 |
| The man who defeated the Nazis is a Nazi now? |
Churchill understood that if allowed to enter Europe in large numbers the alien settler, whether Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or Confucian, would seek to establish their race, their culture, their religion in place of the native peoples of Europe, their culture and their religion.
Hence, naturally, the hatred of Churchill by the immigrants that depraved or insane politicians and their demented white supporters have allowed to enter Europe's narrow borders in numbers that cannot possibly be assimilated to the native nations of Europe.
Systemic racism is the basis of every nation state. Try insisting otherwise to the Chinese, the Indians, the South Africans, or the people of any other country you care to name, and see how quickly they invite in the teaming masses from the slums of London or Glasgow, New York or Chicago.
Anti-racism is the ideology of the globalists: smash the nation state and the money power will exercise control through the corrupt global and multi-national institutions such as the UN, the WHO, NATO, the EU, and dozens of others.
In Canada, systemic racism is the very basis of the state. The stability and unity of the Canadian confederation, a creation of the British-born Sir John A. MacDonald, depends on the acquiescence of the four-hundred-year-old French colony of Quebec. Hence, respect the nation, i.e., the institutions, the language and the traditions of the French nation in North America, was the mantra of Canada's founding fathers.
Likewise, Canada's relations with the indigenous peoples, Indian and Innuit, depends on respect for these so-called first nations, their racial integrity as reflected in their right to control who may live on native land, and their right to their own institutions of government.
Without systemic racism, no nation can stand. Anti-racists are dupes or agents of a globalist conspiracy to destroy the European nations: a conspiracy for the genocide of the European peoples as both racial and cultural entities.
Related
ZH: Cornell Law Prof Says There's A "Coordinated Effort" To Have Him Fired After He Criticized Black Lives Matter
ZH: Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative
Patrick Buchanan: Will Churchill’s Statue Be Next to Fall?
AmConMag:What Is ‘Systemic Racism,’ Really?
Gilad Atzmon: Weimar 2020
Maverick Philosopher: 'Systemic Racism' is a Vicious, Hate-America, Leftist Myth
HideOutNow: Black Lives Matter ‘What We Believe’ Page: ‘Disrupt The Western-Prescribed Nuclear Family,’ ‘Dismantle Cisgender Privilege’
ZH: BLM Protesters Vandalize Abraham Lincoln Statue In London
ZH: Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative
Patrick Buchanan: Will Churchill’s Statue Be Next to Fall?
AmConMag:What Is ‘Systemic Racism,’ Really?
| The underlying essence of the narrative is an increasingly brutal and incendiary polemical assault on a demographic segment of the nation–white people. They are guilty, it is said with increasing aggressiveness, for the sins of their forebears, for the racism of the past. And they must confess their guilt and seek absolution through self-abasement. Read more |
Gilad Atzmon: Weimar 2020
Maverick Philosopher: 'Systemic Racism' is a Vicious, Hate-America, Leftist Myth
HideOutNow: Black Lives Matter ‘What We Believe’ Page: ‘Disrupt The Western-Prescribed Nuclear Family,’ ‘Dismantle Cisgender Privilege’
ZH: BLM Protesters Vandalize Abraham Lincoln Statue In London
Thanks for the link about Lincoln (Link on Linc?) not really surprised. About the whole picture, there's a fairly unbelievable video at Know More News that shows the most outrageous images of real supremacy out there:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=athqBSwOzBE
Flip to the end of the show just after 1 hour 28 minutes for both Brit and US Trojan Horses crowing during this... what I guess is the Victory lap. Whole thing has some depressing images I had not seen. But we seem to be defeated already; so many on their knees. When did we lose the war?
Thanks for the video link. For those who think only white people are racist, this link takes you directly to the money shot at one twenty-eight.
Delete"So many on their knees"
DeleteLike Justin Trudeau.
"When did we lose the war?"
The rot began with the drive for ever more education, with the result that people spend an ever greater proportion of their lives in a "Lord of the Flies" world dominated not by experienced grown-up people, but by other children.
In such a world, the more childish-minded become the teachers and professors who make a childish mentality the only acceptable ideology.
Thus is opened the way for the corporate interests to suck in cheap alien labor: people from poor places where life is hard and competition is for keeps. Arriving in Lalaland, the replacement workforce finds itself in a world up for grabs, a world they have no hesitation in grabbing, rubbishing the natives in the process.
