Featured Post

The white-Left Part 1: The two meanings of white

Monday, June 5, 2017

@BillMaher didn't call anybody a nigger, MSM needs a grammar lesson

Watching the morning news on my day off, I saw many commentators correctly criticize President Trump for using a quote out of context in his racist twitter attack on London Mayor Sadiq Khan. While they were pretty uniform in pointing out the dishonest way that Trump used Mayor Khan's words, they also uniformly failed to identify it as a racist attack, but we all know the Mayor of London is being attacked by Trump because he is a prominent Muslim, they same way Trump has attacked a federal judge for having Mexican ancestry, and claimed a past US president was born in Kenya. We have a racist president. That is the simple truth of the matter.


When the news got to the scandal surrounding Bill Maher calling himself a "house-nigger," they refused to provide the context. Even the paper of record, the New York Times ran a piece by Wesley Morris, that never bothered to define the word, let alone, go into its history:
The flap over his language transpired during a weekend of more terrorism in London, and at the end of a week in which a racist spray-painted a slur on a LeBron James home in Los Angeles; and Portland, Ore., braced itself for a white supremacist rally. Mr. Maher’s incident seems fit for the basket labeled “Life’s too short.”

He didn’t commit a hate crime. He overstepped his privilege as a famous comedian. That’s all. But if he crossed a line, it’s one that, for white people, has never moved.
From The Washington Post we get this description of the incident that caused the flap:
He was exchanging small talk with Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who represents Nebraska. “I’ve got to get to Nebraska more,” Maher said. “You’re welcome. We’d love to have you work in the fields with us,” the senator noted.

“Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house n––––r,” Maher said.
Unlike the NY Times, the Post deemed it inappropriate to even to spell out the word, but neither did it provide the context or a definition. As a consequence, both papers, and virtually every other commentator I'm heard on this subject, has made a basic error in accusing Bill Maher of using the "n-word," when it point of fact, he didn't.

The word Bill Maher used was "house nigger," which is an open compound word. It has the same relationship to "nigger" as "ice cream" has to "ice" or "cream", "French fry," has to "fry", "land mine" to "mine", etc. If you were thirsty and I sold you a bottle of salt water, you would feel conned, and rightfully so. Not only is it illegitimate to use one part of a compound word to claim that word was used, it is bad grammar. I'm sorry to have to give grammar lessons to the likes of the New York Times and the Washington Post, but until I can beat a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, by showing the judge that I was wearing a belt, I will understand that Bill Maher did not use the word "nigger," he used the word "house nigger," which has another meaning entirely.

In this case context may be even more important that in the case of the President's tweets about the London mayor, because while the term "nigger" is most often used as pejorative racial term, especially when it is spray painted on someone's home, "house nigger" is not a pejorative racial term, it is a pejorative class term, generally used by those who see the "field niggers" as representing the best people in that equation. In other words, the derogatory character of the word "house nigger" attaches to the "house" part of this compound word, not the "nigger" part. No one in the media seems to get that.

What these Times and Post pieces failed to do, what all the MSM [that I have watched so far this AM] has failed to do, in fairness to both Bill Maher and their audiences, is to properly set the context or define the word, and you can not do that without reference to Malcolm X's famous speech about the house nigger and the field Negro. I have no doubt that is what Bill Maher was referring to, but the Times and Post don't mention it.

"House nigger" or "house Negro" are class terms that developed within the context of racial slavery, they can only be understood in relationship to their complement, the "field nigger" or "field Negro." One of the earliest references to these class categories was found in Report of the Committee of the African Institution. London: William Phillips, George Yard, Lombard Street. 1807:
A wretched old woman came to me a few days ago, to tell me she was compelled to work in the field. She was a favourite house-negro in her former master's family, and had nursed one of his children. Being ordered to throw a mixture of gunpowder and salt-water on the mangled bodies of the negroes whipped in the market-place, she refused, and incurred the displeasure of her master; and her intellects have since been evidently disordered.
Here we can clearly see that these 19th century Englishman considered "house-negro" to be one word because they hyphenated it in their written report. [ From this short passage it would appear that then they hyphenated many compound words that we now don't: salt-water, market-place. ]   With Bill Maher we are dealing with the spoken word, so the dishonest transcribers can write it anyway they want. If they were honest they would hear Bill Maher say "house-nigger," with a pause between the two phrases shorter than between individual words and would have accurately transcribed it as "house-nigger," but that would have ruined their whole game, wouldn't it?

Now as to the meaning of the word house-negro or house-nigger.

