Wednesday, August 16, 2017

You tell me that that idiot is trolling my blog while he's on vacation again?   Which world city is he avoiding seeing while he looks at his screen?   Geesh, if I were on vacation I wouldn't be here*.  I guess it didn't occur to him that he might have saved money by doing that from home.  

*But, then, I don't take vacations.  
I'm asked what I'd do with the statue of Lee and others.  

Melt them down for sewer pipes. 

The Goddamned Lawyers and Judges and Justices Allowed Nazis to March With Guns On American Streets, Not the Police, Not the Politicians

The Nazi rally in Charlottesville and the violence of it were a product of the legal profession and members of the judiciary.  They permitted it to go on.  They are not, though, the ones who are taking heat for a situation they created.

When will the ACLU and other lawyers, the judges and justices who are the ones who created the nightmare scenario in which police have to try to keep NAZIS LEGALLY CARRYING AUTOMATIC WEAPONS and others contained.  What if a policeman had had to discharge his or her weapon on someone who was about to kill someone.  With all of those people in that state of frenzy, some of them reportedly carrying higher capacity weapons than the police,  there could have been a complete and total blood bath on the streets with who knows how many dead?

It's decades past the time that the ACLU, the Rutherford Institute and other law shops who go to court to let people own and carry automatic weapons and Nazi marches to have to pay a price for their part in this.  The impunity from investigation and criticism of them because they happen to have a license to practice law is one of the stupidest habits of non-thinking we have.

The ACLU has got blood on its hands, its clean fingernails and suits and ties doesn't change the fact that they and their legal brethren are the ones who have enabled this to happen.

I read the article at Slate which is being linked to all over which says Charlottesville showed that our First Amendment jurisprudence hasn’t reckoned with our Second Amendment reality, and kept asking myself why should they bother catching up when there is no price to pay for the part that the legal profession and the judiciary in creating this nightmare.

It was particularly galling to me to read Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern write:

Most civil libertarians (us included) believe the court got the Skokie case right. But it’s increasingly clear that Skokie can’t always help courts figure out how to deal with a post-Heller, post–“stand your ground” white nationalist protest. Whatever the courts were attempting to protect in the Skokie case wasn’t protected in Charlottesville. The marchers in Skokie didn’t promise to bring guns and armed militias to protect themselves.

as if it was a secret what the Nazis were all about in 1977, thirty-two years after the fall of the Third Reich.

Well, "most civil libertarians" weren't the targets of the Nazis, they weren't the ones who had the most to fear from them, neither were the members of state and federal Supreme Courts.   I think the habit o of privilege that come with having judiciaries, the faculties of law schools, largely composed of affluent white people of the kind who have had the luxury of expecting that they are not going to be the ones attacked and killed by Nazis has produced a delusional view of the danger of things like this, one that is established by them in law and which did, in fact, produce the disaster that, not the lawyers, not the judges, but the police and the city and state authorities would have to deal with.

I have pointed out before that the Skokie case, allowing Nazis to terrorize a town where a large number of Holocaust survivors lived was the last straw that broke my support for the ACLU, the beginning of the end of my blindness to what that kind of legal pose really meant.  It's way past time for that organization and the legal profession in general to be called on their part in enabling the Nazis, now that they are in the White House and marching on churches full of people with torches and generally terrorizing people.

Remember When They Declared Irony Was Dead?

My sister steered me to listen to the segment on Lawrence O'Donnells show with Eugene Robinson and Yamiche Alcindor.   O'Donnell began by noting that, contrary to the post outrage comments of Trump's staff, he clearly came prepared to say what he said supporting Nazis, white supremacists and the KKK.   

In the discussion with Robinson and Alcindor, the idea that this is some kind of watershed moment that will see Republicans and Trumps allegedly better supporters will not support him and his leading the country into the sewer,  it was the younger Yamiche Alcindor who pointed out that since his campaign started, we've had one after another of such incidents which were there was supposed to be some kind of turn around.   She noted that after the Access Hollywood tape came out a lot of the same Republicans who made a motion of disavowing Trump then, went right on to support him through even his appointments of Nazis and white supremacists - including Jeff Sessions - and on right up to last weekend.  She asked why this wouldn't turn into just one more of those kinds of incidents.   I think a lot of media people of my generation are finding it very hard to face the fact that in the country we've got, today, even this kind of thing can be normalized.  

It reminded me to the days after 9-11, when I was watching a bunch of journalists on Emily Rooney's show on WBGH, when they declared that that now long ago moment was a similar watershed that would usher in more civility and comity and unity into the public discourse.   I only remember one of them expressing any skepticism about that.   The very experienced journalist Carrie Crossley said she didn't believe it for a second and that things would go right back to where they were the day before.   History very, very soon proved her right.  

Get back to me next week, next month and remind me how this was supposed to be the outrage that is so outrageous that it changed everything.  I don't buy it. 

