Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.  If you broadcast our audio commentaries please consider a recurring donation to Black Agenda Report.

New York Times Attempts to Define and Dictate Black Politics

  • Sharebar
    Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

    New York Times Attempts to Define and Dictate Black Politics

    by BAR executive editor
    Glen Ford

    "Black people are not working themselves into an election
    year frenzy just to commit political suicide by disbanding as a bloc."

    The New York Times, the nation‘s preeminent corporate
    mouthpiece, has unabashedly called for the dissolution of independent Black
    politics in the United States. Although the paper's Sunday magazine cover story
    may seem at first skim to be simply an overlong paean to Barack Obama, its intent
    goes way beyond the presidential race, and is embedded in the title: "Is
    Obama the End of Black Politics
    ?" Author Matt Bai and his employers
    fervently hope the answer is, Yes.

    The wishful headline sits atop a pile of false assumptions
    and outright untruths about contemporary and historical Black politics. Hardly
    a cogent set of facts can be found in the entire piece; it is comprised almost
    wholly of unsubstantiated assertions mixed with non-sequiturs in quotation
    marks. But the thrust is quite clear: African Americans have not only outgrown
    group politics, as supposedly proven by Obama's march to - rather than on
    - the White House, but Obama's brand of "race-neutrality" shows that Black
    politics is obsolete, and should be abandoned.

    To arrive at such a racially presumptuous conclusion, Bai
    must build on several false or debatable premises that have nevertheless become
    accepted wisdom among the corporate media:

    The only authentic Black politics is electoral politics. Mass
    movements, direct action and other non-electoral strategies are relics of the
    past, and rightly so. More Black faces in high places automatically equals
    Black progress, regardless of the political content of these office-holders'
    policies. It is an unquestionable sign of general Black progress when African
    American candidates gain white support.

    Black solidarity must decline and ultimately fade away as a
    political motivator as opportunities for (some) African Americans expand. A
    growing Black middle class inevitably leads to increased Black political
    conservatism. Blacks have no legitimate reasons to pursue political solidarity
    except those directly related to the upward mobility of their class.

    A unique and pronounced age gap exists in Black America, that
    stands in the way of "transition" to a less confrontational, more cooperative
    society. (Black elders are the bottleneck in this regard.) Young Blacks are
    politically more mature than older Blacks, since they are further removed from
    the events of the Sixties and thus are not plagued by disturbing memories.

    Based on these assumptions, Times readers may
    conclude that African Americans who struggle for group rights and objectives
    are behaving like superannuated dodderers in their second childhoods. Matt Bai
    thinks so. The following sentence gives new meaning to the term, convoluted
    reasoning:

    "For a lot of younger African-Americans, the resistance of
    the civil rights generation to Obama's candidacy signified the failure of their
    parents to come to terms, at the dusk of their lives, with the success of their
    own struggle - to embrace the idea that black politics might now be
    disappearing into American politics in the same way that the Irish and Italian
    machines long ago joined the political mainstream."

    Amazing, isn't it, that Bai and his ilk purport to know more
    about Black youth and their elders than the two Black age cohorts know about
    each other? Indeed, if we are to follow Bai's logic to its natural conclusion,
    whites understand and communicate with young Blacks better than Black parents
    do. It all makes sense once you accept the assumption that young Blacks think
    more like whites than their parents, whose minds have been deformed by too
    close exposure to the nightmarish Sixties, during which time they became
    distrustful of white people, and have never recovered.

    Fortunately, we can dismiss Bai's assault on Black elders
    out of hand, since it relies on facts nowhere in evidence. Where are the
    graying Black legions that are resisting Obama's candidacy as a bloc? Every
    Black demographic, no matter how you slice it, is overwhelmingly pro-Obama for
    president. How could it not be so, with the Black Obama vote in the late
    primaries hitting 90 - 95 percent! For every aging Black radical (like myself)
    who refuses to drink the Obama'Laid, there are eight of his peers with Obama
    signs on their front lawns, and three octogenarians thanking God they have
    lived long enough to vote for such an attractive, well-spoken young Black man
    who might actually become president.

    Such is the near-irresistible pull of race, and race
    solidarity -  the uncontainable pressure
    of the pent-up aspirations of centuries, finally finding vent - in this
    election cycle.

    "The writer must maintain the fiction of a general age
    chasm dividing Black Americans, or the theory on the inevitable extinction of
    Black politics, does not work."

    Bai followed his assumptions off a cliff with the "old Black
    folks don't like Obama" idea. But he must maintain the fiction of a general age
    chasm dividing Black Americans, or the theory on the inevitable extinction of
    Black politics, does not work. And it must work, since Bai opens his piece with
    an attempt to prove that age was an important factor in the early, dead-even
    split
    in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) between Clinton and Obama
    supporters. Presumably, the 15 Clinton supporters were among those elders who
    "could not come to terms, at the dusk of their lives, with the success of their
    own struggle." An equal number were committed to Obama; the rest, undecided.

    As it turned out, there was no chronological or ideological
    pattern in the CBC's Clinton/Obama lineup, in early January. Charles Rangel
    (NY), the oldest Member, was in the Clinton column. John Conyers (MI), the
    second-oldest, opted for Obama. Barbara Lee, among the most consistently
    progressive Members, backed Clinton, but so did David Scott (GA), once dubbed "The Worst Black
    Congressman
    " for his relatively rightwing voting habits. Bobby Rush, the former
    Black Panther who, according to Bai's reasoning, should have been the most
    "resistant" to Obama's neutralism on race, was in his fellow Chicagoan's
    corner.

    The CBC presidential breakdown had little or nothing to do
    with age, or with any issues of deep substance, for that matter. Members
    aligned themselves at that early date based on considerations of money, petty
    faction, geography, and the betting odds.

    Until Obama's victory in Iowa, polls showed the Black vote
    still very much in play. Only when African Americans were confident that large
    numbers of whites would vote for Obama did they massively align with the Black
    candidate - and then they quickly became a bloc. Nowhere is there evidence of a
    decisive schism - certainly not around age. No matter. The New York Times
    and its corporate sisters make up facts as they go along, to justify
    prefabricated theories on how Black folks behave.

    Here's where Bai came closest to getting anything right:

    "The generational transition that is reordering black politics
    didn't start this year. It has been happening, gradually and quietly, for at
    least a decade, as younger African-Americans, Barack Obama among them, have
    challenged their elders in traditionally black districts. What this year's
    Democratic nomination fight did was to accelerate that transition."

    A change has come over Black politics in the last
    decade, and it does involve the entrance of a relatively young crop of
    Black politicians. However, the decisive factor here is not age, but money.
    Corporate America made a strategic decision to become active players in Black
    Democratic politics - an arena they had largely avoided in post-Sixties
    decades. In 2002, the corporate Right fielded and heavily funded three Black
    Democratic candidates for high profile offices in majority Black contests. Two
    of them, Newark Mayor Cory Booker and Alabama Congressman Artur Davis, are
    featured in Matt Bai's Times article. (No surprise there: the duo appear
    in every corporate media article celebrating the rise of the new, young,
    Black, corporate politician.) The third Big Business favorite, Denise Majette,
    has since slipped back into political obscurity.

    "In 2002, the corporate
    Right fielded and heavily funded three Black Democratic candidates for high
    profile offices in majority Black contests."

    Booker, then a first term city councilman, was (and
    remains) a darling of the vast political network centered around the far-right
    Bradley Foundation, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. George Bush calls Bradley his
    "favorite foundation" - as well he should, since Bradley and its think tanks
    developed the GOP's faith-based initiatives and private school vouchers
    strategies. Booker became a star of the Bradley-subsidized vouchers "movement."
    (See "Fruit of the
    Poisoned Tree
    ," Black Commentator, April 5, 2002.) In his first,
    unsuccessful run for Newark City Hall, Booker far outspent four-term Mayor
    Sharpe James - the most powerful Black politician in the state - but was
    narrowly defeated when his ties to school vouchers and far-right money were
    revealed. Booker was endorsed by every corporate media outlet in the New York
    metropolitan area, thanks to the ministrations of Bradley's media-savvy think
    tank, the Manhattan Institute. Booker captured the office easily in 2006, after
    amassing an even bigger war chest, when Mayor James declined to run. (James was
    later convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to 27 months in prison.)

    Less than a month later, former Birmingham prosecutor
    Artur Davis, then 34, made a second run against veteran Congressman Earl
    Hilliard, in a 62 percent Black district. Davis had been badly beaten by
    Hilliard in the Democratic primary in 2000. This time, he outspent Hilliard by more than 50
    percent
    - with the vast bulk of his funds raised outside the district.
    Davis won a minority of the Black vote to beat Hilliard.

    Two months later, in August 2002, the corporate-funded
    juggernaut rolled into Atlanta, Georgia, where five-term Congresswoman Cynthia
    McKinney faced former Black Republican Denise Majette in an open Democratic
    primary. Majette's bankroll dwarfed McKinney's. Majette was also backed by
    every corporate media outlet in the region - and far beyond.