Since the categories of "House Negro" and "Field Negro" have only been used in association with the other, and since they have been used almost exclusively by African American people to describe African American people, they can't be understood as racial categories, only as class categories, or to put the matter more bluntly, as class differences within a group that has been socially isolated by national oppression. "House Negro" is not an exact synonym for "house nigger," and as metaphors they have much wider application that must not be lost because certain parts of words are banned,

The indispensable modern context in which to understand the concept of the house nigger and the field Negro is Malcolm X's "Message to the Grass Roots" on 10 November 1963.

Here an important a matter of definition should be clarified. Malcolm X makes clear in the first paragraph of his speech that he is speaking to all people of color, and that he identifies all non-white people as Negroes:
We’re her problem. The only reason she has a problem is she doesn’t want us here. And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red, or yellow — a so-called Negro — you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you’re not wanted.
It is therefore a racial term to the same extent and in the same way that "non-white" is a racial term. Ditto, the way he uses the word "black":
The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is world-wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution — that’s a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia. Revolution is in Africa. And the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he’ll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is?
In this period, Malcolm X saw all people of color as being on the right side of the struggle and the "white man" or "white power structure" as being the oppressor, but we are particularly interested it what he had to say about contradictions among the people of color:
To understand this, you have to go back to what young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro — back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes – they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good ’cause they ate his food — what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master’s house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, “We got a good house here,” the house Negro would say, “Yeah, we got a good house here.” Whenever the master said “we,” he said “we.” That’s how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master’s house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, “What’s the matter, boss, we sick?” We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s run away, let’s escape, let’s separate,” the house Negro would look at you and say, “Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?” That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a “house nigger.” And that’s what we call him today, because we’ve still got some house niggers running around here.
Malcolm's description of the house nigger hits too close to home for most of Bill Maher's critics to give it its due. That is why they failed to mention it.

Malcolm went on to describe the field Negro:
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro — those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn’t get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call ’em “chitt’lin’” nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That’s what you were — a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.

The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro — remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn’t try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he’d die. If someone come to the field Negro and said, “Let’s separate, let’s run,” he didn’t say “Where we going?” He’d say, “Any place is better than here.” You’ve got field Negroes in America today. I’m a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man’s house on fire, you don’t hear these little Negroes talking about “our government is in trouble.” They say, “The government is in trouble.”
When Malcolm X said "The masses are the field Negroes," he wasn't just talking about people with African heritage, he was talking about most of the people in the world. He made this very important distinction between the house-Negroes and the field-Negroes, so that he could explain what was really happening in the civil rights movement at the time. He then told how the famous 1963 March on Washington was corrupted by house-Negroes like Martin Luther King, Jr. His lessons are still very relevant today:
When Martin Luther King failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia, the civil-rights struggle in America reached its low point. King became bankrupt almost, as a leader. Plus, even financially, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was in financial trouble; plus it was in trouble, period, with the people when they failed to desegregate Albany, Georgia. Other Negro civil-rights leaders of so-called national stature became fallen idols. As they became fallen idols, began to lose their prestige and influence, local Negro leaders began to stir up the masses. In Cambridge, Maryland, Gloria Richardson; in Danville, Virginia, and other parts of the country, local leaders began to stir up our people at the grassroots level. This was never done by these Negroes, whom you recognize, of national stature. They controlled you, but they never incited you or excited you. They controlled you; they contained you; they kept you on the plantation.

As soon as King failed in Birmingham, Negroes took to the streets. King got out and went out to California to a big rally and raised about — I don’t know how many thousands of dollars come to Detroit and had a march and raised some more thousands of dollars. And recall, right after that ] Wilkins attacked King, accused King and the CORE of starting trouble everywhere and then making the NAACP get them out of jail and spend a lot of money; and then they accused King and CORE of raising all the money and not paying it back. This happened; I’ve got it in documented evidence in the newspaper. Roy started attacking King, and King started attacking Roy, and Farmer started attacking both of them. And as these Negroes of national stature began to attack each other, they began to lose their control of the Negro masses.

The Negroes were out there in the streets. They were talking about how they were going to march on Washington. Right at that time Birmingham had exploded, and the Negroes in Birmingham remember, they also exploded. They began to stab the crackers in the back and bust them up 'side their head' yes, they did. That's when Kennedy sent in the troops, down in Birmingham. After that, Kennedy got on the television and said "this is a moral issue." That's when he said he was going to put out a civil-rights bill. And when he mentioned civil-rights bill and the Southern crackers started talking about how they were going to boycott or filibuster it, then the Negroes started talkingロabout what? That they were going to march on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on the Congress, and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land. I'm telling you what they said. That was revolution. That was revolution. That was the black revolution.