Trump's Brain Farted Out The Phony History We've Allowed To Stand Too Long

No one who is familiar with Donald Trump would believe he invented that argument making an equivalent between Robert E. Lee and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  It was the creation of the Nazis on his staff, Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka and one of the most bizarre figures in the history of the American government, Stephen Miller, the grandson of Byelorussian Jews who had to flee from that country to the United States but who is a protege of the Nazi, Richard Spencer.   I can imagine his grandparents joy at seeing the Statue of Liberty allowing them into the country under the terms of Emma Lazarus.   The people who Donald Trump supported with ideas developed and inserted into his empty head would have never wanted Stephen Miller's grandparent in the country, Stephen Miller wouldn't have let them in. 

Anyway. 

Robert E. Lee did have a relationship to George Washington through the family of Martha Custis Washington, he married into the Custis family, his wife was Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee.  I have read that among the moral indictments against Lee is that he, against long standing family tradition which kept the families of those enslaved by them together, he broke up virtually every family which came into his imprisonment by marriage through selling out their members. Some of them spent the rest of their lives trying to reunite their broken families, many of them never did find their loved ones.  The Lee who that stinking statue purports to depict was said to have been hated by the slaves he held for that and for his particularly brutal treatment, including having slaves beaten for hours and then having brine poured into the wounds.   When he invaded free soil, in Pennsylvania he stole free Black peoples freedom and sent them into slavery, he permitted and tolerated war crimes against Black United States soldiers during the war. The myth of Robert E. Lee was a PR lie that has covered up the real character of the traitor.   It's one of the many myths held by people who should know how to research history, by writers who created and propagated those lies.   

I will stand second to none in my criticism of Washington and Jefferson and the rest of the "founding fathers" who made, among other things, compromises with the slave power who insisted on things like the notorious 3/5ths rule, the Electoral College, the undemocratic constitution of the Senate, and, yes, the Second Amendment which WAS put there to protect the slave patrols which terrorized slaves, kept them from rising up against their enslavement and which turned into, first, the Confederate military and then the terrorists of the KKK and others which persist till this day.   But to say that Washington was the moral equivalent to Robert E. Lee is a lie that is so grotesque it could only be invented by the Nazis who comprise Trump's brain. 


Update:  One person held in slavery at Mount Vernon we know much about is Oney Maria Judge Staines, (sometimes spelled "Ona), who escaped from slavery while the Washington's lived in Philadelphia and who went to New Hampshire where she resisted the entreaties of the President and his wife to return to slavery.   Out of curiosity, this morning, I have tried to figure out through the incestuous interconnections between the Custis and Lee and various other lines of inheritance whether or not Oney Judge Staines would have come under the control of Robert E. Lee or not.   I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that she might have known it was possible he or someone like him would get his hands on her and her children who remained subject to enslavement their entire lives.

The reason much is known about her is because she gave two interviews to abolitionist newspapers in the 1840s.   This passage is crucial.

Being a waiting maid of Mrs. Washington, she was not exposed to any peculiar hardships. If asked why she did not remain in his service, she gives two reasons, first, that she wanted to be free; secondly that she understood that after the decease of her master and mistress, she was to become the property of a grand-daughter of theirs, by name of Custis, and that she was determined never to be her slave.

Being asked how she escaped, she replied substantially as follows, "Whilst they were packing up to go to Virginia, I was packing to go, I didn't know where; for I knew that if I went back to Virginia, I should never get my liberty. I had friends among the colored people of Philadelphia, had my things carried there beforehand, and left Washington's house while they were eating dinner."

She came on board a ship commanded by CAPT. JOHN BOLLES, and bound to Portsmouth, N.H. In relating it, she added, "I never told his name till after he died, a few years since, lest they should punish him for bringing me away."

Washington made two attempts to recover her. First, he sent a man by the name of Bassett to persuade her to return; but she resisted all the argument he employed for this end. He told her they would set her free when she arrived at Mount Vernon, to which she replied, "I am free now and choose to remain so."

Finding all attempts to seduce her to slavery again in this manner useless, Bassett was sent once more by Washington, with orders to bring her and her infant child by force. The messenger, being acquainted with Gov. [then Senator John] Langdon, then of Portsmouth, took up lodgings with him, and disclosed to him the object of his mission.

The good old Governor. (to his honor be it spoken), must have possessed something of the spirit of modern anti-slavery. He entertained Bassett very handsomely, and in the meantime sent word to Mrs. Staines, to leave town before twelve o'clock at night, which she did, retired to a place of concealment, and escaped the clutches of the oppressor.

Shortly after this, Washington died, and, said she, "they never troubled me any more after he was gone."


Archie Didn't Go Extinct As Predicted - For Crying Out Loud, The Media Created Donald Trump Is Aiding And Abetting Nazis, How Much More Serious Does It Get?

I didn't watch many episodes of All In he Family, I didn't think it was funny and I think I'd noticed, even back then, that as Norman Lear and the writers and actors involved in the program were yucking it up over ignorant, blue-collar, schlub, Archie Bunker, that such people didn't interpret the program the way its liberal producers intended.  Archie Bunker was considered heroic by a large part of the audience.

