Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Questions About Race Relations and Racial Politics in America (and a Few Answers)

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Definitions of Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotypes (etc.)
III. Hispanic-American Issues, Immigration, and "Where Are You From?"
IV. Political Correctness (incl. P.C. Language on College Campuses)
V. Racial Politics: Trump vs. the Democratic Party
VI. Reparations, Affirmative Action, and "Reverse Discrimination"
VII. Native American Issues
VIII. Busing and Black Incarceration




I. Introduction

     The following 28 sets of questions were written as part of the planning stages of my appearance on  an episode of a public access television show based in Highland Park, Illinois. The topics of that episode are race in America and political correctness.
     I believe that these questions are the most important and relevant questions that need to be asked, in order to produce a thorough discussion of race relations.

     I did not answer all of the questions that follow (I refrained from answering questions #7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14-19, 22-26, and 28). However, my readers should be able to discern my opinion from the way I worded most of those questions.
     In case it's necessary to explain my positions any further, I support political correctness and safe spaces, but only when they don't interfere with the right to free expression and the right to debate what the truth is. And I do believe that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and a racist, and I have criticized (and will continue to criticize) the Trump Administration's immigration policies as reminiscent of the Nazi regime that governed Germany during World War II and the Holocaust.

     Along with many of these sets of questions, I have included links to news articles, so that the reader can learn more about the original context of the news about American racial politics to which I am referring.



II. Definitions of Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotypes (etc.)

     1. What is the definition of “racism”? What is the definition of “racial supremacy”?

     Answer: Racism is “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race, based on the belief that one's own race is superior.” Additionally, the term “racism” is often used as shorthand (or a synonym) for “racial supremacy” and “the belief in, or promotion of, racial stereotypes”.
     Racial supremacy, in particular, is “the racist belief that one's race is superior to others, and that therefore that race should dominate, subjugate, or control other races, or the belief that the superior race is entitled to do so.”

     2. Is the term “racist” being overused? Does calling everything “racist” diminish the seriousness of racial hatred? Why has this term become so popular recently?

     Answer: Because many people lump racial prejudice, racial supremacy / racial superiority, racial stereotyping, and racial discrimination in with racism, and refer to all of those things (as well as making insensitive jokes about race) as “racist” actions.
     The term “racism” has thus become a convenient descriptor for any and all actions which could be described as racially insensitive. The popularity of the word's use in recent years, could owe in part to the fact that the word now refers to a wider and less specific set of arguably racist actions and statements than it used to.
     On the other hand, those who feel that it is appropriate to call a lot of people and things “racist”, do so because they believe that racism is now practiced mostly covertly, as opposed to overtly. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s featured obvious, public, out-in-the-open discrimination against, and segregation of, African-Americans; not just in private and on business properties, but by the government itself. Some of those who consider racism a serious problem, believe that racism has become harder to detect, and some even believe that we are being subconsciously programmed to support white supremacy, by sectors of our society such as government and advertising.

     3. What is the definition of “racial prejudices”?

     Answer: “Preconceived opinions about race, which are not based on reason or actual experience.”

     4. What is the definition of “racial discrimination”?

     Answer: “Preferential treatment on the basis of race.”

     5. What is the definition of a “racial stereotype”?

     Answer: “A widely held, but fixed and oversimplified, image or idea, of a particular race of people.”

     6. What is the difference between a positive stereotype and a negative stereotype?

     Answer: A negative stereotype is deliberately intended to be hurtful, while a positive stereotype is usually intended as a joke and is usually not intended to offend anyone.
     However, positive stereotypes can still be hurtful, such as the positive stereotypes that “Jewish people are good with money” and “all Asians are good at math”. These ideas are stereotypes about positive traits, but they are still generalizations, so they are still harmful because they contribute to the belief that all members of a certain group are the same.


III. Hispanic-American Issues, Immigration, and "Where Are You From?"

     7. Is it insensitive to refer to Hispanics as “Mexicans”, or as “Spanish people”? Should we be careful about using the term “Mexican” and “Spanish” to describe Latino, Hispanic, or Chicano people who might not even be from Mexico or Spain to begin with?

     8. Former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was recently criticized for asking reporter Andrew Feinberg “What's your ethnicity?” in response to his asking her to explain Trump's tweet telling four congresswomen to “go back” to their districts. The reporter replied that he was American, but Conway kept asking, because she wanted to know where the reporter's parents were from.
     Was it racially insensitive of Donald Trump to suggest that his critics in Congress “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe”, when three out of the four people he was criticizing were born in the United States, rather than abroad?
     Is it racially insensitive to suggest that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “from Puerto Rico” just because her parents are Puerto Rican; and that Rashida Tlaib is “from Palestine” just because her parents are Palestinian? Wouldn't that imply that Ayanna Pressly is every bit as much “from Africa” as Ilhan Omar is? What about a Jewish-American person who was born in America, but has never been to Israel? Where is that person “from”, if not America or Israel?
     Is it racially insensitive to ask someone where their family is from; to keep asking where someone is “from” until they tell you about an ancestor that wasn't born in America? Is it reasonable for someone to be upset or offended by being asked such a question?