It's pretty much a replay of the European expansion after 1493, but with the tide flowing the other way. As one Canadian Indian chief remarked of the Europeans: "we should have killed them all when they first arrived." But they didn't. Now, likewise, the Europeans are blind to the impending destruction of their own nations, a destruction brought on by the their own foolish and corrupt leaders.
Hi CS,
ReplyDeleteI went to your money shot, and while there, over on the sidebar saw a link to this recent Cornell West interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkYJeMwlsto
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.
I hadn't seen much of Cornell West since he began publicly attacking Barack Obama and the neoliberal agenda I don't know how many years ago, (9-10?).
My feeling is what you are saying and he is saying don't disagree, but he is leaving out immigration altogether, and this is a serious flaw. He speaks of mobilizing the best of our country's past, and who could disagree? He is thinking here of some of the best contributions of our ethnically-diverse society which has been a part of our society from the very beginning. Yet a lot of ethnically-diverse people in the USA would know nothing of these contributions, wouldn't care about them, and wouldn't be and couldn't be thinking in terms of drawing on them. They probably have no stake in the nation or its culture or the perpetuation of its ideals and institutions, and why would they?
"In absolute numbers, the United States has a larger immigrant population than any other country, with 47 million immigrants as of 2015.[2] This represents 19.1% of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, and 14.4% of the U.S. population. Some other countries have larger proportions of immigrants, such as Switzerland with 24.9% and Canada with 21.9%." --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
We're talking about legal immigration above, i.e. immigration sanctioned and approved through laws of the land, aka deliberate. We're leaving out the children of immigrants, the first generation Americans. We're also leaving out the illegal aliens,
"As of 2019, FAIR estimates that there are approximately 14.3 million illegal aliens residing within the United States."--
FAIRus.orgwww.fairus.org › how-many-illegal-aliens-united-states
That's an estimate, subject to error and methodological uncertainty. If it is in the ball park, this pops the total immigrant population in the USA to 61 million and the percentage of immigrants overall to 18%, roughly. I have always felt the illegal immigration was as sanctioned(by the power elite) as the legal immigration or else we would have taken measures to curtail it. I also believe we pursued measures to make it nearly inevitable, such as destroying the societies of Central America.
I also thought Brian Jones made about the best point I've ever heard him make when he said what we're seeing is a kind of confluence of effects spilling out into the street, 50 million unemployed Americans-- 50 million!-- being a part of that.
"My feeling is what you are saying and he is saying don't disagree..."
DeleteIf by that you mean that Cornell West exemplifies the childish nonsense taught in Western universities today, then I'd agree.
That he is employed as a philosopher is proof that the American university, Harvard, no less, is intellectually bankrupt, and the sooner young people recognize the scam that the universities are engaged in the better it will be for young people.
I didn't watch the whole of the West interview, or rather diatribe, but he seems to be no more than another black scoundrel demanding every white American go on bended knee to apologize for America's history.
History is history, Americans have nothing to apologize for except their own sins. If white Americans are "privileged" because they belong to the group that founded the state, I say good luck to them. All viable states are based on racial unity.
Rome became a corrupt melting pot and fell to the Huns.
The Soviet Union, when it fell, was not transformed into a multi-ethnic democracy, it disintegrated into a collection of independent nation states.
The US is different from most other empires in that the original inhabitants lost control, becoming instead an oppressed minority in a settler state peopled by immigrants from initially all over Europe and then from all over the world.
The Europeans in America managed to blend together and become a nation with a common religion, albeit with the disruptive presence of ex-slaves from Africa.
But it remains to be seen whether America can assimilate every other racial and cultural group to a single racially blended, religiously homogeneous nation.
The outlook seems poor indeed. My bet is that the US will fragment, with some Northern states possibly uniting with Canadian provinces, as California and perhaps other states become Mexico again, while a black republic might emerge in the South-East.
The states that are most likely to endure are the homogeneous ones, China, already the world champion for national endurance, Russia at state more than a thousand years old, and African states unless disrupted by tribal divisions.
The only settler states that will endure are those that by one means or another induce conformity to one nation, one culture, one religion. Trouble-makers like Cornell West have no place in a prosperous and secure nation.
Good, we disagree.
ReplyDelete"...but he seems to be no more than another black scoundrel demanding every white American go on bended knee to apologize for America's history."