    The massed national corporate press turned the
    McKinney-Majette contest into a national story, an opportunity to refine their
    collective "analysis" of post-Sixties Black politics.  Majette would win, they agreed, because McKinney's "Sixties-style"
    politics were unsuited to her suburban Atlanta district, the second most
    affluent Black district in the country. The corporate media declared with
    certainty (but with no facts to buttress the claim) that the African American
    middle class was becoming more conservative, and a younger generation yearned
    for a break from the confrontations of the past.

    Majette won, but with only about 17 percent of the
    Black vote
    ; she was the white choice. McKinney, the fiery progressive, was
    the overwhelming favorite among Blacks in a district that was the perfect test
    for the corporate media's theories on Black politics. They were proven wrong,
    but a useful lie trumps inconvenient facts. Through repetition in a monoculture
    corporate media, lies become truisms.

    Matt Bai's Sunday Times article is based on the
    same fact-devoid theory of Black rightward political drift and a yawning age
    divide. Even before his national debut at the 2004 Democratic convention,
    Barack Obama joined Cory Booker, Artur Davis, and then Rep. Harold Ford Jr.
    (TN) - once George Bush's favorite Black congressperson - as exhibits in an
    endless series of "New Black Politics" articles, each one a clone of the last.
    This is what Bai mistakenly calls "the generational transition that is
    reordering black politics." It's not about age at all - other than that the
    young are hungrier and more malleable than their elders, and thus better
    prospects to march under the corporate colors.

    "The Times article is
    based on the same fact-devoid theory of Black rightward political drift and a
    yawning age divide."

    Barack Obama does pose a dire threat to the coherence of
    Black politics, but not for Matt Bai's reasons. Obama's presidential bid is
    inseparable from the ongoing corporate money-and-media campaign to confuse and
    destabilize the Black polity - an offensive begun in earnest in 2002. Obama, a
    prescient and uncannily talented opportunist, understood which way the
    corporate wind was blowing at least a decade earlier, and methodically readied
    himself for the role of his life.

    To the extent that African Americans expect more from
    Obama than they got from Bill Clinton, they will be devastatingly disappointed.
    His candidacy has at least temporarily caused Black folks to behave en masse as
    if there are no issues at stake in the election other than an Obama victory. It
    is altogether unclear how long this spell-like effect will last. The short-term
    prospects for rebuilding a coherent Black politics, are uncertain. But one
    thing we do know: the formation of a near-unanimous Black bloc for Obama - of
    which he is absolutely unworthy - is stunning evidence that the Black
    imperative to solidarity is undiminished. Unfortunately, the wrong guy is the beneficiary
    - but in a sense, that's beside the point. Black people are not working
    themselves into an election year frenzy just to commit political suicide by
    disbanding as a bloc, no matter what Matt Bai and his ilk say.

    It is at least possible that a new era of agitation and
    militant organization might follow the monster come-down that must descend on
    Black folks, either from an Obama defeat in November or, if victorious, through
    his ultimate (and early) betrayal of Black self-generated hopes. But there is
    absolutely no reason to believe that African Americans will emerge from the
    experience in a mood to fold up their collective, consciously Black political
    tent. Matt Bai is only able to envision such an outcome because he refuses to
    admit that the racial problem in the United States is caused by white folks.
    Institutional racism is engrained white behavior. The Black prison Gulag is a
    white creation. Double unemployment and one-tenth wealth are the products of
    white privilege. White people constantly replenish Black aspirations for
    self-determination: for a Black politics.

    "The formation of a
    near-unanimous Black bloc for Obama - of which he is absolutely unworthy - is
    stunning evidence that the Black imperative to solidarity is undiminished."

    Bai pretends that he is genuinely concerned about how
    Blacks will fare in the "transition" from Black politics:

    "Several black operatives and politicians with whom I spoke
    worried, eloquently, that an Obama presidency might actually leave black
    Americans less well represented in Washington rather than more so - that, in
    fact, the end of black politics, if that is what we are witnessing, might also
    mean the precipitous decline of black influence.

    "The argument here is that a President Obama, closely
    watched for signs of parochialism or racial resentment, would have less
    maneuvering room to champion spending on the urban poor, say, or to challenge
    racial injustice. What's more, his very presence in the Rose Garden might
    undermine the already tenuous case for affirmative action in hiring and school
    admissions."

    First, African Americans should believe Obama when he
    repeatedly assures whites that he does not recognize Black claims to redress
    for past grievances, and has little tolerance for race-based remedies of any
    kind. There can be no expectation of a net increase in Blacks' ability to alter
    societal power relationships with Obama in the White House. (A Black president
    might make some difference, but not that Black president.)

    And yes, there will be a white backlash - there always is
    - even though Blacks in general may materially gain nothing from Obama's change
    of address. White backlashes are beyond Black control. But they sometimes spur
    African Americans to greater organizational efforts. At any rate, Black don't
    need faux sympathy from Matt Bai and the New York Times. They're part of
    the reason there will always be Black politics.

    BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

    Share this

    Black monolith is response to white racism

    AS long as white racism exists so will the black monolith. Black people always support black people unless we are flatly rejected by someone the likes of Clarence Thomas. In truth, Obama has flatly rejected us if you looks at the statements he has made over the past eight years. Black people don't care though. We seem to still think a black man is better in the White House than a white person because it's time. We want to show whites that we can do the job better than they can, just the way we dwarf whites in sports and music, even if it's hurts us.

    Black support of Obama is really more desperation than pride. Black people say to themselves "Obama couldn't do any worse than whitey" and that is enough for them to waste their votes. The fail to examine his warmongering, pro-Zionist policies at all. His skin forgives all. Obama wants to black vote but he continues to act as if he got a Christmas gift he didn't want.

    I for one do not think that blacks should adopt the same practices of race loyalty that have kept whites in power for centuries. Kucinich and Nader would have served the black community as a whole much more than Obama but most blacks have either not heard of them or have rejected them because of media apathy toward their campaigns, as if the media would cover what would good for us.

    Black support of Obama is all about retribution for the older generation of whites that will never vote for a black man. It is also about black people wanting to be aboard the winning wagon. When I told my mother about the Green Party (she had never heard of them) she immediately dismissed them as having no chance at the White House. It is this corporate media dominance that has blinded blacks to their true allies. We may still be a voting bloc but we are voting for the wrong person.

    In agreement with George

    "Kucinich and Nader would have served the black community as a whole much more than Obama but most blacks have either not heard of them or have rejected them because of media apathy toward their campaigns, as if the media would cover what would good for us."

    "It is this corporate media dominance that has blinded blacks to their true allies."

    I agree with this for sure. Nader, Kucinich or McKinney would do more for all of us (except the fat cats currently dominating the political and corporate scenes).

    It continues to blow my mind that anyone seriously believes Obama stands for anything other than corporate greed, war, and pandering to the (mostly white) middle-to-upper socioeconomic echelon. But when change desperately needs to come about, people will be vulnerable to believing just about anything.

    Backlash

    Obama's attitude toward young black
    males will increase and justify abuseive behaviors of the criminal justive system

    Teachable Moments Ahead

    Glenn Ford and other left Obama critics assume that only Blacks will be changed by Obama assuming the presidency. It is true that the Corporate White power structure will definitely attempt to use Obama to dampen Black resistance. However an Obama presidency would be a dramatic departure from centuries of conditioning that only whites are able to run the world. The effect of that change goes
    unexplored in Ford's analysis.

    The Obama wave and its supporters in the white community put me in mind of an old Ed Bullins script "We Righteous Bombers". The play is set with a group of black militants against a background of an America pretty similar to the one we're looking at now, i.e., one in which the bright young upper crust of the old white regime have joined forces with a charismatic, upper middle class black "everyman" and his followers in order to stamp out the last sparks of black militance. Art imitating life or Brother Ed Bullins smelling the crap way before now?

    The Fake "Liberal" Media and BAR's Importance

    I made sure I mailed my contribution to BAR before I put down these words.

    Please Support BAR and Net Neutrality. Send your contributions to BAR, we must fund our own freedom, the NY Times and WaPo won’t.

    Thanks to Michael Powell, Colin’s boy, we are witnessing the apex of corporate/government/Pentagon-controlled media. This is not a new phenomena, Carl Bernstein (Woodward/Bernstein fame) wrote about the huge number of media members who were CIA plants, we recently discovered that Ms. Feminist, Gloria Steinman received CIA funding for the iconic Ms. Magazine. We witness the vitriol and bile of Fox News assault our senses and historiography daily, and the willingness of former Clinton officials to align themselves with that racist, rotten, anti-intellectual enterprise that numbs our senses and foments intolerance.

    There is no more “Liberal Media” if there ever was. Certainly there is no Fifth Estate that exposes the crimes, corruption and mendacity of today’s politicians, or the utter silliness of their policy promulgations. What happened to the “muckrakers?” Simply look at the Michael Gordons and Judith Millers who lied us into war as did the editorial voices of WaPo and NY Times, the “bastions” of “liberal” media, the same editorial voices giving succor to the dastardly words of Benny Morris, who beat the war drums against Iran. Presently ABC News REFUSES to expose government officials who lied about anthrax for the last 6/7 years. WaPo, NY Times, and ABC, CNN and others simply parrot the lies of their government handlers who grant them “access” via cocktail parties and social gatherings of the elite, handlers who help them achieve their vapid celebrity status in exchange for not rocking the boat. Most major networks and more than a few major papers are owned by corporations like GE who reap huge profits from fomenting the false war on terror and war profiteering.