One of the ones I do remember had the high-lar-i-ous plot of  Archie deciding to do his "equal time" (remember the Equal Time provision?) on TV to unintentionally expose his ignorance.   When he first encountered the programming director of the station and started spouting to him, the director got on the phone and said something like, "I want you to come in here to hear something before it becomes extinct".   As I recall, the studio audience yucked it up over the joke.   Only, look at the 20-somethings who were marching with torches last weekend and the comment threads where their like abound.  Archie's generation is dead, they're not today's American Nazis.

That joke encompassed the bet I talked about yesterday.  The contemporary, quasi-official, real right way to be a liberal back then, including the deregulation of broadcasting (I think the plot was meant as satire of the Equal Time provision, too)  free speech, free press absolutism, the smarmily pious declaration that "we must allow the Nazis their free speech lest our free speech right be taken away from us".  But that bet, largely made by middle-class, aspiring to be upper class and rich white lawyers, TV and movie writers, journalists,.... was a bet that Nazis and fascists and white supremacists would never win.

The "free speech absolutist" bet only ever made any sense at all if the racists, petty and otherwise, became extinct, if the fascists and the Nazis would never win,  if the white supremacists, the opponents of equality and democracy never got the upper hand in American politics, THAT IS THE BET THAT I SAID THAT SUCH LIBERALS LOST AND HAVE BEEN LOSING EVER SINCE THAT BET WAS MADE BY THE WARREN COURT AND THOSE WHO FAVORED THAT GAME.   It wasn't a game of poker, it was more like a game of faro, notoriously prone to being rigged and gaffed by whoever was in control of the mechanisms of the game.   And if there was something that was obvious at the time, it was that the most powerful media, broadcast TV and radio were there to do the bidding of the wealthy owners and the advertisers.  It was a monumentally stupid bet for liberals of my young adulthood to have made, especially those who worked in the very media that they had every reason to know would gaff the game.

It didn't take long after 1964 when that bet was placed for it to become obvious what a terrible idea it was, as someone who worked hard to defeat Nixon in 1968, I saw the media obviously favoring him over Hubert Humphrey, I saw them even more obviously favoring Nixon over George McGovern in 1972, while All In The Family was just going into its second season.  Nixon lost under a regulated media and the old libel laws in 1960, he won as the courts scrapped the later and were on their way to loosening the former.   The joke was already out of date by the time it was made.  And the stupidity of the idea is still the ruling ideology of liberals and pseudo-liberals, today, after we've seen how bad an idea it was for a half a century and counting.

It was a bet to allow the media to lie with impunity, a bet which has gotten steadily worse results, producing a country propagandized and corrupted by the free media into a place that even a Democratic president doesn't dare to govern to the left of where President Eisenhower did.  And now it  has gotten us a Trump.

Now that we have a president who has put Nazis in the White House, a white supremacist in charge of the Justice Department, who has been doing his best to normalize and defend NAZIS TERRORIZING AND KILLING AND MARCHING WITH TORCHES IN AN AMERICAN CITY IN 2017!   it's time to admit that that bet was a stupid idea and that the bet that "they" would never win was wrong.   Egalitarian democracy can't exist in a population in which an effective electoral majority believes lies such as the ones being sold in the media about Hillary Clinton and the other lies told about Donald Trump, it can't survive if an effective margin of voters are sold those lies and the history of the last half century proves that, with modern methods of salesmanship and propaganda, those lies can be sold and they can prevail and put people like Donald Trump, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon in power.  They can put Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell in charge of the Congress, they can get the likes of Rehnquist and Roberts and their voter suppressing, gun nut favoring, neo-Jim Crow, federalist fascists in charge of the Supreme Court.

We got here through the power of the media to lie with impunity, through free speech absolutism and the deregulation of the mass media.   If that isn't changed, if we don't bet on a different idea, egalitarian democracy in the United States is doomed if not already finished.  That was an idea of mid-20th century, secular liberalism.   Liberals need to make even more basic changes to their thinking, one that admits that half-century of mounting disaster.

Update:  Well, I checked and, what do you know, there's a transcript of that episode online.

- Okay, so how do you propose to stop people killing people? That's easy.
- Bring back the death penalty.
- Excuse me.
- Go ahead.
- Susan, will you have Johnson step in here for a minute? There's something I want him to see before it's extinct.

Reading it, it's even more clueless about the subsequent history of the next forty-five years than I'd remembered when I wrote this post.



Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Charles Mingus - Fables of Faubus


Charles Mingus (bass, vocals)
Eric Dolphy (alto saxophone)
Ted Curson (trumpet)
Dannie Richmond (drums, vocals).

More Moral Than Trump: The Red Wings and the Torch Maker


Appendix To "Life of An American Slave"

  by Fredrick Douglass 

  I find, since reading over the foregoing Narrative, that I have, in several instances, spoken in such a tone and manner, respecting religion, as may possibly lead those unacquainted with my religious views to suppose me an opponent of all religion. To remove the liability of such misapprehension, I deem it proper to append the following brief explanation. What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference — so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other. I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of "stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in." I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week meets me as a class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible denies me the right of learning to read the name of the God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that scatters whole families, — sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers, — leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen! all for the glory of God and the good of souls! The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other — devils dressed in angels' robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.
"Just God! and these are they,
Who minister at thine altar, God of right!
Men who their hands, with prayer and blessing, lay
On Israel's ark of light.