It was the grass roots out there in the street. It scared the white man to death, scared the white power structure in Washington, D.C., to death; I was there. When they found out that this black steamroller was going to come down on the capital, they called in Wilkins, they called in Randolph, they called in these national Negro leaders that you respect and told them, "Call it off." Kennedy said, "Look, you all are letting this thing go too far." And Old Tom said, "Boss, I can't stop it, because I didn't start." I'm telling you what they said. They said, "I'm not even in it, much less at the head of it." They said, "These Negroes are doing things on their own. They're running ahead of us." And that old shrewd fox, he said, "If you all aren't in it, I'll put you in it. I'll put you at the head of it. I'll endorse it. I'll welcome it. I'll help it. I'll join it."

A matter of hours went by. They had a meeting at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City. The Carlyle Hotel is owned by the Kennedy family; that's the hotel Kennedy spent the night at, two nights ago; it belongs to his family. philanthropic society headed by a white man named Stephen Currier called all the top civil-rights leaders together at the Carlyle Hotel. And he told them, "By you fighting each other, you are destroying the civil-rights movement. And since you're fighting over money from the liberals, let us set up what is known as the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership. Let's form this council and all the civil-rights organizations will belong to it, and we'll use it for fund-raising purposes." Let me show you how tricky the white man is. As soon as they got formed, they elected Whitney Young as its chairman, and who do you think became the co-chairman? Stephen Currier, the white man, a millionaire. Powell was talking bout it down at Cobo Hall today. This is what he was talking about. Powell knows it happened. Randolph knows happened. Wilkins knows it happened. King knows it happened. Every one of that Big Six, they know happened.

Once they formed it, with the white man over it, he promised them and gave them $800,000 to split up among the Big Six; and told them that after the march was over they'd give them $700,000 more. A million and a half dollars split up between leaders that you have been following, going to jail for, crying crocodile tears for. And they're nothing but Frank James and Jesse James and the what-do-you-call-'em brothers.

As soon as they got the setup organized, the white man made available to them top public-relations experts, opened the news media across the country at their disposal, which then began to project these Big Six as the leaders of the march. Originally they weren't even in the march. You were talking this march talk on Hastings Street, you were talking march talk on Lenox Avenue, and on Fillmore Street, and on Central Avenue, and 32nd Street and 63rd Street. That's where the march talk was being talked. But the white man put the Big Six at the head of it; made them the march. They became the march. They took it over. And the first move they made after they took it over, they invited Walter Reuther, a white man; they invited a priest, a rabbi, and an old white preacher, yes, an old white preacher. The same white element that put Kennedy into powerロlabor, the Catholics, the Jews, and liberal Protestants; the same clique that put Kennedy in power, joined the march on Washington

It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What do you do? You integrate it with cream, you make it weak. But if you pour too much cream in it, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it puts you to sleep. This is what they did with the march on Washington. They joined it. They didn't integrate it, they infiltrated it. They joined it, became a part of it, took it over. And as they took it over, it lost its militancy. It ceased to be angry, it ceased to be hot, it ceased to be uncompromising. Why, it even ceased to be a march. It became a picnic, a circus. Nothing but a circus, with clowns and all. You had one right here in Detroit. I saw it on television, with clowns leading it, white clowns and black clowns. I know you don't like what I'm saying, but I'm going to tell you anyway. Because I can prove what I'm saying. If you think I'm telling you wrong, you bring me Martin Luther King and A. Philip Randolph and James Farmer and those other three, and see if they'll deny it over a microphone.

No, it was a sellout. It was a takeover. When James Baldwin came in from Paris, they wouldn't let him talk, because they couldn't make him go by the script. Burt Lancaster read the speech that Baldwin was supposed to make; they wouldn't let Baldwin get up there, because they know Baldwin is liable to say anything.
Most of the journalist that have been attacking Bill Maher "for using the n-word," are house-niggers for capitalism, so they have good reasons for confusing the subject while hiding the real class content of what he was saying. Anyway, the best thing about this little dustup caused by Bill Maher's gaffe is that it gives us an opportunity to revisit Malcolm X's very important "Message to the Grass Roots:"



Friday, June 2, 2017

"DeathWish Donald" Trump's curious obsession with "Nuclear Global Warming"

We know that modern biological humans, homo sapiens, have been around for a quarter million years or more, but our progress has been very slow to a point. We emerged from Africa and came to dominate the planet only about 100,000 years ago and as recently as 6,000 years ago, did without written languages, basic tools, or anything that would pass for civilization.

But there have been a lot of bridges built since then, and a lot of water has flowed under them. Our past ten thousand years of tool making have given us the technology to defeat most of the problems that have plagued human existence. Now it is only social reorganization that stands between our current hell and something approaching heaven on Earth.