    To cosign BAR, “This is why we write about Obama.”

    The Liberal Media aided and abetted by Obama, the “Tammy Andersons”, Robert Johnson, Oprah’s and similarly situated Americoons have a common goal which is to DESTROY, THE HISTORICAL MEMORY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MAKEUP OF AFRICAN AMERICANS. They are partly succeeding. It galls me that none of these chickenshit bastards would dare utter similar words or concepts towards Jews and castigate them for failing to get over their history and “sense of victimhood.” They want you to think the Voting Rights Act was passed 150 years ago rather than less than 50.

    Once they and their Black enablers destroy us mentally, psychologically, emotionally, and attack our historical experiences with their revanchist voices we will certainly become “nothing”, the status they’ve already ascribed to us.

    People, “What is Black Politics” according to NY Times (White Conservatives/Liberals) anyway? Do we want anything over and above what any other American wants? How are we different? Is not our sense of justice and fairness the glue that holds this so-called democracy together? When White America erases your history and turns your mind into a tabla rasa, what will they inscribe upon it?

    The future is not the Democratic Party

    This will be the last hurrah for Black Democatic Party politicians who have derailed the movement for almost forty years.

    When they were first ran for office, it was under the slogan, vote for me and you all will be free. While the elected politicians solved their economic problems, many of the gains of the civil rights movement has been overturned and the Black politicians have been cheering gentrification throughout this land. Not one of them has spoakenk up for Reverend Pickney in Michigan -- not even Congressman Conyers from Michigan, who is the Chair of the Black Congressional Caucus. When money talks, these politicians walk.

    In order to rebuild the movement, we must return to that which made the movement strong -- mass independent action in the streets.

    For more information, read my essay: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights Movement at
    http://web.mac.com/rolandgarret/iWeb/site/The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights Movement .html .

    Consider the Source - Hollywood Mind Control

    Glenn, as usual writes brilliantly, and couragouesly represents our resistance.

    Below is a response in March 2005 NY Times by Mark Green and Wendy Campbell concerning jewish control and influence in Hollywood and American mass media.

    "America's most honored newspaper is the NY Times. This family owned institution is headed by Arthur O. Sulzberger, whose dynasty also controls some 35 other newspapers nationwide. In second position is the Washington Post. It remains in the hands of the Meyers', who also own Newsweek magazine. The highly respected Wall Street Journal's publisher is Peter Kann.

    Among broadcasters, Mel karmazin is the President oc CBS, and Leslie Moonves is the President of CBS News. Mort Zuckerman owns US News and World report as well as the Boston Globe (ans some 20 other publications). Zuckerman is alson Chairman of the Conference of President of Major Jewish Organizations. SI Newhouse commands the Conde Naste empire, which includes Vanity Fair, the New Yorker, and some 26 newspapers. Former Paramount President, Barry Diller, now heads Vivendi-Universal. Billionaire, New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, also owns a media conglomerate bearing his name. The president of NBC is Andrew Lack. NBC Entertainment's president is Jeff Zucker.

    Besides the legendary Hollywood titans of yesteryear (such as Lew Wasserman, Sam Goldwyn and Adolph Zucor) are a new generation of modern moguls. Stephen Spielber, Jeffery Katzenberg and David Geffen are at the helm at Dreamworks. At Disneys president is (outgoing) Chairman Micheal Eisner and (incoming) Robert Eiger. Disney's president is Joe Roth. At Viacom (which owns CBS, Paramount, MTV, Simon and Schuster, Showtime and Blocbuster) sits billionaire, Sumner Redstone. Another pwerhouse is Edgar Bronfman, Jr., who owns MCA/Universal. the Chairman of Warner Brothers is Barry Meyer. As mentioned in our article, Bob and Harvey Weinstein own Miramax films.

    All the above named media moguls are respected for their work and their affilations with powerful and successful news-gathering or entertainment institutions. They are also all Jewish. Since these powerful institutios are ofter higly politicized, shouldn't we be aware of ther ethnic and /or political orientations so we can better assess bias or conflict-of interest? After all, if the ethnic make-up of a jury or police dept. matter, why not a newsparper's (ownership) editorial board?"

    Take notice that we have seen more war footage from Georgia in the last week than seen in 5 years of war in Iraq. Also, CNN, MSMBC and Fox never have any critcism of Israeli crimes against the Palestinians. All of network news shows above (and more) are owned and controlled by Jews.

    It's critically important that Black people understand who owns Main Stream Media. Within 24 hours of securing the Dem nomination Obama was on his knee's pandering to the Jewish-Israeli terroist organisation, AIPAC.

    In addition, take a look at the Wall Street rip-offs and meltdown. Look at the players, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Stearns, Leaman Bros., Paulson, Greenspan, Rubin. Not only have these criminals stolen Black wealth, Fed Chairman Bernake and Treasury Sec. Paulson are rewarding this criminals with bailouts (public money). Why no call for prosecution by the NYT's and other MSM?

    Theirs much more that could be said, so lets not let the New York Times racist propaganda divide and separate us.

    Mike, you are very brave. I am guessing you've been called anti-semitic on numerous occasions.

    I still think Obama is probably the worst thing to happen to black politics in a while. If he becomes president he will only help facilitate white oppression against AfricanAmericans. I simply think he will be used by the system, though this does not necessarily mean Obama is a bad guy.

    The End of Black Politics

    Once again, the political capital of the black electorate is being used by people who are quite open in asserting that it is not their responsibility to address any of the political demands of the black electorate. If Corey Booker, for example, does not want to be the go-to-guy on inner-city issues then perhaps he should have remained in the majority white suburbs where he grew up and launched his political career from whatever political base he could have cobbled together there on his behalf.

    I understand that these folks have larger ambitions and they would prefer not to be permanently assigned to the black seat. Their current posture, however, seems disingenuous in the extreme given that their political ascendancy (and celebrity) was made possible because they found more secure footing for their own ambitions among black voters. Now they will use the legitimate aspirational desires of these same voters to move on to higher office while denying any responsibility for addressing issues that have disproportionate effect on African Americans.

    It has become commonplace to the point of cliche to talk about the alleged generational divide among blacks on the question of what black leadership means. The existence of this alleged divide is only possible if one assumes that those of us who are consigned to the box labeled "Civil Rights Generation" were always of one mind and one view. We never were. There were always divisions among us over the most pressing questions of the period and that included international affairs as well.

    Artur Davis and other aspiring black politicians who share his views appear to be little more than younger versions of those who I have described elsewhere as being "second line inheritors" of the Civil Rights Movement. That is, those who attained political power less as a result of any sacrifices or risk they took but, rather, because they positioned themselves to take advantage of the opportunities created by the sacrifices and risks that others in their generation took. What exactly, for example, did Tom Bradley do or not do to rise to the rank of lieutenant in the notoriously racist Los Angeles Police Department and why did that department's behavior remain essentially unchanged during his four terms as mayor?

    These are not radical or extremists questions because they go straight to the heart of this issue. If the Tom Bradleys and Artur Davises do not address the needs of the black electorate then what actual purpose is served by the black electorate in supporting their quests for political office? If electing Obama to the White House means that we get nothing more than a payoff on our aspirational desires and we understand and accept that reality, then we have no further complaint.

    If, however, we believe that he has a duty to address our issues because we have supported his candidacy then we have every right to make our views known and to demand attention. Every other group in America - business, labor, attorneys, Hispanics, Jews, women, faith-based organizations etc. - will have their hands out because it is the American way. Are we suddenly less American because a black family lives in the White House?

    News Flash: Obama, McCain neck-and-neck

    Pew Research says Obama's lead is barely outside of its margin for error.

    Even Obama supporters know he must ignore the concerns of African Americans,negate race, they make the arguments for him. "He can't be openly for Black people" as if we were some invading virus, with nothing in common with everyday working class folk. But God don't like ugly and now we see White Nationalists rallying around McCain. DESPITE how much he has demonstrated his complete senility and incompetence. Look at the stories in todays press on his Georgia stance. "Mr. Statesman", he is as he whines uselessly about Russia knowing US/NATO can't do jack shit besides empty threats. And even though he can't enunciate the name of that country's western educated President, or discern the difference between Shia and Sunni, they view him as having more judgment in a crisis, despite Obama's European Coming Out Party. And all the Old Dirty Bastard has done one the campaign trail, is attack, attack, attack.

    The Power Elite don't give a shit about Obama, they'll just use him at our expense, of course he will be a wealthy man from the Corporate Speaker's Bureau and we'll be ass-out as he travels around on corporate jets whining on about race-neutrality. How sick must one be to live this lie?

    And all of these self-deprecations, self-hatred, self-denial, historical white-washing FOR A LOSING CAUSE. That has to be a bitter pill to swallow for his supporters.