Sources:
Kellyanne Conway asks reporter “What is your ethnicity?”:




IV. Political Correctness (incl. P.C. Language on College Campuses)

      9. What is the definition of “politically correct”?

     Answer: “Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities, should be eliminated.”


     10. Some Americans feel that the culture of political correctness has gone too far. Critics of “P.C. language” (politically correct language) say that it causes people to be too cautious about the words they use. They say that worrying about avoiding offending people could make us afraid to speak the truth, and might even cause a “free speech chilling effect”.
     Do you believe that using “politically correct language” is a good way to help promote respectful dialogue about race in America? Or do you believe that P.C. language has gone too far? (And if you think it has gone too far, what are some examples of it going too far, that you object to?)

     11. The conversation about political correctness extends to not only race and ethnicity and nationality, but also to religion, biological sex, and gender identity. Thus, the treatment of transgender individuals, as well as of non-whites, has become an important and controversial issue on college campuses.
     Several years ago, in Toronto, Canada, psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson became notorious for refusing to refer to his students by their preferred pronoun, saying “I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest.” This came at a time when Canada was considering Bill C-16, a proposed bill by the Canadian parliament that would have prohibited gender discrimination on campuses, but also would have required people to use the gender pronouns which others prefer.
     Given that anti-discrimination could potentially threaten the freedom of speech in Canada – and maybe even result in “compelled speech” or “government mandated speech” - is there a realistic chance that the same kinds of laws limiting the freedom of speech on campus, could be implemented at universities here in America?


Source:

Dr. Jordan Peterson on why he won't use people's preferred pronouns:


12. What are “safe spaces”?

     Answer: “Places, including some college campuses, which are intended to be free from bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening or upsetting actions, ideas, or conversations.”
     Practices common in “safe spaces” are “trigger warnings” and protections from “micro-aggressions”. Trigger warnings are warnings that information may upset listeners, while “micro-aggressions” are uses of offensive, “aggressive” language, which cause others to feel attacked.


     13. In 2016, the University of Chicago received praise for defending academic freedom and freedom of speech, for announcing that it would not be creating “safe spaces” for students. The university announced that it would not disinvite speakers, invited to speak on controversial topics, if students protested and demanded disinvitation.
     As a reminder, riots broke out in Berkeley in 2017, after the University of California at Berkeley decided not to disinvite controversial “alt-right” speakers, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Lauren Southern.
     Do you believe that the need for political correctness – and so-called “safe spaces” on campus - help college students learn about race in America, history, etc.? Or are you worried that these things shelter students from reality, and from an educational experience that's meant to expose them to ideas that conflict with and challenge their own ideas? What kinds of protections do students need on campus, if any?


Sources:

Riots occur after University of California Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos event:




V. Racial Politics: Trump vs. the Democratic Party

     14. Do you believe that President Trump a racist? Why or why not?
Why do people think he's racist? What has he said, or done, that indicates that he is a white supremacist?


     15. Is the Trump Administration's immigration policy racist? Is it intrinsically racist to exclude immigrants on the basis of national origin, or is just an issue of the president stressing the need to enforce existing law?


     16. Many defenders of the president have pointed out that some immigration policies - such as separation of children from families, and knocking-over water left for migrants – were started under the Obama Administration. The Trump Administration says it's just enforcing existing laws.
     The Obama Administration has been criticized for setting deportation records. But Obama and Hillary Clinton also supported D.A.C.A. (Deferred Action for Child Arrivals).
     Did the Obama Administration help immigrants? Was Obama's immigration policy good for America? Should Hillary Clinton have done something more to help immigrants, besides just support D.A.C.A., if she expected to prove herself more pro-immigrant than Trump, and win the presidency?


Sources:



     17. “The Squad” - the quartet of four progressive Democratic legislators whom are all women of color – have become well-known for their outspoken criticism of Donald Trump, and his administration's policy towards immigration, the B.D.S. movement, and other issues. They have even called for his impeachment.
     Trump and the Squad have called each other “racist” back and forth several times, over several issues, especially the issue of whether the treatment of undocumented immigrants at the border is comparable to the conditions seen in Nazi concentration camps. The Squad accuses Trump of racial antipathy against people of Hispanic or African origin; while Trump accuses the Squad of racism for supposedly always making his statements about race, and for their arguably anti-Semitic criticism of the State of Israel.
     Whose statements are “less politically correct”; the president's, or the Squad's? Is it always racially insensitive to compare the treatment of undocumented immigrants to the treatment of victims of the Holocaust, or is it possible to warn people against repeating another potential Holocaust-like situation without diminishing the seriousness of that crime against humanity?
     What could be done to improve U.S.-Jewish and U.S.-Islamic relations, without offending the political, religious, and racial sensibilities of any of those groups?