To the optimist this seems inevitable; its only a matter of time before we work out these differences and reorganize society for the benefit of humanity instead of the accumulation of dead capital. This reorganization will also save the planet by properly establishing humanity as the guardians of its health. While how this is done may be both important and traumatic to those who must live the changes, it matters little in the overall scheme of things, say from the point of view of humans a million years hence, whether this process takes a hundred years or a thousand years.

This scenario assumes there will be enough time for completion, which there should be given our Sun is expected to shine for at least another five billion years. Of course, there might always be the odd asteroid waiting to send us the way of the dinosaurs, but statistically we know the chances of that happening range between slim and none. Besides, our technology has already developed to the point where we can track Earth aimed objects, and soon we will actually be able to defend against most - the Galactic threshold of intelligent species maturity!

Excepting that extremely remote possibility, there is nothing to stand in the way of the ultimate triumph of humanity but people. There are two looming [hu]man made threats to human existence that must first be contained before we can have even another hundred years to deal with all the others. One is a quick death, the other is a slow death. Either could end not only humanity, but all life on Earth as we know it. They are nuclear war and global warming.

Nuclear war and global warming are generally seen as two quite separate topics with little in common, save this one important distinction: together they form an exclusive class of self-destructive human activities that threaten extinction. AFAIK, this class has only those two current members, and immediate threats.

What are we then to make of the fact that the current President of the United States has long made a rather warped connection between these dual threats in his own mind, and now that he has the power, appears bent on making both of them worst?


            a prophetic warning?


He again made this curious connection as a presidential candidate, when he was interviewed by the Washington Post Editorial Board in March of last year. Note, he made the rather bizarre connection between global warming and nuclear war, not them. This is the section of the Washington Post interview of 21 March 2016 on global warming and nuclear weapons:
FRED HIATT, WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR: You think climate change is a real thing? Is there human-caused climate change?

DONALD TRUMP: I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not – I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room – but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

STEPHEN STROMBERG, EDITORIAL WRITER: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?

DONALD TRUMP: Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear weapons.
He fastened on the same way in CNN’s town hall in Milwaukee, 30 March 2016:

Trump: ‘Only Global Warming I'm Worried about Is Nuclear Global Warming’


Trump may not believe in climate change, but he certainly believes in nuclear weapons, the Trump presidency was barely a month old before he started talking about building more bombs:
Trump: US must be 'top of the pack' in nuclear weapons capability

By Laura Smith-Spark
24 February 2017
(CNN) President Donald Trump has expressed concern that the United States has "fallen behind" in its nuclear weapons capacity and that he would like to restore its supremacy.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Trump said he would prefer a world free of nuclear weapons but otherwise the United States should be "at the top of the pack." More...
Not only does he want the US to continue to have more nuclear weapons than anyone else, he wants more nuclear weapons in the world generally. The Washington Post reported:
Donald Trump thinks more countries should have nuclear weapons.

By Gene Gerzhoy and Nick Miller
6 April 2016
According to Donald Trump, the United States should not try so hard to stop nuclear proliferation. On Sunday night, during a Republican town hall hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Trump declared that proliferation is “going to happen anyway.” And just a week earlier, Trump told the New York Times, “If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.” Nor would it be so bad, he’s said, if South Korea and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons, too.

We can break down Trump’s assertions into two ideas: Proliferation is inevitable, and it is good for the United States — at least when its allies are the ones going nuclear. More...

Yesterday he announced that the United States was leaving the Paris climate agreement, to become the third country to stand outside of this united effort to save the planet. Donald Trump's policies on both nuclear weapons and global warming are driven by a death wish, that is the bottom line for his brand of imperial nationalism in this age of global challenges to our continued existence on this planet.

This is the defining struggle of the 21st Century:

Trump & the Nationalists versus the World.
Which side are you on?



As if Donald Trump didn't love fracking even more than Hillary Clinton, in addition to having a "deathwish" position on climate change. This is how you perform for Putin and convince Americans to elect the greater of the two evils.

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Thursday, May 25, 2017

How Tarqi Ali helped elect Trump

Formerly titled "Help me, Tarqi Ali"

Tarqi Ali is a well known "anti-imperialist"  British political commentator. Although Tarqi Ali is not a United States citizen, that didn't stop him from campaigning in the 2016 US presidential election, and because he is well known, and in certain quarters, well regarded, his campaigning was very beneficial to Donald Trump. In the runup to the US presidential election, Tarqi Ali argued that American voters should vote for Jill Stein or not vote at all. He even argued that with regards to US foreign military aggression, Trump was the lesser evil of the two contenders. Since this was a message directed at progressives, not Trump supporters, it had the effect of suppressing the vote for Hillary Clinton. As we have shown earlier, the vote for Jill Stein in just three states made the difference between President Trump and President Clinton. This headline, which Google finds about 147 times, meaning the piece was widely republished, makes his basic argument:
Tariq Ali considers the US election campaign and asks, is Trump is any worse than Clinton? Is this a case of electing the lesser of two evils, or is there another option?
Tarqi Ali - US 2016: Trump or Hillary? | 12 Oct 2016