    We warned you all about this Centrist Bullshit, he's going to have to swallow his pride and draft Hillary just to have a chance of pulling his chestnuts out of the fire,-- an even bitter pill?

    awww yes...

    new york times: infamous CIA mouthpiece. now we can trust that.

    Mike what is wrong with you?

    Rockefeller was not Jewish. Carnegie was not Jewish. Vanderbilt was not Jewish. Gates is not Jewish. Buffet is not Jewish. Ted Turner is not Jewish. The problem is capitalism whoever represents it. Not Jews.

    Matt, Mike is substantially correct

    The problem may not be Jews in the generic sense, but Zionism is a HUGE PROBLEM. Many Jews like Tony Karon, Howard Finkelstein, Uri Avnery and others oppose Zionism. And Mike accurately lays out some of Zionism's root support. A lot of Jewish neocons have dual citizenship, how can that not be a conflict of interest? There are millions if not billions in Jewish money that support Right Wing causes, such as the Project for New American Century, the chief propagandists for the Iraq War. Even the once venerable Anti-Defamation League has become a spokesman for Zionism and critics of anyone who questions Israel's actions. Zionism is a racist construct, plain and simple. You would say the same about ANY Nation/State built on religious exclusion.

    Many Jews in America have dual loyalties. All you have to do Matt is read the WaPo, NY Times or myriad internet interviews of older Jews in Miami or elsewhere, listen to them on NPR and other media outlets, they, question Obama's "Patriotism," his "Rev. Wright" connections, his fealty to Israel (in spite of his pathetic groveling), and believe that you and I should gladly die for Israel, no questions asked, and some of them frankly don't hide their dislike of Black people.

    Pointing out dual loyalties of citizenship, or how billions of Jewish dollars are funneled into Right Wing, Reactionary think tanks and political candidates/races to OVERTLY influence US policy might be "American" in the sense anyone can/should lobby, but mentioning these things is not anti-semitic either. It is what it is. And many Jews in American care less about America or you and me than they do Israel, that's the bottom line. Just listen to them.

    And they DO MANIPULATE THE MEDIA just like they are manipulating the propaganda coming out of Georgia now. You can't ignore that since they control the media assets. Big bad mean Russia picking on tiny Georgia, never mind Georgia invading Ossetia and Abkhazia, two countries that fought Georgia for and obtained de facto independence since roughly 1990. They won't report Georgia's historical meglomaniacal, expansionist tendencies.

    As one poster said, "where are the pictures from S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and oh yes, Iraq?" Or the rank hypocrisy of US invading Iraq vs. Russian invasion of Georgia? Frankly, though Russians aims may be nefarious, they had 10X more legitimacy in invading Georgia than the US invading Iraq. But the media won't play it that way Matt and part of the reason is the large Jewish population in Georgia, Georgians who immigrated to Russia, and Israel's energy interests in the Caspian, and oh yes, their control of media assets.

    There's no need to put blinders on or shrink from critical analysis for fear of being labeled anti-semtic, as I said earlier the insult to Blacks is that we can't advocated our interests which are pretty damn mainstream yet Jews can challenge Obama on his loyalty to a foreign country-Israel, and the mainstream media and frankly persons like (yourself?) go along with it. No insult intended, just truth. I agree with the core of Mike's premise.

    correction

    meant to say, many Georgian Jews that have immigrated to Israel, and Israel's military assistance to Georgia, but yes Georgians live in Russian proper too.

    You guys will cause us to loose this site. There are certain subjects that are totally taboo to AfricanAmericans - especially black intellectuals.
    To discuss some aspects of Jewish politics will leave you castrated.

    If what Mike means is Zionist, he should say Zionist. A political tendency is not a religion. It's very important to keep that distinction clear,especially if we want to expose Zionism's support for the wester imperial project. If it sounds like we're blaming Jews for the designs of big business opportunists who hide behind the Judaic religion with the masks of Zionism, we're only a cut removed from people who equate Islam with the opportunists within their ranks. In political struggle, it's very important to call things what they are, and not to use generalizations that can mislead. Especially this new business of Grath's, or "Jewish politics". Which Jews, Grath? Are all Black politics the same? Are all Jews Zionists? Not at all, man. It's important to be careful on this point.

    grath, don't be a weenie

    Apparently you have not heard of or familiar with Profs. Walt and Mearsheimer's critically acclaimed book, "The Israeli Lobby" that is still causing a stir in academic and political circles. Also, go read antiwar.com anytime for articles critical of Israel/Zionism, Michael Schueuer, former CIA agent, has one entitled "The Lobby Like no Other Wants a War Like No Other" on the site today.

    Now you are correct in the Lobby's exercise of vicious, unrelenting, heavy-handedness towards their critics, Jew or Gentile alike. Go ask Professors Howard Finkelstein and Juan Cole about that. But having said that, are you going to crawl in a corner like a little baby and whimper, or die in a war of choice because you are afraid to criticize?

    grath, McCain: "We are Georgians." Lieberman: "It's the US duty to protect God's promise to Abraham." grath, I'm neither Georgian nor Israeli and owe no duty to either.

    AIPAC, the "Lobby" is harmful not only to American interests it is also harmful to Israeli interests. The recent lessons in Lebanon clearly demonstrate Israel cannot shoot it's way to security nor manipulate political outcomes. Hizbollah is stronger than ever, and given that they represent the plurality of Lebanese, THEY SHOULD BE.

    grath epitomizes the Bizarro World we live in, where he hides in a corner afraid to criticize those who want to harm US interests in order to further Israeli interests. Ignoring the fact that they actually harm BOTH. grath, go read the Israeli newspapers for criticism of Israeli policies, start with Haaretz. Funny that Israelis speak more openly about the Lobby than we do.

    Zionism & the Pro-Israel Lobby

    I agree with you Lou.

    "In political struggle, it's very important to call things what they are, and not to use generalizations that can mislead. [...]Are all Black politics the same? Are all Jews Zionists? Not at all, man. It's important to be careful on this point."

    Good call Michael H. In reviewing lectures by Norman Finkelstein recently, he is clear on pointing that "true" Zionists are not necessarily the ones making up the Pro-Israel Lobby. He claims the Pro-Israel Lobby is comprised mostly of scammers misusing and fabricating the "Jewish cause" in furtherance of their own exploitative agenda that in no way best serves the interest of the publics in the U.S. or Israel. Plenty of Jewish people, even Zionists, are outraged by this.

    IMO, generalizations of that sort only succeed at breeding more divisiveness and discord and breaks down honest communication between the peoples on all sides. Those most responsible and influential belong to a relatively small group of imperious individuals (of both Jews and Neocons) in cahoots with venal U.S. Congressmen and corrupted Israeli government officials, all of whom are pushing a militaristic/corporatist agenda intended to pad their own pockets at the expense of the rest of us. Rightly directing our sights on this mob of con-artists and scammers is the first step toward demanding honest accountability, IMHO.

    The New York Times and the Fear of A Black Planet

    The New York Times is a glaring example of the fear some Whites have of Black "group" success. Jews and other groups in this country can come together for politics and economics with no strong efforts of outside attempts to stop it. Sure an individual Black person or two if they "behave" properly can get some crumbs here and there but Black social and political history is one of forcing Whites to view themselves and Black people as we really are and paying debts owed.

    Many Whites can only support a Black person if he/she does not publicly, (or even privately) voice concern for and promote direct action to end institutional barriers to full equality for all Black people, and that is why the NYT loves BO. "Barry" has proven in speech after speech that Black folks can support him with their last dying breath but he would not use the incredible power and influence a president has to change a damn thing for them as a group. Obama say's in so many words to Black people, "Drool over me all you want but you will be on your own against the institutional barriers to full equality when I am president.

    As a former Obama'Laid drinker only a few years younger than Obama I am absolutely certain that if he wins the election he will kick to the curb (And he's already started doing this) all 95% of his Black supporters; black youth that see change in Obama and Black elders who see history being made in their lifetime. But Barry will also be given permission by his corporate handlers to laugh in the face of his starry-eyed White progressive supporters too.

    BAR which has been incredible accurate in its predictions for and analysis of Obama's behavior over the years has been the best thing that has happened to my political and social growth.

    Signifyin and Testifyin

    The Consequences of Scared Negroes

    1. Jews and Christian Zionists can commit you to die for a foreign country-Israel-but you can't advocate for policies or programs that are in fact MAINSTREAM but are dismissed as "Black."

    2. The Congressional Black Caucus fails to craft policies and programs that link Black intellectuals and professionals in American with Latin American & African Development/Business opportunities.

    3. McCain can bellow,"We are Georgians," in an effort to revive a Cold War US is incapable of winning, but Barry Obama won't holla, "We are Sudanese" or "We are Somalian."

    4. Multi-Billion Dollar Corporate/Wall Street bailouts galore,-- Xmas in July/August-- continues unabated; there are more corporate security personnel in Iraq than soldiers to the tune of over $25 BILLION a year but you get a check for $300 or $600 to catch up on your light bill and take the significant other to Red Lobster.

    5. And there are no hearings or criminal prosecutions of lenders who discriminated against Blacks or Latinos by steering them into subprimes though their creditworthiness was same as Whites.