"What! preach, and kidnap men?
Give thanks, and rob thy own afflicted poor?
Talk of thy glorious liberty, and then
Bolt hard the captive's door?

"What! servants of thy own
Merciful Son, who came to seek and save
The homeless and the outcast, fettering down
The tasked and plundered slave!

"Pilate and Herod friends!
Chief priests and rulers, as of old, combine!
Just God and holy! is that church which lends
Strength to the spoiler thine?"

 The Christianity of America is a Christianity, of whose votaries it may be as truly said, as it was of the ancient scribes and Pharisees, "They bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. All their works they do for to be seen of men. — They love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, . . . . . . and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. — But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. — Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides! which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but within, they are full of extortion and excess. — Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

  Dark and terrible as is this picture, I hold it to be strictly true of the overwhelming mass of professed Christians in America. They strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Could any thing be more true of our churches? They would be shocked at the proposition of fellowshipping a sheep-stealer; and at the same time they hug to their communion a man-stealer, and brand me with being an infidel, if I find fault with them for it. They attend with Pharisaical strictness to the outward forms of religion, and at the same time neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. They are always ready to sacrifice, but seldom to show mercy. They are they who are represented as professing to love God whom they have not seen, whilst they hate their brother whom they have seen. They love the heathen on the other side of the globe. They can pray for him, pay money to have the Bible put into his hand, and missionaries to instruct him; while they despise and totally neglect the heathen at their own doors.
  Such is, very briefly, my view of the religion of this land; and to avoid any misunderstanding, growing out of the use of general terms, I mean by the religion of this land, that which is revealed in the words, deeds, and actions, of those bodies, north and south, calling themselves Christian churches, and yet in union with slaveholders. It is against religion, as presented by these bodies, that I have felt it my duty to testify.

  I conclude these remarks by copying the following portrait of the religion of the south, (which is, by communion and fellowship, the religion of the north,) which I soberly affirm is "true to the life," and without caricature or the slightest exaggeration. It is said to have been drawn, several years before the present anti-slavery agitation began, by a northern Methodist preacher, who, while residing at the south, had an opportunity to see slaveholding morals, manners, and piety, with his own eyes. "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?"

"A PARODY.

"Come, saints and sinners, hear me tell
How pious priests whip Jack and Nell,
And women buy and children sell,
And preach all sinners down to hell,
And sing of heavenly union.

"They'll bleat and baa, dona like goats,
Gorge down black sheep, and strain at motes,
Array their backs in fine black coats,
Then seize their negroes by their throats,
And choke, for heavenly union.

"They'll church you if you sip a dram,
And damn you if you steal a lamb;
Yet rob old Tony, Doll, and Sam,
Of human rights, and bread and ham;
Kidnapper's heavenly union.

"They'll loudly talk of Christ's reward,
And bind his image with a cord,
And scold, and swing the lash abhorred,
And sell their brother in the Lord
To handcuffed heavenly union.

"They'll read and sing a sacred song,
And make a prayer both loud and long,
And teach the right and do the wrong,
Hailing the brother, sister throng,
With words of heavenly union.

"We wonder how such saints can sing,
Or praise the Lord upon the wing,
Who roar, and scold, and whip, and sting,
And to their slaves and mammon cling,
In guilty conscience union.

"They'll raise tobacco, corn, and rye,
And drive, and thieve, and cheat, and lie,
And lay up treasures in the sky,
By making switch and cowskin fly,
In hope of heavenly union.


"They'll crack old Tony on the skull,
And preach and roar like Bashan bull,
Or braying ass, of mischief full,
Then seize old Jacob by the wool,
And pull for heavenly union.

"A roaring, ranting, sleek man-thief,
Who lived on mutton, veal, and beef,
Yet never would afford relief
To needy, sable sons of grief,
Was big with heavenly union.

"'Love not the world,' the preacher said,
And winked his eye, and shook his head;
He seized on Tom, and Dick, and Ned,
Cut short their meat, and clothes, and bread,
Yet still loved heavenly union.

"Another preacher whining spoke
Of One whose heart for sinners broke:
He tied old Nanny to an oak,
And drew the blood at every stroke,
And prayed for heavenly union.

"Two others oped their iron jaws,
And waved their children-stealing paws;
There sat their children in gewgaws;
By stinting negroes' backs and maws,
They kept up heavenly union.

"All good from Jack another takes,
And entertains their flirts and rakes,
Who dress as sleek as glossy snakes,
And cram their mouths with sweetened cakes;
And this goes down for union."

Sincerely and earnestly hoping that this little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system, and hastening the glad day of deliverance to the millions of my brethren in bonds — faithfully relying upon the power of truth, love, and justice, for success in my humble efforts — and solemnly pledging my self anew to the sacred cause, — I subscribe myself,

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

 LYNN, Mass., April 28, 1845.

The Game Of Chance That The Legal Professionals Have Played Put Equal Rights And Democracy Up As Stakes And The Opponents Of Those Won The Card Game

Essentially the "civil libertarian" "free speech" industry line is "We must allow the Nazis to freely propagandize for Nazism, lest all our liberty perish".   In another common and empty slogan,  "If they can silence the Nazis they can silence us, too."  In that latter case the "us" was, quite often, the red fascists of Marxism on whose behalf I think a lot of this nonsense was developed.