Below are some excerpts I have transcribed in chronological order from this 12th of October pre-election performance, together with my comments:
People in different parts of the world increasingly feel that it will make no difference who is elected president of the United States as far as the world is concerned.
Unfortunately, it already appears that it is going to make a great deal of difference to people in many parts of the world that Donald Trump has been elected president of the US, and far from being indifferent to America's choice, they are scratching their heads in horror at it, a choice Ali encouraged.
What is annoying about the campaign is the way Trump has been completely demonized, 
This is rich! Remember the emails? Classified material on a private server! Oh the horror! Somehow, that and getting an early look at the debate questions seems like small potatoes now.
There were certainly strong undertones of racism from the Clintons when Obama was running for the presidency
While Tarqi Ali did acknowledge that Trump is "bigoted" towards Latinos, the way Nixon was towards African Americans (implying Trump isn't??), he never mentions the worldwide alt-right white nationalist movement that Trump is a part of, as is Putin and Le Pen, or his ties to Breitbart and the white supremacist leaders that he has since brought into the White House.
Politicians assume that the people have lost their memories. They think people no longer remember what was done.
This one is choice, given the context, because I certainly haven't lost mine. The whole point of this post is to remind everyone how Tarqi Ali shilled for Trump before 8 November, now that he has a new act and has brought it to Democracy Now.

Finally we get to his pitch of Trump as the lesser evil:
On the two key issues, NAFTA and war, whether we like it or not, Trump has got a slightly different position. On NAFTA, he says that under him they're going to get rid of it, and on wars he is saying he is less of a warmonger than Hillary is, and he's attacked the American military establishment, not by name but by saying these military maneuvers carried out on the Russia borders is a provocation. Well, that is something these days when the entire western media is screaming that the rogue in Eastern Europe and the periphery is Putin.
Facts are stubborn things, Tarqi. Putin is the rogue in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, and also Syria. That is why the entire non-Putin press says so. As for Trump's alleged strong points, NAFTA and war, we are still in the adolescence of his presidency and we can already see how wrong Ali was. Trump has announced that NAFTA can stay "for now." As for war, we already have a lot more war, with increased activity, and new troop deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, and the use of new and more powerful weapons; With the promise of a lot more to come, with Trump's saber rattling and posturing all over the globe, especially with regards to Iran and North Korea. Clearly he wants war badly, and needs the diversion given his domestic troubles, and I'm afraid we shall soon have it. This recent piece from Military.com is a sign of the times:
New Details on Surprise Deployment as More Soldiers Head to War

U.S. soldiers board a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Hamam al-Alil, Iraq, Feb. 22, 2017. (U.S. Army photo/Jason Hull)
29 Mar 2017
by Matthew Cox

Amid additional announcements of Army troop deployments, the Pentagon on Wednesday released new details behind the recent surprise deployment of about 200 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to Iraq. More...
And now back to Ali:
If Hillary Clinton is elected it will be business as usual...If Trump is elected, well, we don't know what he's going to do, whether he will pull back American troops from different parts of the world, as he has promised, whether he will break the NAFTA agreements with neighboring countries. He could easily carry on in the same old way.
Or he could be much worst. That was foremost in the minds of those who voted for the lesser evil. Most knew Hillary Clinton meant "business as usual." They weren't stupid. They thought that would be better than Trump, and they were right. Right now "business as usual," meaning the past eight years, doesn't seem that bad, and I fear we ain't seen nothing yet, because it's going to prove very difficult to get these fools out of power now. The tragedy is that Trump almost certainly could have been defeated had the "Left" led by people like Ali et al, made defeating him a priority, which they didn't.
Every time there is an election in the United States the argument comes up who is the lesser evil? It's the politics of lesser-evilism that dominate American politics. I understand that in a way because people don't want the worst candidate to win, but they always forget that in voting for the candidate that you think the lesser evil doesn't quite workout that way. 
People don't want the worst candidate to win. There is good reason for that. They don't just throw away their vote because their perfect candidate isn't running, or can't win. Smart people, I'd say. Most people, anyway.
The lesser evil is actually not that different from the other evil, the worst evil, and it's exactly the same in the current situation. There is no way in which Hillary [Clinton] could be defined as being better or more progressive than Trump, on most fundamental issues. I mean Obama himself started deporting illegal migrants from the United States, more than Bush had done. Hillary would have probably carried on that way.
I agree, Clinton (Does Ali refer to her mainly by her first name because she is a woman?) would have been as bad as Obama on illegal immigration, but Trump is much, much worst. For someone that doesn't even live in the United States, Trump's immigration policies might appear "not that different," but for millions of Dreamers and other law abiding undocumented workers in the US that now feel threatened with summary deportation at any moment, it makes a world of difference. Tarqi Ali's concern for the plight of these people is not that different from his concern for the Syrian people, which is slight.
I'm opposed to the lesser evil argument. I think if you don't agree with either candidate, you don't vote for them. If there's someone in the election, one of the minority candidates, you vote for them if you agree with them, otherwise how are things to move forward? I, myself, if I were I an American citizen, would be voting for Jill Stein.
Tarqi Ali thought that progressives should vote in a "principled" way that made them feel good, if only until the election results came in, and leave the decision as to who would actually serve as Commander-in-Chief to more backwards voters. This is the result.
You keep coming back to the question: Are either of these two candidates safe? In my opinion they're not, so better to vote for the candidate you agree with, or not bother to vote at all.
The Trump presidency is barely past the hundred day mark and already it is clear that it is the most dangerous presidency in living memory. No doubt, Hillary Clinton was the safest choice, but as we have seen, just enough progressives followed Tarqi Ali's advice to make the Trump presidency something the world must now survive, because, across the board, this white nationalist regime is putting it in greater jeopardy.