He extended his hand to Brian Jones, calling him brother, which means he extended his hand to white Americans, calling them his brother. America's history is flawed, on this seemingly insignificant bullshit of skin color. Now on this seemingly insignificant bullshit of a flu. Apparently Cornell had said these things to Anderson Cooper-- I hadn't heard.
No one has to go down on a bended knee. Or a Wounded Knee. I see an opportunity to take you down, brother, on "Cornell West has no place on a prosperous and secure nation." Even if he and his people are inferior and we never recognize they've made a superior contribution to our well being, and we never will, they've made some contribution.
"Even if he and his people are inferior..."
DeleteWhy postulate any such thing.
There are many fine and superior black Americans. Thomas Sowell, one of the few American intellectuals I really admire. Then there was Muhammad Ali, truly the greatest in many ways. And so many other wonderful Black American athletes, musicians, writers, Christians and one-nation patriots. To say that Cornell West is a scoundrel is not to say black people are scoundrel by nature. And in any case, scoundrels come in all colors.
Here's a link to the very smart black Thomas Sowell.
DeleteYou call Cornell West a scoundrel and yet object he might be inferior? He's got some gap teeth and hair wild. What is your objection to the man?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to hear you out, now you've called Thomas Sowell an intellectual you really admire.
Why is Cornell West a scoundrel, exactly?
If a lot have got to die, I more than half way want to die. Not arguing if Cornell West is a scoundrel. Muhammad Ali was the greatest.
"You call Cornell West a scoundrel and yet object he might be inferior?"
ReplyDeleteYou're making stuff up. You brought up the issue of inferiority, saying: "Even if he and his people are inferior."
As I've alredy pointed out, I did not say anything about West's inferiority, I do not believe in innate black inferiority.
I call the man a scoundrel for exploiting white guilt induced by the politically correct bullshit taught in today's Western universities.
The whole slavery complaint which he raises is rubbish. If black Americans don't consider themselves privileged to live in America, why don't they move to Africa? Malcolm X did just that and came back with a sober appreciation of the advantages of American citizenship.
And anyhow, who do you think sold the black slaves to the white man? They were not white men practicing slavery in Africa but Africans who traded their property in slaves for the manufactured goods the white man had to offer.
Let's hear more about that and less whining about reparations to the current generation of black Americans who never had it so good, and can have it as good as any other American if they chose to live by the sames rules as everyone else - something that of course many black Americans do.
Well, there's your explanation for why you think Cornell West is a scoundrel:
ReplyDelete"I call the man a scoundrel for exploiting white guilt induced by the politically correct bullshit taught in today's Western universities."
I probably did incorrectly infer from what you said you considered black people inferior and am glad you took the time to correct me on it.
I wanted to say one of the reasons I came over to your blog was from comments you made elsewhere about Winston Churchill. I wholeheartedly agreed with everything you said, but these comments were with regard to Churchill's reactions to the rise of Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler. I have, though, mainly had the feeling this was about the only thing Churchill ever got right...But hey, if you only get one thing right in your life and it happens to be as important as that, well, you're doing better than nearly everyone, including me.
"Let's hear more about that and less whining about reparations to the current generation of black Americans who never had it so good, and can have it as good as any other American if they chose to live by the sames rules as everyone else - something that of course many black Americans do."
I don't agree any of us "ever had it so good" as we do now. I believe we not only do not have it very good, but are on the cusp of catastrophic disaster at every level. The working class (for lack of a better term...the precariot class?) hasn't really been cut a break for decades, has been in serious decline, and right now is going over the edge. From my point of view that the resistance to going over that edge has been couched in terms of "race relations" couldn't be a more terrible choice. It is, in my opinion, reactive and reactionary, and will fail. Perhaps Cornell West is feeding into that. I somewhat think he is, but Brian Jones and Anderson Cooper don't interview Cornell West for his general view of things, but because they regard him as an expert on race. West's general view of things appears to be religious, Christian. That somehow doesn't really come through with its full force and I wonder why.
I don't know West's views on reparations. I would be dismayed if I learned he favors that. I will check into it.
"I believe we not only do not have it very good, but are on the cusp of catastrophic disaster at every level."
DeleteI said black Americans never had it so good. I didn't say they were having it great.
The stuff about black slavery is irrelevant to today's proletariat, whether black, white, brown, red, or yellow.
We have slavery today: better known as wage slavery -- Bangladeshi garment workers in collapsible factories, Chinese Fox-Conn workers making i-phones who must sign a contract not to commit suicide while on the job.