But that's a game of chance most often played by straight, white, affluent, males in groups which aren't targeted by Nazis and their allies in anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic hate groups.  It is a game of chance played by white, affluent, professionals in the law, the judiciary and the media with the lives of those who are targeted by them.  They are, also, largely, males, as well.  And their choice to enable hate speech has already been being paid off with the stakes they put up.   As I read this morning,  Rachel Maddow, who I would guess, as a media person probably support the "absolutist" line in such things, gave a long list of incidents in which people were murdered by American Nazis and their allies in past terror incidents.  Allowing Nazis to propagate has already resulted in such people losing most of if not all of their rights.  Mostly the targets are not rich, white, straight, males, though in this game of chance, they can get killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And, since, with the imposition of Donald Trump on the country, Nazis and fascists are already in the government, at the highest levels.  That paid off for the haters in the game described above, too.

They're winning   And with that win the "lest all our liberty perish" is happening THROUGH THE FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTISM THAT CREATED DONALD TRUMP AND ALLOWED HIM TO PUT NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  He's put a white supremacist in charge of the Justice Department, he's choosing judges and Supreme Court "justices" right now.   You don't have to wait for some imaginary future to see the result of allowing lies to put Nazis and fascists into power, from where they can errode all of those liberties the ACLU, Joel Gora act claimed to be protecting, BECAUSE THEY GOT THERE THROUGH THE MEDIA BEING ALLOWED TO LIE THEM INTO POWER, LAST YEAR.

That whole thing was given the test of time since 1964 when the Sullivan decision was issued,  the history of American politics since then has been a steady move, through Nixon, Reagan, the two Bushes, through ever worse Supreme Court majorities which have destroyed equality and democracy, sustaining the worst of race-based denial of the vote - mostly for Black People, Latinos and other popular targets of American Nazism but that trend is continuing and can be expected to expand to other groups.   That is a product of that absolutist interpretation of "free speech" and other item in the Bill of Rights.

The kind of thing we saw in Charlottesville over the weekend can become normalized, just as the series of American Nazi and fascist hate crime and murders enumerated by Rachel Maddow has become normalized, just as the incidents of mass gun violence - some of them inspired by Nazi and other malignant media consumed by the murderers - has become normalized in the United States under the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the same courts as have empowered Nazis and fascists and other opportunistic liars in the media.   Don't kid yourself that the reaction to what happened in Charlottesville is a turn in the road that is guaranteed to lead away from the further empowerment of Nazis, because we're a country in which the media lied the attack on the kindergarten and early grade school children at Sandy Hook into a political and legal non-entity and a "conspiracy theory" and a "false flag" incident.   If the media liars empowered by the ACLU, the "free speech, free press" industry can do that, don't put all your money on the claim that the outrageous display at Charlottesville - also under legal protection given it by the courts at the behest of the ACLU - is some kind of watershed for egalitarian democracy that will go in the right direction.

Monday, August 14, 2017

Trump And Charlottesville: Too Little, Too Late


"Atrios turned down a chance to be on TV!" - Hate Mail

Is there anything sadder than for a has-been blogger of 45 to be waxing nostalgically over the time, long past, when he'd get asked to be a cabloid talking head?   

I read it.   It's for want of a better word, bathetic.  I will agree with one thing he said, he's one of the friggin' laziest people on the putatively lefty blogosphere.   

I'd ignore him completely if he didn't host people who lie about me.  It's the only reason I ever mention him.  There isn't any other reason to, by his own choice.   Maybe he likes the attention.  

Update:  I can't believe this is still going on but, really, I don't care what David Derbes says, he's got the typical sci-guy's attitude to history, that it doesn't matter.    No one who still goes to Eschaton on a regular basis, now, is really interested in the truth, they go there to reinforce their prejudices.   
DeNazify the USA NOW.

Millions shouldn't have to die before we 
wise up.

Gildas Boclé - Candyman


Boclé Brothers
Jean Baptiste Boclé, vibes,
Gildas Boclé, bass
Marcello Pellitteri, drums

A few years and a computer or two ago, I copied a live performance video of this played by the great bass player and composer, the beauteous Gildas Boclé and the great Brazilian guitarist Nelson Veras. I just found the file and finally transferred it and two other performances from the same French TV show to disc.  Alas, that performance isn't up anymore, neither is the one from the same source for

007


same as above with
Dave Liebman, soprano saxophone

Two Comments

2 comments:

  1. You got me, Sparky. There was no slavery in America or anti--Semitism in Europe until that rat bastard Charles Darwin published that awful book.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Were you born stupid or did something happen to you?

      Your claim was that the Nazis in Charlottesville weren't inspired by Charles Darwin, I proved that they claim their inspiration is from Charles Darwin, just as the Nazism of Germany was based on Darwinism, which I've also proved.

      I know you really don't quite get how that time thing works but, you know what, Simps, there were no Nazis before Charles Darwin published his first book, either.