This data is from Politico [updated 22 Nov. 2016 - PA updated 2 Dec from http://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/ ]  shows how Jill Stein voters made the difference:

Candidate Count % Michigan [16] Wisconsin [10] Pennsylvania [20]
Donald Trump 61,201,031 47% 2,279,805 1,409,467 2,955,671
Hillary Clinton 62,523,126 48% 2,268,193 1,382,210 2,906,128
Difference 11,612 27,257 49,543
Jill Stein 802,119 0.7% 50,700 30,980 49,678

A week after Trump won, Tarqi Ali proclaimed "The End of Manufactured Consent," saying:
One moment of truth in all those enraged people who vote for Trump is that they nonetheless saw clearly that this traditional machine of manufacturing consent no longer works. To put it in slightly bombastic and exaggerated Marxist terms, the ruling ideology uses, mobilizes certain machinery to keep people in check. To control the excesses and so on. That machinery no longer works.
If the Trump victory showed anything it was that the racial delusions that bind many a European American worker to the most reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie still work quite well. Ignoring that, he heralded the death of the party that now effectively controls all three branches of the US government:
Trump nonetheless, if you are a leftist you should admire him sincerely, he almost singlehandedly destroyed the Republican party.
It's not destroyed yet, and under Trump's leadership it is becoming more reactionary than it ever was.

Tarqi Ali was on Democracy Now on Wednesday. Probably the first time since the election, which didn't mean we were going to hear anything self-critical of his earlier position. As with most of those in the "Never Hillary" camp, he isn't interested in looking back and learning anything, or openly celebrating his victory, so after Amy Goodman plays a clip of Trump in Bethlehem, they said:
AMY GOODMAN: That’s President Trump. Tariq Ali, your response?

TARIQ ALI:
Well, the response is fairly straightforward, Amy, that innocents are being killed by United States policies in different parts of the world. There are seven wars going on at the moment. Trump had promised to change course, as we all know, and everyone was a bit surprised, but he’s now returned to the normal behavior of an American president. He bombed Syria. He has made friends with Saudi Arabia. It was very entertaining to see Steve Bannon, one of his advisers, you know, trapped in a collection of Arab princes and Arab diplomats in Saudi Arabia. So, it’s business as usual.
Wrong Tarqi. It's not business as usual! That's what you rejected with Hillary Clinton. She was the lesser of the two evils. This is much worst! Some of us saw this coming, and opposed Trump's power grab before the election.  Everyone wasn't a bit surprised that Trump has turned out to be a bigger warmonger and a much greater evil than Barack Obama was, or Hillary Clinton would have been. Were you being naive or disingenuous in expecting The Donald to fulfill his promises? Also some of us don't find it at all entertaining to see a well known white nationalist like Steve Bannon inside the White House and so close to the president that he goes on foreign trips with him. Nor are we entertained by the presences of Stephen Miller, the white supremacist that wrote both Trump's Muslim ban and his Saudi speech, or the whole Putin connected white nationalist cabal that you helped to win state power.