    5. Civil Rights movement whines on and on about Imus, knowing damn well he represents Mainstream White America, and would be rehired immediately at higher pay. And thus failed to elevate the discussion of race/class post-Katrina or use Imus as a comprehensive teaching moment.

    6. Black Churches abandon the civil rights/equity struggle to grovel over Faith-Based grants while sucking up to the meanest, most nonspiritual White (Christian Identity-types) Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian leaders who'd rather burn the Bible than see African Americans (AA) as equals.

    7. In capitulating to the Conservative Black Religious Leadership Class the political class has done nothing to tamp down the growing rates of AIDS infection in the AA community.

    I totally agree with Roland and PTCruiser, history will vindicate AA' solidarity, we are saavy and street smart, and "game recognize game,". History will show that what the NY Times headline should have stated was, "Is Obama the End of the Good/Scared Negro Politics?" Obama just might Signify and Testify" to the advent of a more muscular, unabashed Black Movement.

    I foresee and pray for more individuals to take the blinders off when Barry crashes and burns despite being superior to McSame, or he wins and abandons AA. The White Nationalists are circling the wagon, (who's #1 on NY Times best seller list? hint:think Swift Boat), the Black Nationalists need to do the same, WITHOUT HESITATION, EXCUSE, APOLOGIES, OR CODDLING OF COWERING wimps like the graths of this world.

    Freedom ain't free. Support BAR.

    Obamites: Stop the MInd F *#k

    It amazes me that I don't support Obama yet I often find myself defending him against the onslaught of the most vile and vicious vicissitudes of the media than his "true" supporters. I click on Raw Story and see CNN is actually doing a story entitled, "Is Obama the Antichrist." Article says Google search of Obama Antichrist reveals 1 million returns. And of course Corsi's literary Swift Boating "Obama Nation" is #1 on the NY Times Bestseller. And the lies and trash floating around the internet...well, you ain't getting it, but Whites are.

    Mr. Straight Talk has former Rove henchmen on his staff and has relied on the Right Wing attack machine since he has no message and his GOP is toxic.

    The point is there is no Liberal Media via major networks and papers, and you should understand that the NY Times and other "liberal" media are just playing you. (Remember how they vilified Gary Webb and the Contra/Cocaine connection?) You all are so desperate for a symbolic progress that you would forfeit real progress by ignoring the mean-spirited racism and propaganda that represents mass media and how it is unseating your candidate. It must be frustrating for you all to see this trainwreck taking place real time and you can't say anything about it lest you come of "too Black" and hurt your Uncle Tom candidate. Your heads must be exploding by now?!

    Lou

    These people you are talking about are Capitalists and Imperialists. I could care less that they are Jewish. Just as it means nothing to me that Ricardo Sanchez or Alberto Gonzalez are Mexican or that Rice, Powell and Obama are black. It just does not mean much to me. As to dual loyalty are the christian leadership of this country such as Bush and Cheney any more loyal to the interests of the average american citizen than their Jewish counterparts of say Wolfowitz or Kissinger, of course not. It is irrelevent that they are Jewish. The problem is what they represent which is capitalism, which is what is at the root of racism and imperialism.

    Why defend Obama from media vileness, Lou?

    No need to defend Obama from Swift Boat-like attacks from right wingers, bigots, and media.

    Obama sees no need to provide more than lip service (if that much) to the concerns of blacks and the average working stiff in general. He shifts his positions to the right, er, what passes for center, daily. In reality, his progressive leanings were a sham from the get go.

    The Swift-boat attacks and untrue accusations against Obama will ratchet up more as November nears. But I do not give a shit about it. Obama only wants the votes of blacks and the party's poor/working/middle class constituencies to get elected. He cares little to be associated with or concerned about blacks and other neglected groups. Once elected, he will do nothing for any of these demographics other than band aid tweaks for appearances sake.

    Wring no hands, furrow no brows over unfair attacks on the man. He would not do the same for you.

    Get Your FREE Obama Button !

    From Blacks4Barack:

    Get Your FREE Obama Button ! (even the shipping is FREE )

    Just Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org

    Say It Loud...BARACK & I'M PROUD !!!!!!!!

    Browns over Black Vote

    you watch....soon as the Hispanic vote looms a bit larger the Democratic Party will dump African-Americans....I remember their roots in the K.K.K., Jim Crow Laws and fighting President Johnson's Civil Rights legislation. We need to reaffirm our family values, stop aborting our children and move to supporting a third party that unites us all. Obama is nothing but white politics with a black face.

    to Beverly and Matt

    Beverly you are absolutely correct. My comments about the attacks on Obama which will ratchet up as you say as we approach the elections have nothing to do with a per se defense of him, it has everything to do with, (1) pointing out to OB's supporters the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their support for him given their timidity (which borders on self-hatred/denial) in THEIR FAILURE TO decry the racism and propaganda directed towards him for fear of "offending Whites,"(2) To drive home the point to anyone who cares to listen, including Obamites, THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA, it's a false construct.
    Not only is MSM not liberal it's also worthless as an information tool.

    Matt: You are correct for the most part, where you are putting on blinders in an effort (perhaps) to demonstrate that you are not anti-semitic is that fact that THE CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH ZIONISTS's push for a Greater Israel, for Israeli military hegemony in the ME are Significant Reasons we are in Iraq, fomenting war with Iran, and have a right wing domestic agendea. Other reasons, oil and US hegemony, privatization of government/Disaster Capitalism, transference of treasury wealth to donors, cronys, and corporations.

    Please don't pretend the Jewish Lobby, and Zionists CARE MORE THAN ME OR YOU, than ISRAEL,when the words out of their mouths say otherwise. Or that they were not were key funders and propagandists in the Iraqi War Crime, the push for war with Iran, the recent Georgia crisis and the media's slant on it. Of course their interests are intertwined with other interests.

    Don't pretend you don't understand the funding streams to RW Think Tanks, how RW Christian Dispensationalists are intertwined with Zionists, and the Likud Party, and how these forces promote militarism, conflict, and Disaster Capitalism in the ME and world over, you are being intellectually dishonest if you do.

    Go research the Iraq Study Group and the Project for a New American Century and it's clear that neocons, Zionists, and Likudics are clearly among the chief authors and propagandists for perpetual war, beginning with Iraq and spreading throughout the oil-rich ME.

    And, as Mike outlined, many Zionists do control a significant portion of the media/cultural messaging apparatus. Yes Murdoch is a necocon, not Jewish, and many Jews oppose both Zionism and militarism and the Likuds, and Naomi Klein (Shock Doctrine/Diaster Capitalism) is Jewish, as is Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, but don't pretend the significant assets of mass media under Zionist or Jewish control is BENIGN and the message unfiltered. Again that's my point to the Obamites, that and their repugnant cowardice in pointing it out.

    Matt, messaging and propganda are as important today as stealth bombers and road-side bombs. That's why we need BAR antiwar.com and other alternative media, that's why we need net neutrality. Despite what the lunatic Right asserts, WaPo, CNN, NY Times, and other so-called "liberal media" are in fact NOT LIBERAL or truthful for that matter, just read their editorial pages.

    All you have to do is listen to the MSM's take on the Russia/Georgia conflict. It is a case-study in rank propaganda with more than a dollop of hypocrisy.

    I think I've made it clear that I'm not antisemitic, and don't give a shit if someone persists in suggesting I am. I've also made it clear I won't vote for a candidate (Obama) because of his skin color, though I am decidedly Afro-Centric in my viewpoint I'm neither a bigot or a fool.

    To Tim and a clarification for Lou

    "you watch....soon as the Hispanic vote looms a bit larger the Democratic Party will dump African-Americans....I remember their roots in the K.K.K., Jim Crow Laws and fighting President Johnson's Civil Rights legislation. "

    Ignorance. The KKK certainly were not too friendly to people they refered to as "Greasers" and "Spics" or really Catholics in general. Johnson was a racist. And at the time Tim who exactly are you speaking of that would fight Johnson? Grape pickers, coal miners?

    To Lou let me clarify, I absolutely agree that Zionism is and always will be racism. However I just dont agree that Israeli interests control American ones. Certainly the treatement of the Palestineans and the US role in it is disgusting. But so is Ethopias brutality in Somalia. So are the union murdering practices of Colombia. So are the practices of Indonesia in Timor and within the country itself. So is the Philipines brutal oppression of its Muslims. I mean does this mean we are controled by Ethopians, Colombians, Indonesians and Phillipinos just to name a few disgraceful situations we are involved in?

    Has any one actually read the books?

    I hear much name-calling and what not over any book about Lord Obama. Who has actually read these books? What in them IS NOT TRUE? I cannot believe that Webster Griffin Tarpley would write something that was not able to be documented. As for the Corsi book and the other one, I have only heard so-called liberals trashing him- I have not heard anyone say that what he has written is untrue. My thing is, Lord Obama is nothing to me, and he does not deserve the puppet position of president and he doesn't deservet the support of people of color and or struggling Anglos either. Why are people so quick to protect this weasel?