      All that is necessary to prove my point is to cite today's Nazis as claiming their inspiration is in Charles Darwin and natural selection, his invention, and they do that.

      You also don't get how logic and reason work, either, preferring to just spout the post-war, St. Darwin mythology you imbibed as a "C" student if that. Before the war no one made believe Darwinism was unrelated to eugenics, his own son, Leonard Darwin cited his father's influence as "turning things in Germany in the right direction" after whining about how before the Nazis, Germans were too "conservative" to accept eugenics.

      Now, go tell your fellow ignorami what I said, only you never do, you make up something I'm supposed to have said. Go tell your buddy, Derbes to come here and read what I wrote on the topic, I don't think he's stupid enough to not understand I proved my case but he's too chicken to admit that.

Hate Mail

I'll go to the mat for Nazis to speak the truth in defense of egalitarian democracy, I'll admit that they have a right to do that   But, then, they wouldn't be Nazis, would they.   

I reject the claim that Nazis and other enemies of egalitarian democracy have a right to attack or undermine equality and democracy, to claim their right to do that by the very same doctrines that they, themselves deny are true.   I don't even pretend that they have a right to do that by the vote.  The vote exists to serve egalitarian self-government, it doesn't exist to destroy that primary good. 

That judges and "Justices" pretend to not be able to make that distinction, that lawyers for groups like the ACLU claim that that distinction is not obvious and should not have any influence on legal decisions is a transparent and willful lie and fraud and dereliction of responsibility.   It is based on a phony pose of judicial and legal blindness that, in reality, in most cases, they would certainly not claim.  Judges and lawyers can tease out and parse and make distinctions, basing final decisions on those distinctions  in areas that are far harder, far more esoteric, far, far outside of their personal knowledge and areas of expertise than that Nazism can and is eroding American democracy by an appeal to racism, bigotry and racist paranoia under the slogan of The First Amendment.  By their past actions, benefitting media institutions like FOX and Breitbart and the entire American Nazi blogosphere, they have aided and abetted that decline into Nazism through a ridiculous and absurd interpretation of that amendment.  

If you want an example of how the professional "free speech" industry twists and bends things to maintain their various poses, look at the ACLU explanation of its position on the Second Amendment.   I haven't teased out what part they might have played in allowing Nazis armed with what are euphemistically called "semi-automatic" weapons in an American city but I can tell you it is legalistic double-speak of the kind they apparently teach you in law schools, these days. 

Update:  If you want a good example of how ridiculous that old ACLU line gets, you can go back to the early years when the lefty hero,  Roger Baldwin (who would later, opportunistically expel commies from the ACLU) wrote about as outrageous a piece of double-speak as imaginable "Liberty Under The Soviets" noting the transparently dishonest alteration of the meaning of words he practiced in it.  It's no wonder that the ACLU is going to court on behalf of Nazis to spread their poison today with that kind of history.  And he's hardly the only one of its prominent past members to do that kind of thing.

You might want to check out what some of the opponents of the Soviet government were writing about the mass killings, the already up and running and enormous slave labor forces the government was pressing into service, the total suppression of the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights here, etc. as Roger Baldwin was writing the book.   I have to say, Roger Baldwin's heroic image, something I imbibed from the time I was in high school, is largely bull shit. 

I will note that his book was published by Vanguard Press which was founded with money from the Garland Foundation, of which Baldwin was a trustee.  

Update 2:  Roger Baldwin, having claimed to be a great admirer of Emma Goldman and having been influenced by her, even joining the Wobblies through her inspiration.  He would certainly have known of her book, published four years before his, My Disillusionment in Russia.   If he had read it and had gotten to Chapter 29, he could have read her account of the Americans and other, foreign communists and other lefties of the time during the Third Congress of the Third International and the First Congress of the Red Trade Union International in 1920 and their covering up of the earliest of the terrible crimes of the Soviet Union.   He certainly knew better by the time he wrote that book linked to, above.   He chose not to tell the truth about it. 

We, as individuals, have a right to defend egalitarian democracy against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic, we as people possessing rights, have a moral obligation to defend it for all of us as equals.

If people on the left are going to successfully fight against and prevail against American Nazism, already far past the burgeoning stage with representatives in the White House and Republican Party, they have to admit to what it is and fight it at the root. What it is is a revamped version of the old Nazism, using the same ideas of biological inferiority and superiority - they being the superior - of the beneficial results of a race war in which they murdered all of those they identify as inferior which would result in an even more superior species of survivors.  It is Nazism updated and repackaged to appeal to Americans trained by TV and movies and pop-culture and video games and internet porn. The nostalgia of Nazi propaganda movies (which, by the way, abound in Nazi channels on YouTube and, as mentioned, on podcasts like SoundCloud) is a taste they acquire later.