For the slave master, you see, it is much better to pay workers a pittance and let them come and go as they please, than to own them outright and have responsibility for their health and welfare for life.
In the Western world the agitation of the diversity as the indigenous people are inclined to call the immigrants, is stoked by the Money Power. The thing is to crush the opposition of the reproductively failing indigenous European peoples to replacement and impoverishment through mass immigration of cheap (and, in part, highly talented) labor.
Crushing the Western nations by mass import of people is how the money power drives wages to the slave-labor level. At that point the West will have its own sweatshops and be done with sending jobs, capital and technology to China, India, etc.
Here, incidentally, is an interview which shows what a scoundrel Cornell West is, as he determinedly shouts down a real black man. The guy is a monster, whereas the black man knows that a decent life for poor people depends on the maintenance of the rule of law and a respect for the cops, provided they are honest cops.
My understanding of Cornel West on reparations has been shaped by this exchange, among others,
ReplyDelete"Central to all of this is West’s critique that Coates is a “neoliberal” who isn’t critical enough of Obama — especially on issues that are important to the left, such as Wall Street and drone strikes.
Coates has countered that he does not write about these other issues because they are simply not his area of expertise. His writing focuses on issues and policies that are directly linked to race, including his well-known case for reparations and recent essays about Obama and President Donald Trump. That’s not to say he doesn’t care about other issues, but he says he simply doesn’t have the expertise to give them the kind of coverage they deserve."
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/20/16795746/ta-nehisi-coates-cornel-west-twitter
West was against Coates and other uncritical supporters(cheerleaders) of Obama and Coates was for reparations. (It doesn't make sense to be for Obama and reparations, but then again, maybe it does.)
West has done his best to inject a wider critique of race issues than anyone in the mainstream. Part of this is he includes what Wall Street is doing to everyone, of every race. Obama, Coates, and so many other Obama coat tail hangers pretended they didn't need to. Of course Obama was little more than window dressing and a tool of his masters, the Lords of Wall Street.
I thought you were saying blacks were inferior because of the way you use the term racism. For example, in your title: "Churchill Was a Racist for Good and Obvious Reasons."
Racism is the ideology which believes black people (or other ethnicity) are bad BECAUSE they are black (or other ethnicity).
The reasoning is faulty and never ceases to be. There are bad black people but it isn't BECAUSE they have the racial characteristics they do.
I don't know, but it looks to me as if you have taken the misuse of the word racism, used unfairly to discredit certain political thought and public policy, relevantly here, immigration, affirmatively. If so, I don't think that's a good idea. You are making positive comments and suggestions which in my opinion have nothing to do with being racist. I don't see why you have to drag those comments and suggestions, and yourself, down into the dirt. As a rhetorical ploy,it may lead to racists supporting your ideas, and people such as myself questioning your intent and misinterpreting your points.
Racism is the ideology which believes black people (or other ethnicity) are bad BECAUSE they are black (or other ethnicity).
ReplyDeleteLook, I'm a biologist. I graduated with the faculty prize. People can twist the meaning of words anyway they want, but racism to any scientist is simply recognition of the fact that humans come in many races, a race being an interbreeding commmunity with little gene exchange with other groups.
The idea that racists have beliefs about the relative standing of different races stems from the natural inclination of all races to consider their own group better than any other. But that is, first, a distraction from the reality of genetic variation among human populations, and second, a way of confounding the entirely legitimate right of every person to favor their own family, tribe, race and nation, over others (that'[s what democracy is all about) and the mindless silliness of attempting to rank the races of mankind in a hierarchy whether intellectual or otherwise.
So don't try lecturing me about racism.
And don't skate away from the issue of whether Cornell West is a scoundrel. From the video I linked to above and here, it seems obvious to me, what the conclusion should be.
I apologize for lecturing. I was afraid you'd perceive it that way. I don't think it is a terrible thing, however, for me to remind you your specialist use of the term is not the general way it is used.
ReplyDeleteIn biology, I used the term subspecies for race. I don't have a prize in biology, or even a degree, but I do understand either term is used appropriately. Both are subject to disadvantages when used generally. If you use the term subspecies, the ensuing misunderstanding seems to be "Which is the subspecies? You call'in me a subspecies, mother fucker?"
Subspecies are inter-fertile populations with genetically determined differences in phenotype that have resulted from breeding isolation and divergent evolution.