But since you were such a strong Jill Stein supporter, perhaps you can help us answer this enduring mystery: Looking at the picture below, we see two Americans dining with Russian President Vladimir Putin and friends. Both of these Americans represented US presidential candidates Putin supported. One had absolutely no chance of winning. That was Jill Stein and she represented herself. Although she had no chance of winning, Putin supported her candidacy strongly through RT.com and other media outlets he has control or influence over like Democracy Now, because she would take away votes from the candidate Putin was backing to win. Like Julian Assange, who played frontman for the Russian hacks, and made a video appearance at this event, Donald Trump couldn't make a personal appearance either. Instead we have Mike Flynn, who was there representing the Trump campaign. We now know that one of these Americans was paid big bucks to sit at this table. That was Mike Flynn. Tarqi Ali, since you were such an active Jill Stein supporter, I'm hoping you can help us find out if she was paid, and if so how much? You see, I'm wondering if I can add a charge of sexual discrimination in the payment of foreign agents to the long list of crimes I already demonize Putin for.


Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Thursday, May 18, 2017

The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump - Zembla & vara.nl

I first watched this incredibly important documentary on Donald Trump's connections to Vladimir Putin and the Russian mob last night. I was undecided about putting out a blog post about it, thinking it would receive enough attention from other outlets with greater resources, until I heard KPFK Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles promoting it in exchange for a $150.00 pledge this morning. Since they were advertising that it was available exclusively from them on DVD, I figured the best funded progressive outlet in LA would not be too interested in letting people know they could watch it for free on YouTube.

I think it is important that this documentary receive the widest possible distribution. Especially now that Robert Mueller has been appointed Special Counsel for Russian Investigation, because they will likely put an end to public hearings by Comey and others as the Justice Department takes the official investigation behind closed door. This makes it all the more important that we do our own investigation and exposure.

BUT THE EMAILS!!!

We can only wish that KPFK had shown half the enthusiasm for criticizing Trump before the election as they have since. They spent last year doing everything they could to see that Hillary Clinton was defeated. That means they were really supporting the outcome they are railing against now. Even now, knowing of this critically important film from the Netherlands, they chose to use it for fundraising.

I just want you to see it:
The Dubious Friends of Donald Trump



Published on May 10, 2017
Dutch documentation/investigative journalism about the ties of Donald Trump to the Russian mobsters.

The original is located here https://vara.nl/media/372765
Here are some backup links: Part 1, Part 2




Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Since Khan Sheikhoun: Murders holocaust enablers don't argue about

Thousands of Syrian civilians have been murdered by the Assad Regime since the sarin attack that killed 92 in Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017. While a debate has raged in the West over the responsibility for those sarin murders on that particular day, the regime and its Russian masters have continued their grisly work of suppressing the freedom struggle of the Syrian people through the application of maximum violence.

Linux Beach has been very involved in this debate around the responsibility for those 92 deaths. Even today we are introducing a new page, Linux Beach Goes Postol, to bring together our most recent posts on that subject. But also today, we would like to take a step back from the technical discussions surrounding the facts of what happened on the morning of 4 April 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun, to take in the broader picture and better explain why we call those on the other side of this debate holocaust enablers.

Leading Veterans for Peace member Ray McGovern is one such holocaust enabler. My his own account he has "been working with Russia for the past 55 years." Through the good times and bad, you might say. He also heads a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity [VIPS] which has generally been quiet on Syrian atrocities, but did come out strongly questioning Assad's responsibility for the sarin murders in Ghouta on 21 August 2013, and again for the sarin murders of 4 April 2017. Both now and then they have relied on Postol's proofs in their defense of Assad.

Before I started writing in support of the Syrian Revolution, I produced and directed a documentary film, Vietnam: American Holocaust. I even got Martin Sheen involved with the project. I got a lot of flack for calling it a holocaust. So did he. It came from those that would recognize only one holocaust, and they capitalize [on] it. I called it a holocaust because more than three million people were brutally slaughtered. With a half-million dead and counting, I call the Syrian conflict a holocaust in the making for the same reason.

I didn't call it "South Vietnamese holocaust" because I didn't buy the US government mythology that they were just helping the government of a small third world country besieged by powerful outside forces at that lawful government's invitation. I knew damn well it was America that was calling the shots, and responsible for the bulk of the killing. Moscow claimed to have all of Syria's chemical weapons under control in December 2012. For years now, they have been the most powerful military force operating in Syria, and have had command and control of all pro-Assad forces. This is Putin's holocaust. It is extremely unlikely that this most recent sarin attack, and even the ones that took place in 2013, took place without his authorization.

In the "It's a Small World Afterall" Department, below we have Ray McGovern questioning ex-General Mike Flynn in Moscow about the Ghouta attack of 21 August 2013:

VFP member Ray McGovern questions Mike Flynn in Moscow about Ghouta Attack

Published on Apr 16, 2017
Gen. Michael Flynn answering a question about Syria in December, 2015 prior to joining the Trump team.
Although this wasn't published until after the Khan Sheikhoun sarin attack, this discussion took place in December 2015. It must have been at the gala RT.com 10th Anniversary event to which saw so many connected to Putin and last years US election make an appearance. In addition to those at the table with him, apparently Ray McGovern was there. Julian Assange even made a video appearance. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was getting Jill Stein to run for president.