That idea, as biological science, was originated in Darwin's theory of natural selection just as certainly as natural selection was the origin of Francis Galton and Wilhelm Schallmeyers two strains of eugenics, something which is undeniable because the proponent of those allied forms of scientific racism cited Darwin as their ultimate authority AND HE ENDORSED THE IDEAS THAT BOTH SCIENTIFIC RACISTS AND THE EARLY EUGENICISTS DERIVED FROM HIS THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION.   The verification of the specifically Nazi eugenics as being part of that same line of inheritance comes from none other than Charles Darwin's son, Leonard Darwin, just before WWII began.   The ties of Darwinism to Nazism couldn't possibly be clearer, they're just unread and unadmitted to by the deification of Darwin especially in the post-war period when they invented today's sanitized, sanctified plaster Darwin. 

Today's American Nazis, not having the nationalistic motives of the Germans are explicit in their citations of  Darwin and attributions to him.  I gave links to two posts I did pointing out the foremost influence on American Nazism today,  William L. Pierce, the author of the Turner Diaries, in which he was explicit in basing his pathologically violent racism and anti-Semitism on Charles Darwin and on the authors who Charles Darwin cited in his scientific works, giving them his seal of guaranteed scientific reliability.  He also cites later Darwinists such as the predecessor of the infamous Kevin Macdonald in scientific Jew baiting and racism,  Arthur Keith.  If you did your know-your-enemy homework and read today's American Nazi scribblers and listened to their babblers, you would know that they pretty much take up Pierce's lines, many of them directly taken from German Nazis from the period before they were defeated.   Most of them not being especially bright or original thinkers, much of their scribblage is a rehash of junk Pierce cranked out in his books and magazines.   

In a comment yesterday I noted that the MO of Darwin's defenders on the left is essentially the same as David Irving's in Hitler hagiography and Holocaust denial, of claiming that since there is no order signed by Hitler that says "Kill all the Jews" that means that Hitler was innocent of the Holocaust which, denying the massive evidence and eye-witness testimony and the written records of the Nazis, themselves, Irving minimizes and dismisses.   

All of the things I said yesterday are documentable on the American Nazis websites, in their podcasts.   Their central thesis of racial inferiority and superiority, of the dangers of dysgenesis and other catastrophes, biological and social, of the presence of other races and ethnicities to the "superior" and to the future, the benefits of genocide and the superiority of the survivors of that genocide are all explicitly found in Darwin's own writing and those of the people like Ernst Haeckel, Francis Galton, W. R. Gregg and others in The Descent of Man and to Herbert Spencer in the last two editions he produce of The Origin of Species.   That there were other racists and other strains of scientific racism for Darwin's champions to throw up as distraction does nothing to make the American Nazi's citations of Darwin disappear.  And the great champions of Darwin have given citations of him, by anyone on any side, an entirely out-sized importance.   I doubt that anyone would have noticed William L. Pierce citing the minor, later day Darwinist Arthur Keith because, unlike the work of Darwin, his name would be known only to a few people who had read his ever less read books.  

If the American Nazis are going to be defeated, you're going to have to do it on the basis of what they are claiming as well as meeting them with massive opposition, physical as well as verbal.  Pretending that natural selection, Darwinism, isn't at the very root of their claims is certainly not going to do it. 

I have said, for years, that more than just that will be necessary, suppressing their means of attracting converts from the gaming and porn and whiny "men's rights" internet is another.   I've been saying all of those things for a long, long time, now.   I have pointed out how the mid-20th century "free speech absolutist" interpretation of the First Amendment has enabled the worst of the worst - and the Nazis are among the worst of the worst -  to propagate and to corrupt everything, first minds, then the culture.  I have said that a country which enables lies by granting them and the liars who lie a "right" to lie was a self-made guarantee to disaster.   I have said that egalitarian democracy - THE ONLY REAL AND LEGITIMATE MEANING OF THE WORD IN THE MODERN WORLD - not only must defend itself against anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic ideologies and claims, yes, even those made as science, in order to exist and continue, we, The People, have a right to defend egalitarian democracy which provides the blessings of equality.   We, as individuals, have a right to defend egalitarian democracy against all of its enemies, foreign and domestic, we, as people possessing rights,  have a moral obligation to defend it for all of us as equals.  

And the modern age, with mass communications and modern propaganda methods, the old assumptions of the mid-20th century absolutism which brought us here, with actual Nazis in the White House, with a white supremacist as Attorney General, with an insane, infantile "president" who chose those putting people on the Supreme Court, has proven, beyond doubt, that permitting lies to be spouted through the mass media and on the internet is a guarantee to produce those results.  If you want other examples, Putin, the ultra-billionaire patron of neo-Nazism and fascism in Europe and here,  used mass media to destroy the Russian attempts to establish democracy there.  

Pretty much all of those cherished slogans and bromides of mid-20th century, pseudo-liberalism, what was really just libertarianism with a lefty false front,  have been shown to be empty and wrong.   We don't have any choice but to take a chance on requiring the truth.   As I said,  the price of free speech should be that you use it to tell the truth, the cost of allowing lies is catastrophically high, very likely ultimately so. 

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Hate Mail - You Don't Know What You're Talking About - Look At Your Own Risk Links Are Not Going To Be Provided Here

First, unless your malware and anti-virus software are really up to date and excellent I wouldn't suggest that you go to American Nazi websites like National Vanguard and read the articles citing Darwin in support of their racism, anti-Semitism, general hatred and even, in some cases, open and explicit advocacy for genocide but it's there to be seen by anyone.  