DeleteThe term subspecies is generally not used of genetically distinct and phenotypically distinct human populations that are known as races.
Differences among races may be large of small. For instance, a Han Chinese, is clearly distinguishable from a Frenchman, and a sub-Saharan African from an Indian. But the difference between a Frenchman and an Englishman (excluding of course the immigrant diversity since 1950) is not so clearcut, although taking the populations as a whole there are undoubtedly some differences both genetic and phenotypic. The same is true of a lesser groupings. For example, in the North East corner of Britain you will find fair haired blue eyed Vikings, whereas, the Viking settlers in England's South East are dark-haired with prominent cheek-bones like many modern-day Danes from which ancestral population they were drawn.
In central England, where the Vikings known as Normans settled after the conquest of Britain in 1066, there are people who look a lot like present day Normans in Normandy.
As a biologist, I am for the preservation of biodiversity, including the biodiversity of the human population. Moreover, as a European, I am for the preservation of the European peoples as distinct racial and cultural entities. The same attitude will be found among all peoples in all places except possibly those made idiotic by propaganda sold as higher education at garbage colleges such as Harvard or Oxford.
The alternative to such racism, i.e., the respect for and defense of, one's own kind is extinction. The Western nations have been brainwashed into accepting their own annihilation by suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration: genocide that is, both racial and cultural.
I went to the second link, the one with Cornel West, Sean Hannity, and another man, apparently a civil rights lawyer, whose name I didn't quite catch and don't feel like going back to retrieve at just this moment. (I will later.)
ReplyDeleteI don't think if I could stand it if we embroiled in some heated exchange on the order of that conversation, CS. I won't go there if that's where we're headed.
I didn't think this was Cornel West's finest moment, and will not take it as representative of him, or definitive.
I can defend him, if that's what you want. I would only do so in the hopes of achieving clarity and understanding, not to "win" or vent feelings inappropriate in a public place and entirely wrong directed at you.
We're in one hell of a mess. I think it is all over. Even if we resumed a pose of calm decorum in our civil discourses, assuming we were ever capable of that in the first place, it is too late.
The issues are important and worth discussing, no matter what's going to happen. And why not? What else are we going to do?
The video clip I linked revealed Cornell West to be a bully who would shut down an opponent in debate by talking over him, refusing both to let his opponent make a point or to respond in a logical and civilized way to any point his opponent managed to make.
DeleteFurther, what Leo Terrell seemed to be saying is that poor people need the police because, being weak and forced to live under difficult circumstances, they are especially in need of protection from crime and violence.
That's not to say that peace and order and what the police in all places deliver, or that police always deal fairly with all people. So certainly if the police are corrupt, incompetent, or disrespectful of citizens then citizens rightfully complain and demand reform.
But demanding dismantling of police services, which seemed to be West's position, is an invitation to chaos that will make the lives of poor folk even worse than they are now.
Leo Terrell is the name of the civil rights lawyer.
ReplyDeleteWe’re dealing with Fox News here.
ReplyDeleteI wish “news” meant journalists and journalism but it doesn’t. I wish Sean Hannity, presenting two sides to the story, which is journalistic and the right thing to do, could carry it through with professionalism, but he fails. He should be acting as moderator, not taking either side as much as this were humanly possible (i.e. up to once were the professional standards of journalism), but he is on one side—the side of Leo Terrell. He isn’t doing a very good job of disguising this. “Guys, guys, guys…” Hannity says, playground style, as if he is stepping in to break it up. If he were worth a crap as a journalist, stepping in wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.
West starts out, as he almost always does, with the whole “brother” thing, which reads as conciliatory, warm, loving, and ready for a conversation based on reasonability. Whether that’s fake or not, he is extending his open hand in handshake, for an opportunity to have a conversation. To discuss the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is, correct me if I am wrong, defunding the police.
It isn’t about whether the riots and looting are acceptable, why the Demo-rats failed to curb crime during their tenure as mayors of big cities, who is a brother of whom, or who can shout the loudest, or be most hip and black, or straight and practical, right-thinking.
You wouldn’t know it, though, based on the way the issue is handled in what ensues in the “discussion”. Cornel West loses his dignity, makes a fool of himself, and is discredited. So does everyone, including Sean Hannity. It may not appear that way to us, but rememer Hannity controls the microphones, and because he’s taken sides, basically this is a two against one fight. You’d have to be good at a brawl to come out on top in a two against one fight, and West knows nothing of a brawl, though obviously he thinks he does, which is part of why he makes a fool of himself.