One of the things I find most interesting about Ray McGovern's and Mike Flynn's discussion is how they just referred to it as "the Ghouta attack" when they are referring exclusively to the sarin attack of 21 August 2013, as if the Damascus opposition suburb wasn't bombed before that, or since. This is central to their role as holocaust enablers. By focusing on Assad's guilt or innocence in the case of a few chemical attacks, they obscure the day-to-day barrel bombing that is doing much more of the killing, and for which Putin is decidedly responsible, or the bodies being cremated in Assad's death camps. Because if they were to speak accurately about "the Ghouta attack" as a singularity, they could only be referring to the state of siege that community has been under since 2012, and continues to this day, as the videos below makes clear, even while we continue to argue about who was responsible for the 92 deaths on 4 April by sarin:

These air strikes on Ghouta two weeks after the latest sarin massacre have not been the subject of debate with regards to causality in the US. This is the way it goes for the day to day killing carried on by the regime and Russia. Since no one in the West cares about barrel bombs, the holocaust enablers don't need to try to peddle stories about rebels setting off barrel-bombs in the street just when helicopters fly by.

Airstrikes on Harasta in Eastern Ghouta, Damascus a month ago

Published on Apr 18, 2017
bombardamenti dell'esercito siriano ai danni dei ribelli a Damasco
As this video makes clear, this community has been under siege since 2012. Many thousands have died and still the people refuse to submit to the regime:

Eastern Ghouta Under Siege الغوطة حصار الموت

Published on Apr 29, 2017
Eastern Ghouta left to die
A month after the latest sarin attack, the people attacked with sarin in 2013, are still under siege and their situation is desperate. Did those who defended Assad in the case of that chemical weapons attack, and then went silent with regards to his hundreds of conventional attacks on the same community, contribute to this slaughter?

Residents of besieged Ghouta fear it is time to flee

Published on May 4, 2017
The humanitarian situation on the outskirts of the Syrian capital is worsening. The opposition stronghold of Ghouta has been repeatedly targeted by government forces, and residents now fear they may be forced to leave. Al Jazeera's Hashem Ahelbara reports from Gaziantep, on the Turkey-Syrian border.

The Syrian revolutionaries in Ghouta have had to fight a war on two fronts for years now. Here they are demonstrating against the jihadists, even while the Assad regime and its western contributors claim there are no revolutionaries, only jihadists:

Large scale protests against Hayyat Tahrir al Sham in Ghouta

Published on May 8, 2017
Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda in the Levant have come among us and are intruding into the Syrian Revolution.

And like the Regime, the jihadists attack the Syrian Revolution with armed violence:

Protesters shot at during demonstration in Ghouta, Syria

Published on Apr 30, 2017
Eastern Ghouta, Syria. Jaish al-Islam did the shooting according to sources. Demonstrators were protesting recent infighting between Tahrir al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam. Uploaded from Liveleak.

One problem with the Syrian Revolution has always been that although it has been a true people's revolution, there has been no central leadership. Both fighting and civil organizations have developed at the local level and the struggle for unity has been a constant one.

Homs: Syrian Opposition Calls To End The Conflict In Damascus's Ghouta

Published on May 5, 2017
Syrian opposition forces in Homs countryside read a statement and called the Syrian opposition forces in Eastern Ghouta area, Rif Dimashq province to halt the fight among its groups and unite against the Syrian regime forces
Here are a couple more blog posts we have published about the brave people of Ghouta:
01/27/2015 With Left support, Assad continues to kill in East Ghouta
10/07/2013 The Courage of Ghouta in a Craven World


Sadly, the situations under Assad's control is looking more like a holocaust everyday. The Washington Post reported yesterday:
U.S. says Syria built crematorium to handle mass prisoner killings

Karen DeYoung
15 May 2017
The Syrian government has constructed and is using a crematorium at its notorious Sednaya military prison near Damascus to clandestinely dispose of the bodies of prisoners it continues to execute inside the facility, the State Department said Monday.

Thousands of executed detainees have been dumped in mass graves in recent years, said acting assistant secretary of state Stuart Jones. “What we’re assessing is that if you have that level of production of mass murder, then ­using the crematorium would . . . allow the regime to manage that number of corpses . . . without evidence.”

“We believe that the building of a crematorium is an effort to cover up the extent of mass murders taking place in Sednaya prison,” he said in a briefing for reporters. More...




Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for my posts on the 2016 US Election
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria
Click here for a list of my other blogs on Libya