    Also lou

    I know all about Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Pipes. Before the end of the cold war these guys were supposedly experts on Russians and gave us all sorts of racist anti slavic nonsense to explain why communism took hold there. Thats over so they moved on to the next ridiculous load of crap which is how insane the Muslims are, Muslim rage and what not. I have studied up on these matters quite a bit. And while yes Jews are certainly over represented Huntington who wrote clash of civilizations which is kind of the framework for this stuff is not Jewish and even wrote a kind word for Walt and Merscheimer, whose book I read and hate. I mean these guys write kind words about Kissinger because they think he managed a "balanced view" of Israel. These guys are basically imperialists who think Israel is not a good imperial asset. I have absolutely no interest in that conversation. My only interests are in toppling imperialism. Israel is certainly a horrid country whose cruelty stretches far beyond Palestine in that it is one of the worlds leading arms dealers and supported Iran under the Shah, El Salvador in the 80's, South Africa under the darkest days of Apartheid, Mexico's push against the Zappatistas, and so on and so forth. Today it continues to support the actions of Colombia as well as you mentioned the Georgians. They also supported seccionists who dismembered Yugoslavia though they were complete anti semites who said things like "World War 2 could be understood by Hitlers need to rid the world of Jews" they supported these groups who were not the Serbs but rather the leadership of the Croats and Bosnians and "Kossovars" a non existant group of people. Clinton actually brought out Elie Weisel a scandalous charlatan who has used his own horrid experience to justify all sorts of horrid actions against defenseless people and made quite a career of it. Weisel came out to demonize Milosivic and say it reminded him of the holocaust therefore drumming up the media's bullshit line of genocide when it was actually Milisovic who said that mult ethnicity was a good thing and Tudjman who called genocide "healthy" and Azerborijac who wanted to "clense" his portion of the country of non muslims. Today Serbia is really the only multietnic country left in the Balkans. American imperialism just lies and lies and lies. Israel is part en parcel to that system but not because of a Jewish conspiracy. Israel is a terrible country. I have been harrased as an antisemite many times myself. It means as much to me as being called anti american or racist against whites it just does not mean anything. However one must understand that the US foreign policy is wicked the world over and that has nothing to do with Jewish influence. It is the nature of imperialism. And America is part and parcel to the Western European world conquest. It is not a country that merely participates in imperialism it is in and of itself imperialism. Remember we sit atop a graveyard and that began in the 1620's not the 1940's.

    Matt we are closer than you think

    I will give a more longer, hopefully well-thought out post later, Matt. But let me remind you that I said Zionists, Likudics, Neocons, and Christian Dispensationlist interests were INTERTWINED. I understand your point about the tail wagging the dog, and it is not lost on me that vile scum like Krauthhammer, who is also Jewish, basically tried to goad Israel into broadening the Lebanese war last summer and essentially said what good is Israel if they can't be an effective proxy for US. But you still can't ignore the streams, boatloads of money to RW Think Tanks and 527s, and media assets that comes from persons of Jewish descent.

    To be clear don't get made at the Jews for looking out for their self-interests, after all Hitler got his notions from Rockefeller, Cold Harbor Springs NY, and the American's who were just as eager to sterilize poor whites as they were non-whites. Yes Nazism was birthed right here in the ol USA.

    If anything African Americans should follow suit, and unabashedly, unapologetically look out for their interests.
    And that does not imply our interests won't intertwine with others. As I said, shame on the Hispanic and Black Caucuses for not cementing ties between development/opportunities in Latin America or Africa with Latino and AA professionals and businesses.

    I will attempt to flesh out the Dispensationlist/Zionist/Likud Party connections later.

    Lou, Obama has it both ways in the media.

    Like his idol, Ronald Reagan, Obama has the Teflon touch with the media.

    Yes, he gets trashed by right wingers and bigots, but still has many cheerleaders on the right wing side (see: George Will, Krauthammer, et al).

    An attack story or ad about Obama is followed up on CNN or other sympathetic/synchophantic outlets with intimations of racism.

    The August 18 New York magazine has Obama on cover and lead story is Race, The Impossible Conversation. This magazine ditched Hillary once Obama became chic, and have been up his butt ever since. Side note: The article should be titled War, Economy, Healthcare, etc. - the conversations not heard because we the media prefer sensationlistic, irrelevant chatter as opposed to discussing real problems.

    In the end, Obama comes out smelling like a rose, as any criticism, justified or otherwise, gets tagged as racist attacks.

    His followers don't have to work up a sweat about these attacks because the media takes care of it for them.

    Lou I hear you

    Get this one very prominent eugenicist here in California was this racist named Charles Goethe. For years he was remembered simply as a conservationsit he was actually very influentual in the Mexican repatriation act which deported anywhere between 1 and 2 million Mexicans from the country my grandfather included. He claimed get this that the average Mexican woman had 36 children with 1064 grand kids. This guy was a huge nazi sympathizer and still has national parks dedicated to him. Rockefeller was actually doing business in Germany and was compensated by the goverment for his losses when Americans bombed the factories. Yet the Rockefeller family and the Rothchild family were very much intertwined in their interests as were the Morgans. So I mean what brought them together? Capitalism. Its true, you are right many prominent Jewish capitalists got together and shared interests and moved what they could how they did. Principally this was in banking and media. However the real controls of this country come from the control of energy something traditionally dominated by Rockefeller and WASPY types. Also the service sector is becoming just enormous. So there is that and Sam Walton wasnt Jewish. At any rate they are all capitalists. A capitalist is a capitalist is a capitalist is a vampire. That was my only point. Blacks and Latinos should in no way try to imitate Rothchilds or Kennedies. We must invest ourselves in the quest for justice. We are the most apt to build and join the revolutionary forces of this country.

    I hear you Beverly

    That was insightful as hell, totally on point... like I said, and you just further explained with great clarity, "It's a mind screw," and "game" out to recognize "game."

    Back In The Day, Is Today

    Mr. Ford gets an A again.

    Clearly the Times piece is meant to entice Black intellectuals into a false argument: That there are no problems of today that, young Blacks need pay attention to.

    As a 60 yr old Black man I have witnessed many young Blacks protest the murder of Sean Bell , Amadou Diallo and Usman Zongo. Young Blacks are concernes about their incarceration rates and dim prospects of employment. I predict that Omaba will bring back the draft. What world is Mr. Bai sitting in.
    Black folks think for yourselves. We will not be stampeded into an debate that is of no importance. The time piece is psyops, plain and simple

    Don't Be Mad at the Jews; Learn Some Things From Them.

    "To be clear don't get mad at the Jews for looking out for their self-interests,"....

    ....If anything African Americans should follow suit, and unabashedly, unapologetically look out for their interests. And that does not imply our interests won't intertwine with others. As I said, shame on the Hispanic and Black Caucuses for not cementing ties between development/opportunities in Latin America or Africa with Latino and AA professionals and businesses."

    Lou

    ----------------------

    The CBC should be cleaned out and rebuilt from top to bottom because it is mostly stocked full of frightened and easily bought and sold handkerchief heads.

    Signifyin and Testifyin

    Okay?

    Are you actually suggesting that blacks are of a mind to begin organizing, locally and nationally, independent social institutions, of a political, economic, and cultural nature, running the gamut from sole proprietorships, limited liability & joint stock enterprises, on through, various degrees of non-profits, private/public partnerships and producer & consumer cooperatives and new arrangements, including local, regional and national governmental regulation or control, of disfunctional or new markets and industries, all premised on a keen understanding of our collective history and the imperatives of true democratic pluralism?
    That's quite a tall order conceptually, but only something similar to this scope of Black social ambition, would truly be "collective".

    It is important to remember, that, the "Black Power" cadres, of various flavors, of the late 1960's and early 1970's, floundered in their quest for even independent Black political action in Gary, Indiana, in 1972 and later. It certainly won't be, notwithstanding rhetoric, "Child's play" at this late date!

    May I Have a Source?

    "...African Americans should believe Obama when he repeatedly assures whites that he does not recognize Black claims to redress for past grievances, and has little tolerance for race-based remedies of any kind."

    Wow. Can someone please make that assurance to whites available via an article or website link?

    And can you please do the same for his absolute opposition to "race-based remedies"?
    Thanks.

    P.S.
    I know Mr. Ford has written tirelessly of Obama's shortcomings, corruption, and history of selling black people out in an ongoing effort to placate the white majority. Is it possible to get a link to perhaps his 1 or 2 most factual, substantive, indisputable articles on this subject?
    Thanks again.

    I'm suspicious

    Matt appears to attempting to delegitimize any efforts to recognize jewish collective political influence, although the evidence of it is all around. He even goes as far as saying "I have no interest in that conversation". His lack of interest in "that conversation" does not render it invalid.

    It's a known fact that jewish persons have political influence which is used to further the aims of Israel. It is in no way racist to recognize that influence. As lou has adroitly pointed out, AFrican Americans would do well to bring this sort of pressure to bear upon the government, finance sector, and media to further our aims both in america, and africa where colonial influences still shortchange our african brothers out of the benefits from their own raw materials.

    Matt sees capitalism only, and may not have any interest that aspect of the conversation, and asserts that it's irrelevant. However, the conversation is valid and must be had by african americans. We are doomed the day someone else sets our agenda.