West attempts to answer the question of defunding, quite calmly at first. He does, however, demur to answer on the yes or no basis Hannity offers him and tries to hold him to. I don’t blame him. West sees it as a little more complex than yes or no, and I think he’s right…
West tries to speak of a need for democratic control of police departments. He means, when he uses the word “democratic”, nothing having to do with a shitty and defunct and entirely corrupted political party. Hannity, though, intrudes with his comment about why then have the Democrats (i.e. the Democratic party in the form of Democratic mayors who have long presided over America’s major cities) haven’t succeeded in curbing crime. West immediately falls into the trap by thinking of democratic control of police departments in Hannity’s use of the term and bungles into his opinions and evaluations of Rahm Emmanuel, Trump, and if I recall correctly, Hannity himself.
That’s pretty much where West loses control of himself and serves up to us a pretty good example our nation’s elite universities are not staffed by our intellectual elite.
The whole thing is interesting—fascinating. I have to get back to work, though.
I offer this as my take. It is not my refutation of your take. I hope you can take it in the spirit it is offered, respect. (However faked you may perceive that respect, I promise you I am entirely sincere.)
No need to be paranoid. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. And I agree with your assessment of Cornell West -- not a person to be taken for a member of an intellectual elite.
DeleteI don't much care what positions people take in an argument, I am only interested in the logic and evidence that they bring to the argument. West brings to the debate neither relevant facts nor intelligible argument, but only emotion and inflammatory blather.
That such a person is is offered as a mentor to students at any university, let alone one of what are supposed to be America's best, suggests that Western civilization is now in an irreversible decline.
"West brings to the debate neither relevant facts nor intelligible argument, but only emotion and inflammatory blather."
ReplyDeleteThat's certainly the truth in this instance and I would have to say it is generally true as well.
He's evidently been handled with kid gloves for a long, long time. Otherwise he would have had someone pull the "I'm not your brother!" counter punch on him before now and had a better response. He could have blocked and parried instead of falling to pieces, an emotional wreck.
All West has is, "We are all brothers, we share the same interests, and therefore you think what I think...I am right." When someone rejects that train of thought, nothing backs it up.
There are only a few ways to defend him.
Number one, he's been purposely enabled to be in the position he is in. It serves someone's purposes to place him on the faculties of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. These positions give him a soap box and platform for his act. He's famous. There's also someone behind his piece of fluff, Race Matters, being so highly regarded and a best seller. I find it irksome because there is great work on race matters by other talented black writers and researchers being neglected. The people who have set him up are the scoundrels-- West is just their tool, though he is smart enough to know he is just a tool.
Number two, in this specific setting, the Hannity show on Fox News Channel, is designed to cast him in the worst possible light. You can go through and pick apart all the little tricks Fox is playing on him and the viewers. West probably couldn't block and parry all of them unless he was very, very good, and he's not. It may be, though, once he's allowed himself to be roped in, because Fox controls the perceptions, nothing West did would play well or credit him. For example, say he sat back, remained calm, and stayed on message: "We need democratic control of our police departments." It is relatively easy, if that's what West did, to misconstrue it, to ignore it, or to make West's calmness appear weakness and admission of doubt about his positions. It could be West had a pretty good idea it wasn't going to go well no matter what he did, but decided getting another message out to Fox viewers was worth the risk and personal embarrassment. I think this is possible, yet the final result couldn't have been less favorable for getting another message out to Fox viewers. West's appearance confirmed for Fox viewers everything they already thought, I am quite sure.
Finally, West's shuck and jive keeps things a little loose and is conciliatory and upbeat, and I find it somewhat consoling. I personally like him and side with the emotions he projects. He's wacky and eccentric and under circumstances outside of politics and especially the politics of crisis, which is where we are now, I find it more than tolerable. I'd be more than willing to play along in private conversation. (As Brian Jones played along, even bringing John Lee Hooker and Hooker's lyrics into their conversation. I would note, however, Jones was not conducting a private conversation with West, and Jones playing along had a certain political charge, not neutral, and was far from journalism at its finest.) This is all a matter of taste, and I completely acknowledge it as such. Not everyone shares my tastes, and that's a good thing. Likely people watching Fox side with the more somber, sober, and business-like lawyer Terrell, see Terrell is more black than West,(he is), and feel no compunction dismissing the professor-flake's histrionics resolutely.