If you go to the Daily Stormer and search for "natural selection" you will see Darwinism invoked in scores of some of the most racist, vile, slimy Nazi blog posts you're likely to have ever see.   If you had researched scientific racism, eugenics, the history of applied Darwinism in politics and the law, the same kinds of things they're saying now were things that even mainstream Darwinists, in English, in German, in other languages, were saying from the late 19th century until WWII and even after.  One of the things I saw cited Charles Galton Darwin, Darwin's Grandson and his late 1950s book decrying the inevitable decline into dysgenesis that was bound to result from the prevention of eugenics.  You can hear that stuff from the biggest names in Darwinian biology, Watson and Crick and echoed by occasional living stars like Dawkins.  Kevin MacDonald is certainly cited, he was certainly considered to be a legitimate scientist until he made the mistake of testifying on behalf of David Irving and what, somehow, oddly, escaped the previous notice of his scientific colleagues even as they were reviewing his anti-Semitism and passing it on as science, elevating him to higher positions as he was publishing it. 

Both of those groups were listed as participants in the Nazi rally at Charlottesville.  Simps, Freki, the rest of the Eschaton "brain trust" are lying, probably most of them out of complete ignorance but the evidence that backs up what I said this morning is right there, online to be seen.  

This Is What The "Free Speech" "Free Press" Industry Wants Your Donations To Enable

After praising Trump's statement on Charlottesville, a neo-Nazi website celebrates murder of counterprotester Heather Heyer

The ACLU And The "Free Speech" Industry Had A Hand In Permitting The Nazi Violence That Happened In Charlottesville.

I would like a list of ACLU lawyers who were out there protesting Nazism yesterday.

The city had also objected to the demonstrators' hoped-for gathering spot — the formerly named Lee Park, where the city has ordered the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The city sought to block the rally at the park now called Emancipation Park.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties and human rights group based in Charlottesville, filed a lawsuit Thursday against the city on behalf of the rally organizers. The suit said that the city was unconstitutionally infringing on the demonstrators' First Amendment rights by directing them to go to a different park.

That's from RawStory.  I would like to ask them if they really want to describe the Rutherford Institute as, " a civil liberties and human rights group."  For anyone who doesn't know what the Rutherford Institute is, here's what seems to me to be a pretty accurate description of them from the Wikipedia page on it

While once primarily concerned with the defense of religious liberties,[3] the organization later expanded its mission to encompass other constitutional issues such as search and seizure, free speech, and zero tolerance policy.[4] The institute has been described as "a more conservative American Civil Liberties Union." (ACLU)[5] Some of the Institute's legal actions were widely reported, including helping Paula Jones pursue a sexual harassment lawsuit in 1997 against President Bill Clinton,[6] and its defense of airline pilots and passengers affected by the Transportation Security Administration's security procedures,[7] middle and high school students suspended and expelled under inflexible zero tolerance policies,[8][9] and the free speech rights of preachers and political protestors.[10][11] The Rutherford Institute has worked with a number of similar groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, the Cato Institute,[12] the Constitution Project, and the Liberty Coalition.[13] Whitehead was described by jazz historian and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff as "this nation's Paul Revere of protecting civil liberties.

Not to mention things like opposing the rights of LGBT People, general right-wing advocacy and promoting privilege.  I hope Nat is deep in purgatory for being such a hypocritical douchebag.  You can find out more about them from Sourcewatch, here.

T
he kind of thing that happened yesterday always reminds me of of what the far too-little known novelist Ruth Moore wrote in 1960 near the end of The Walk Down Main Street.  The former small town basketball star gone wrong, ex-con, killer, Arthur Grindel,  came to see the old trophy his team won at the high school and meets up with the principal.

... He grinned, not nicely, rocking back and forth on his heels, his chest out  "You was always crowding my tail to read,"  he went on.  "Read, you said.  Read, read, read."

"And you remember it."

"I remember it.  I read, all right  Everything I could get my hands on.  About the War.  About Hitler.  Some damned old do-gooder stuck a copy of his book in the jail library."

"And what did you make of Mein Kampf?"  James asked.

"You can ask me.  I never got through it, it was too tough, I still don't read good,  I only read more.  But I got enough to know.  That guy, he had it made.   Guys like me, kids, anybody didn't have any place, he give them something to do, made them feel they was somebody.  I wish I'd been there.  I'd have been his topkick.  I'd sure like to hit into this town some dark night, with a bunch of them Black Shirts.  I'd make it fit to live in. It's the only way you could."

Well, I think America is going to learn the hard way that the idiot "do-gooders" who figure it's nice and fair and some kind of twisted inverse virtue to allow Nazis to have their "fair" chance to advocate their ideas are idiots who, generally white, affluent and in no immediate or even proximate danger of being the ones killed and attacked, safe in their law offices and courtrooms and TV and radio studio appearances, are enabling Nazis and their allies to kill people, people who are in immediate and proximate danger from them.

Fuck the ACLU just as much as the Rutherford Institute.  Fuck the do-gooders who are such idiots playing a game of competitive scruples with other peoples' lives.   They're getting people killed, now.