – something that cannot be realized without truth."
(Snip)
"The "whitewashing" of history has an intended purpose: to control information and knowledge, to keep the "huddled masses" ignorant, and to maintain the status quo. The Churchills of the world and their keepers would have it no other way. For if history were reality-based, the immense wealth and power they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy – which has been accumulated through the stolen resources of indigenous peoples, and multiplied on the backs of the enslaved, the imprisoned, the working classes and the peasantry – would cease to exist. If history were reality-based, the hierarchical systems that keep this illegitimate wealth and power intact, and the government watchdogs that protect these systems, would cease to exist."
" Reject revisionism. Embrace reality. We have nothing to lose but our chains."
Full article at link...
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/confrontingcolumbus.html
White Nationalism on the March
--by Glen Ford
"The white nationalists of the Tea Party “movement” claim to abhor big government, but what they actually reject is a social contract with the non-white populations of the United States. Race is the subtext, the coded message of the Right's resurgence. The white Right want “their” country back – but we won't let them have it. "
(Snip)
The campaign to bring White nationalism, the founding ideology of the United States, fully out of the closet, kicks into a higher gear on the Right’s anti-holiday, April 15. Newt Gingrich and the various tribes of White Rightists unveil their “Contract From America,” a scaled-down version of the manifesto the Republicans rallied around to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives, in 1994. The 2010 “contract” is leaner, built for mass Caucasian consumption. It is written largely in code, the language of obfuscation that American racists speak in an attempt to hide their white supremacist beliefs from others – and, in many cases, from themselves. Indeed, much of American mass political speech is conducted in code, allowing white people to identify each other through terms like “middle class,” “family values,” “taxpayers,” “patriots,” “law-abiding” – terms which, although literally applicable to people of every ethnicity, are understood to mean “good white American citizens.”
(Snip)
Corporate media almost universally describe the Tea Partyers as “anti-government” – which is nonsense. They oppose the government providing assistance – economic, legal, educational, real or imagined – to those that are “undeserving,” which in their world consists mostly of folks that can be defined by race, language or religion (using code words, when required by polite society). Naturally, the average Tea Partyer – when sober – will deny having “a racist bone” in his body, but any group whose unifying characteristic is daily engorgement on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is, by definition, racist. Anyone who tries to tell you different, is far too tolerant of bigoted behavior, assumptions and speech to be anything but a closet racist, himself.
(Snip)
"What the Tea Partyers really oppose is a social contract among all the resident peoples of the United States. In this, they are indeed the direct political progeny of the Founding Fathers and the great mass of white settlers, who found the very concept of full U.S. citizenship for Africans and Native Americans monstrously repugnant, a devaluation of their superior white selves. Racism in the national womb prevented the United States from forging a genuine social contract between whites and Others. More to the point, white people rejected any relationship that did not recognize and maintain white supremacy. This was to be forever a White Man’s country, expanding as far as might and money could take it – but white, white, white."
Full article at link...
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/white-nationalism-march
A little old...but fitting in light of the Republican debate and the media saturated "monumental rise" of Trump and his followers.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Jul 10, 2015, 11:32 PMNumber of posts: 692