An interesting comment on BLM by a person of color here:
DeleteAnonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative.
It brings some actual facts and logic to the debate.
That's what a university professor or a "public intellectual" should do -- must do to warrant any public respect, and it is something West appears incapable of doing.
What he says may resonate with a person who feels in some way racially victimized in America. But those with a sense of solidarity with people of their own race, must -- if they are for democracy -- recognize the right of those of other races to have the same respect and care for their own kind.
But those behind the BLM campaign are determined to brand white people collectively as evil racists who should be collectively humiliated and punished. As a white person, I say, fuck that and fuck Cornell West and all the other black, white, red, green, yellow or blue race hustlers who back this preposterous BLM bullshit.
Yes, black lives matter, of course. But those who seek to punish folks who say "All Lives Matters" are clearly racists, seeking to divide people with a view to advancing their own racial interest at the expense of some other racial group, usually white people now seen to be weak and open to demoralization and dispossession.
The link to Zero Hedge and letter by Berkeley professor contained a video of Seattle's police-free "autonomous zone." It called to mind this KOMO TV video from Youtube :
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw
This sort of thing scares the pants off me. It is as if we are watching the birth of a specially-flavored American dystopia. These people have no idea what they are doing or for what or with whom they are cooperating.
As we both acknowledge, black lives matter. We may disagree, though, about whether it is true the police, including the FBI, have victimized black people, and ruined or killed them more often, measured in proportion to their percentage in the population.
Saying this does not commit me to the position the police don't victimize whites,too, or that there are not good policemen who treat both blacks and whites respectfully. Or that we need to, or even can, abolish the police. Or that the police departments across the country necessarily be "defunded", especially when no one is getting down to brass tacks about defunding would include or exclude. In other words, I myself-- and I am very skeptical of the police because of their behavior here in Fairbanks-- would demand a very detailed description and plan.
The city police in Fairbanks went on a murder rampage of Alaskan natives lasting about three years. (They also murdered whites.) They showed no regard for the law, really, or correct police procedure. There was no strong push back from the community at large. The judicial branch of the government broadened its interpretations of the laws to allow nearly everything. The discretion of police, which I understand is necessary, couldn't be allowed to extend as far as it has been allowed.
I'm not justifying anything going on now. This is disastrous. Absolutely disastrous.
Back to Cornel West. Hannity introduces him with the sarcastic comment "from the ever prestigious Harvard University." West kind of smiles-- he's already being jabbed at, and he knows it. Then Hannity asks West, "How can you support the madness of defunding?" Hannity is injecting his opinion on the issue before West even has a chance to say anything. West would have to say something like "I don't support any madness, Sean. Can you rephrase this question so we may have an intelligent, adult conversation and even if we don't come to an understanding, at least have a bit of clarity where we stand and how we see serious, deadly serious, issues?"
We need maturity. We also needed, years ago, and especially since 1996, a serious inspection of the concentrated ownership of media by enormous corporations. These corporations are no doubt pulling the strings on both "sides" of the issues, ultimately jerking us around as their puppets, but it only works because there are no adults.
Yes, what you say is well put.
ReplyDeleteBut there will always be a need for some form of social regulation.
In America and throughout the West, reliance for such regulation is on the police, courts and prisons.
The police will never be perfect. The job can be rough and dangerous at times, but with long intervals of boring surveillance work or form filling.
So who will police work attract? People not averse to violence, people in fact, who see a bit of action, and perhaps a chance to hurt someone, as the high point of their day.
But according to this AmRen. article, evidence of racial bias in American police action is slight, indicating a high standard police discipline across the US.
And what alternatives are there to reliance on the police?
There are two possibilities. One, the Chinese solution: break the rules and lose the freedom to fly, to take the train, even to engage in financial transactions (virtually all of which are via the Internet and hence subject to state control).
The other is the very old fashioned idea of self-control, i.e., a return to a nationwide state religion, in the principles of which every member of society is imbued.
That was pretty much the state of British society at the time I grew up (40's and 50's). Then, there were around 50 homicides a year in the whole country -- pop. ca. 50 million -- equivalent to a couple of weekends slaughter in South Chicago.
Of the alternatives, I would rate a well-inculcated universal religions code as the best, the police as second-best and the Chinese totalitarian model, which I suspect is what we will soon have, as the worst. What other reasons can there be for calls to disband the police?