    While Matt seems well read, and has many issues in common with african americans, Matt is not equipped to decide for african america what considerations are important for african america.

    The Jewish/Christian Zionists/Likud Connections: Policy and Prop

    There are many articles on the alliance, I've cut and pasted liberally from one entitled: "The Evangelical and Jewish Alliance" I found it at religion-online.org.

    Quote: "A decisive moment in the forging of this alliance occurred in April 2002, while the Israeli army was demolishing several cities and reguee camps in the West Bank following the dreadful Passover terrorist bombings. Under increasing international pressure, Bush appealed to Sharon to withdraw from the West Bank city of Jenin. The pro-Israel lobby, in coordination with the Christian right, mobilized over 100K e-mail messages, calls and visits urging the president to avoid restraining Israel. The president uttered not another word of criticism or caution, and Sharon continued the offensive. As Christian televangelist Jerry Falwell commented on 60 Minutes: "I think now we can count on President Bush to do the right thing for Israel every time."

    Falwell spoke for a large number of Christian Zionists in the U.S, Christians who believe that the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and so deserves unconditional political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with religious and secular Jewish Zionist Organizations and the Israeli government, particularly during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Israeli Knesset.

    Christian Zionists insist that all of historic Palestine-including all the land west of Jordan which was occupied by Israel after the 1967 war--must be under the control of Jewish people, for they see that as one of the necessary stages prior to the second coming of Jesus.

    The Christian fundamentalist and Christian Zionist worldview converges with the agenda of neoconservatives like William Kristol, of the Weekly Standard; syndicated journalists William Safire and Charles Krauthammer; and the chief advisers in the Bush White House-Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Elliott Abram. Many of these figures used to work with pro-Israel think tanks such as AIPAC, MEMBI, JINSA, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Perle narrowly escaped conviction for trading intelligence secrets with Israel in the late 1970s, and Abrams was convicted (and pardoned by Reagan) in the Iran-Israel-contra weapons and financial scandal.

    I once asked Israel's director of religious communities if he was aware of the implications of the alliance with fundamentalist Christians, particularly in light of their history of antisemitism, their dedication to the Christianizing of America, and the "convert or fry" Armageddon scenarios. His response was: "Of course we know all this, but we will take support wherever we can get it, and their numbers are significant. We do keep them on a short leash however." Unquote.

    Matt, to understand the WOT "Big Lie," Iraq, Iran one cannot escape the fact that the amongst the most influential authors/theorists of WOT, the water-carriers of the "clash" of civilizations thesis, and the general hostility towards Muslims (Islamic Extremism Theme) are Jewish Intellectuals. To understand
    Russia/Georgia conflict one must understand the US and Israeli desire divert oil from the Caspian/Caucus Region through Georgia, bypassing Russia, or Israel's selling of armaments and military training to Georgia, or the significant i/emigration of Jews between Israel and Georgia, and last but not least the corrupt influence of McCain foreign policy advisor Randy Shueneman, former Georgia lobbyist.

    The territorial ambitions of Israel --Eretz Israel-coincides with the Dispensationalists' Eschatology, Israeli military hegemony coincides with US military hegemony, and Israel's drive for "energy security" also coincides with that of the US, same for the arms industries/merchants in both countries.

    Matt, no would would openly accept invading the ME for oil, but most Americans, including some scripturally challenged Blacks, would eagerly invade it on behalf of Israel and so-called Biblical Prophecy. In reality, both Israel and Georgia are US Military Beachheads and part of the Western energy grid. But ideology and propaganda, like the Times "End of Black Politics" piece are powerful countermeasures to reality.

    Did Senator Lieberman really call Pastor John Hagee "our moses" at one of those Christian-Zionist gatherings? Can anyone verify this?

    "We are Georgians" and cannon fodder too

    The headline from Saturday's Wall Street Journal article says it all: "Attack on Georgia Gives Boost to Big US Weapons Programs." It goes on to say, "Russia's attack on Georgia has become an unexpected source of support for big U.S. weapons programs, including flashy fighter jets and high-tech destroyers, they have had to battle for funding this year because they appear obsolete for today's conflicts with insurgent opponents." The WSJ then cuts to the chase with this: "Some Wall Street stock analysts early on saw the invasion as reason to make bullish calls on the defense sector. A report from JSA Research in Newport, R.I., earlier in the week called the invasion 'a bell-ringer for defense stocks.'..." The change in administration (after the 2008 election) comes at a time of record profits and sales in the industry, reflecting historic highs in defense spending. Yet budget pressure is already undeniable. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan require laying out almost $12 billion a month and the Pentagon faces a massive tab for repairing and overhauling equipment when troops start coming home. (WaPo)

    Article goes on to say, now the Russian situation makes the debate over the equipping of the U.S. military a front-burner issue. "The threat always drives procurement," said a defense-industry official. "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH PARTY INS IN OFFICE." (emphasis mine)

    On Aug. 13, 2008, the WaPo reports a illustration of the conflict of interest that Randy Sheunemann faced while advising McCain on foreign policy matters related to Georgia and also working for the Georgia embassy. On April 17, 2008, McCain got on the phone with Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili about Russian efforts to gain leverage over two of Georgia's troubled provinces. That same day, McCain issued a public statement condemning Russia and expressing strong support for the Georgian position. And also on that same day, Georgia signed a new $200K lobbying contract with Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies, according to the Post."

    When it comes to determining the true thrust and implication of world events, the old adage is still valid: "Follow the money." Same principle holds true for the Right Wing Think Tanks, Pundits, publications and Network war mongers. It's about procurement, permanent war, and the American way.

    Aren't you proud to be a Georgian?

    What's hilarious about the consensus of the "serious people",

    the beltway/nyc political/economic aristocracy and the related political/economic aristocracies scattered around the nation, is that the wider the various gaps between rich and poor, white and black, priveleged and un-priveleged, etc. grow in America, the more we hear that the days of confrontational politics are over.

    In other words, the 'establishment' would like the rest of us think that it's time to give up, lay down and die.

    I plan to die standing.

    To Dennis Dix......... Questions!

    You wrote...........

    (Okay?
    written by Dennis Dix , August 17, 2008

    Are you actually suggesting that blacks are of a mind to begin organizing, locally and nationally, independent social institutions, of a political, economic, and cultural nature, running the gamut from sole proprietorships, limited liability & joint stock enterprises, on through, various degrees of non-profits, private/public partnerships and producer & consumer cooperatives and new arrangements, including local, regional and national governmental regulation or control, of disfunctional or new markets and industries, all premised on a keen understanding of our collective history and the imperatives of true democratic pluralism?
    That's quite a tall order conceptually, but only something similar to this scope of Black social ambition, would truly be "collective".

    It is important to remember, that, the "Black Power" cadres, of various flavors, of the late 1960's and early 1970's, floundered in their quest for even independent Black political action in Gary, Indiana, in 1972 and later. It certainly won't be, notwithstanding rhetoric, "Child's play" at this late date! )

    Let me ask some questions!!!!

    What makes you think all these sophisticated scam tools of capitalism is correct?

    What can these sophisticated scam tools of capitalism show today? Nothing but only the already destruction of our only precious planet.... right?

    What makes you think your purported "blacks" are interested in such evil activities that only deplete the planet and exterminate life?

    To give you some education, Our societies before the arrival of evil on our continent where well organised with the right natural systems as it suppose to be. I wonder why today, it will ever occur to anyone that the decendants of the bravest men and women who have ever existed on this planet- who were raided, taken for the evil practice code name slavery- would not be able to organise themselves if left alone.

    Last but not the least, Let me ask you about the traditional native tribes that are surviving perfectly in the Amazon, what comparism can you show between you sophisticated capitalism scam system with their own form of organising their societies? Infact, what value can your scam system show over theirs?

    Well, Dennis, just these few question and before I end, The "black" power of the 60's, 70's was a prophecy that must come to pass. " AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINING, SO SHALL IT BE IN THE END.

    waiting for your answer.
    Ndifor

    I reitireate I know what you people are talking

    First of all you are talking about Zionists not Jews. Second of all these Zionists for the most part are all around American Imperialists and Zionism is merely a piece of the American Imperialist platform. The US does horrible things all over the globe without assistance or influence of a Jewish Lobby. You guys are attacking an irrelevent enemy and being quite racist to be honest. There is no set defined Jewish line any more than there is any other line of thinking. I am a communist straight up not a racist. I am viewing reality which is this, the US supports Israel as a proxy state for US imperialism it serves as a bully stick to its neighboring oil rich countries it also produces weapons for the world market and sells them to places where transnational capitalism led by the US bucthers all resistence to goverment in places like Indonesia or El Salvador. I understand this. You want to talk about Jews. I am trying to discuss imperialism. Yes there are Jewish imperialists. There were and are Irish ones too. Do the Irish control the goverment? Obama will likely be elected president. Do Blacks control the goverment? Come on be serious. It is all capitalism. Period.

    And seriously I know the careers of everyone you mentioned. I mean take Wolfowitz what did his work in Indonesia essentially playing the glad hand man to that mad butcher Suharto have to do with Israel? Nothing! It had everything to do with supporting an American backed tyrant, it had everything to do with American imperialism. The scope of American brutality the world over is much larger than Israel and its crimes, which are quite serious no doubt. But the idea that somehow Perle is more evil or any worse than say Macnamara or Rice is just goofy. They all represent the same thing.

    Excellent debate...

    I understand what you are saying Matt. I also understand where Lou and the other posters are coming from. In the Israeli state, successive US governments have had a willing surrogate that protects and advances US interests in the Middle-East. It is not only the Israeli state that is a US client state. Even among the Arab states, the US has, over the years, cultivated and nurtured countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.etc. as willing surrogates to advance US imperial designs. In return, they get protection, armaments that strengten their regimes. This is a thorn in the flesh of many Arabs - that their countries are puppets of US imperialism, hence the resistance to what they call the unholy alliance among the client states and the belly of the beast which is US imperialism.

    The two countries have a symbiotic relationship because they need each other as far as their policies in the Middle East are concerned. Israel, to perpetuate and further its Zionist policies and principles needs the patronage and loyalty of US imperialism. It would be a tall order indeed for the Zionist state to go it alone without having to obliterate the Arab nation from the face of the earth with its nuclear arsenal. In Africa, the US has client states like Djibouti,Ethiopia, Kenya etc.etc that receive US "foreign aid" for having agreed to be bulwarks of US hegemony, not necessarily in those stark terms. But they march to the orders of the US government at every turn and they, like the others, receive military assistance from the US to guarantee unhibited US influence and ascertain their survival in the face of opposition from their people who get the crumbs of this US "generosity".

    If the Israeli government were to decide to make peace with its neighbors and return the lands it has, thus far expropriated/annexed and free Palestine, the US would go bananas. The US support of Israeli intransigence and the violations of international law with monotonous regularity is puposefully designed to protect a valuable ally. This protection and support flows primarily from the desire to pursue its national interest and to strengthen the alliance of convenience between the two countries. Do some Jewish Americans who support Zionism have undue influence in the halls of Congress with regard to Israeli policy? Yes, indeed. Such influence does not contradict or violate US foreign policy in the Middle-East for the simple reason that it is US imperialism that determines US foreign policy, not only in the Middle -East but the world over.

    The Jewish lobby could close shop at this moment and US imperialism would not be affected. I don't think there is much disagreement on what Zionism is, among the posters. I don't think the brilliant posters engaged in this stimulating debate would disagree that Israeli is a US client state and that the two countries need each other in so far as Israel having expansionist designs and the US having its eyes on Middle-East oil. Like I said; It is US imperialism that determines US foreign policy. Some groups, such as the Jewish lobby with its Zionist idealogy, are bent on making sure that US imperialism will forever be indebted to the state of Israel.

    May I have a source?

    "...African Americans should believe Obama when he repeatedly assures whites that he does not recognize Black claims to redress for past grievances, and has little tolerance for race-based remedies of any kind."

    Wow. Can someone please make that assurance to whites available via an article or website link?

    And can you please do the same for his absolute opposition to "race-based remedies"?
    Thanks.

    P.S.
    I know Mr. Ford has written tirelessly of Obama's shortcomings, corruption, and history of selling black people out in an ongoing effort to placate the white majority. Is it possible to get a link to perhaps his 1 or 2 most factual, substantive, indisputable articles on this subject?
    Thanks again.

    Response to Matt

    Your designation of yourself as a a Communist and an Obama supporter poses an interesting and revealing conundrum; not the least of which is Obama's support for unfettered, "disaster," military/industrial capitalism.

    You seemed hard-wired in refuting the impact of racism and ethnocentrism or religious bigotry on the polity which is striking because your previously identified your yourself as Latino. That you fail to see that US immigrtion policy debate is fueled by racism, xenophobia, and nativism MUCH MORE SO than capitalism is beyond me. Matt, come to Postville, IA to see how the packing plant raid has decimated "capitalism" leaving that community on the edge of extinction. Yes, it was capitalism that allowed the immigrants in, but racism and ethnocentrism that is pushing them out. I doubt any white business owner in Postville will bellow the triumph of capitalism over ethnocentrism.

    Great Latin American and African civilizations flourished because of trade and commerce--Timbuktu, Aztecs, Incans. Capitalism existed long before the advent of "isms." Capitalism reached it's most diabolical dimensions with the advent of the scientific racists theorists. What intellectual "leaders" say and do is not without significance because they provide the theoretical constructs to normalize wrong-doing. Hannah Arendt has a written about "the banality of evil," how evil is normalized. (Matt, do you think our culture has normalized violence?) As a person of Latin descent (if indeed you are and I don't care if you're not) you should familiarize yourself with the the conquest of Latin America and the Jesuit Bartolome del las Casa's struggles with the Official Catholic church's treatment of indigenous populations, the legalisms and theories they debated applied to determine degrees of "personhood." The destruction of ancient Mayan and other texts had noting to do with market share, no it has to do with the destruction of the intellect and soul, what the Bai piece is really all about.

    In "What's the Matter with Kansas," Thomas Frank insightfully documents the mindset of hard scrabble agrarians in the Midwest who allow cultural and nationalistic symbolism TRUMP THEIR ECONOMIC SELF-INTERESTS, making them oblivious to the unfettered capitalism that is destroying their communities, and voting repeatedly for the GOP who would care less about their demise (same thing that's occurring in the present race).

    You seem to be the only "learned" person in America or the world that discounts the influence of the Jewish Lobby and reject the dominating political influence of the Christian Right viz a viz the Lobby and Likud. You argue that it's all about "capitalism" when Franks refutes the theory of self-interest and economic wellbeing. And you expect us to beat up on Oprah and Bob Johnson about the stewardship of their media assets but give other persons or ethnic groups such as Jews a free pass. Just so you know we are equal opportunity critics, White People are doing a shitty job of stewardship too. And you totally discount the existence of rank propaganda and the fact that media control is NOT BENIGN, or that groups won't seek our their own self-interest.

    Once again we come full circle to the topic we started with: "Is Obama the End of Black Politics." The many articulate and resounding "hell nos" need not be repeated here. Dwell for a minute on the utter lunacy of believing that tens of thousands of Black men coming out of the prison-industry complex buying into Obama's race neutrality message, or the efficacies of this political system. Bai needs to have his ass whipped for his stupidity (or dishonesty) in glossing over such a glaring demographic truth, but for all we know he'll win a Pulitzer; because the people who control the shit make those decisions Matt.

    African Americans need a constant reminder that we are the captains of our own fate, and as to other's "get in where you can fit in," I promise we'll seek collaboration and more than "keeping you on a short leash." Matt, your starting to sound like the typical OB supporter who'd rather be drawn and quartered or water-boarded than to admit that racism is alive and well. McCain is in a dead heat when Obama should win in a landslide, you know why and it's not all due to OB's flip flopping. And for the record, us "racists" here believe that any notion of racial, ethnic, religious superiority is just flat wrong, whether it comes from disgruntled workers in Soweto or the mouths and pens of Jewish Intellectuals.

    Lou,

    "And for the record, us "racists" here believe that any notion of racial, ethnic, religious superiority is just flat wrong, whether it comes from disgruntled workers in Soweto or the mouths and pens of Jewish Intellectuals.

    What you call "disgruntled workers in Soweto" have nothing in common with Jewish intellectuals. The working class in South Africa is not only concerned with bread and butter issues, but with economic power as well. It ought to be apparent to anyone who has some knowledge of the nature of the struggle for liberation in my homeland that the working class in South Africa is a victim of capitalism and imperialism spearheaded by the government of this country. My people don't have the luxury of preoccupying themselves with intellectual and philosophical arguments while simultaneously having to decide where to get the next meal.

    Last, but not least, the workers in Soweto are but a tiny minority of the entire working class of South Africa. Under no circumstances should anyone make the error of thinking that what is in the media is a true reflection of South African society, let alone the efforts that form the basis of the struggle to overthrow capitalism and its inherent twin brother, universaly known as imperialism, from our country.

    Black South Africans harbour no notions of racial, ethnic, or religious superiority directed at anyone. We merely fight against such notions and beliefs, and so do the other countries on the continent. The racists you refer to, can believe any rubbish they want to believe - as far as I'm concerned, they can go to hell with their beliefs and what they stand for.

    mzimkhulu-apologies

    I agree with you and in hindsight arguably used a poor illustration to make a point with Matt about his claim of myself and other critics of Zionism or Jewish Intellectuals being racist or self-serving warmongers. The point was that persons who believe in the fullness of humanity don't countenance wrong doing based on racial solidarity, and I was using his assertion of myself and others as "racist" tongue-in-check. Matt knows I defended attacks on Hispanic immigrants in the "What Will Obama Do.." thread. For him to call us "racist" is booty and intellectually bankrupt.

    Of course disgruntled workers in Soweto have nothing in common with Jewish intellectuals who CONTINUE to be warmongers, and blanket the pages of the NY Times and WaPo.

    And last, nobody's buying what he's selling with this capitalism trumps all bullshit.
    Race, ethnicity, national origins, religious beliefs, tribalism, and false pride often trump capitalism, easily!

    Clicky Web Analytics