     18. Statistics show that black home ownership rates did not go up or down from the beginning to the end of the Obama Administration. Unemployment among blacks is down, but that could be due to decreased enrollment in unemployment benefits, and the way unemployment is measured.
     That, and the fact that black homeownership rates are not currently at an all-time high (as Trump has claimed) point to the possibility that the Trump Administration is being “irrationally exuberant” about how much it has improved the financial situation of black Americans. In fact, black homeownership is now at an all-time low.
     Did Obama help African-Americans? Why did the majority of blacks vote for Trump instead of Hillary in 2016? Have African-Americans been doing better economically and financially under Trump than under Obama, or is it still too early to tell?


Source:

Black homeownership at 50-year low:




VI. Reparations, Affirmative Action, and "Reverse Discrimination"

     19. Some Americans still feel that the history of slavery, segregation, discrimination, and poverty that have plagued African-Americans, still has too much of an effect on their ability to get ahead in the economy. Many Americans who feel this way, believe that reparations for slavery are an appropriate and necessary response to the financial struggles of black descendants of formerly enslaved people.
     Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is running on a platform that includes reparations, with an amount of money to be negotiated at a later date ($200-$500 billion), be disbursed over a period of 20 years, for the purposes of reconciliation with the black community, and, as she says, as “payment for the debt that is owed”. The money would be paid to a reparations commission, made up of a panel of black leaders.
     Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has proposed a somewhat similar plan. Yang's “Freedom Dividend” is a universal basic income plan, which will be payable to all Americans who want to participate in it, not just African-Americans. However, Yang says that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported the basic income idea, and the Freedom Dividend could become sort of a surrogate for reparations if Yang became president.
     Will reparations help African-Americans recover from slavery, or help them get ahead financially? Or are reparations hurtful to African-Americans' independence and self-esteem because they assume that all black people need this assistance?
     What are some potential obstacles to getting a reparations bill passed in Congress?


Sources:


Andrew Yang supports basic income, and so did MLK:
http://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/1135578919195877376?lang=en

     20. In 2016, white Texas student Abigail Fisher lost the second of her two U.S. Supreme Court lawsuits (after winning the first) against the University of Texas at Austin, which she alleged did not admit her because of its affirmative action program and its preference for non-white students.
     Affirmative action is a college admission policy which intends to “tip the playing field in the other direction” in order to account for the advantages whites have had in getting opportunities to go to college. Some consider college affirmative action policies “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”. Perhaps the same could be said about reparations.
What is the definition of “reverse discrimination”?

     Answer: “”The practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously.”
     To put it another way, “reverse discrimination” is discrimination against members of a social group or class which believes itself to be superior, practiced by members of the supposedly inferior class which usually finds itself discriminated against.”
In modern America, the term “reverse racism” usually refers to alleged discrimination against whites by non-whites.


Source:

 Abigail Fisher's affirmative action lawsuit:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36928990
     21. What are some other practices – aside from reparations and affirmative action - that could be described as “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”?

     Answer: One example is the assumption that all white people are racists or white supremacists. Another example is the increasingly popular practice in the Democratic Party of openly and intentionally giving more speaking time to women and non-whites, than to white men.


     22. Are reparations and affirmative action necessary to make up for America's history of unequal treatment of non-whites? Or do these policies themselves perpetuate racism, just in the opposite direction (that is, against whites)?



VII. Native American Issues

     23. In May, Democrats including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren pulled a bill that would have affirmed the federal reservation designation of tribal lands in Massachusetts, after Trump called the bill “unfair”. Proponents of the bill conjectured that Trump's casino deals in the state, may present a conflict of interest, which could explain Trump's opposition to designating the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation as trust land.
     What do you think would help Native Americans more; giving them more (or possibly better) land, or giving them casinos? Or will it be necessary to enact some sort of reparations -type bill, to improve relations between the U.S. federal Government and the Indian tribes?


Source:

Trump calls Warren bill on Indian lands “unfair”, Trump's casino deal may present conflict of interest:


     24. In October 2018, Elizabeth Warren's DNA results were released, revealing that her ethnic background is between 0.09% and 1.5% Native American. Warren has since apologized to the Cherokee Nation for trying to use the DNA test to justify her claim that she has Native American heritage.
     However, prior to that apology, Warren's critics accused her of exaggerating the extent of her Native American heritage, in order to get special treatment such as a minority college scholarship and political clout.
     Are Warren's critics right? Does Warren have a right to recognize her Native American heritage (as little as it is), or is it racially and politically insensitive of her to move forward with her campaign, given that she has offended the very community she claims to come from?


Source:





VIII. Busing and Black Incarceration

     25. In July, during the first round of debates for the Democratic nomination for president, California Senator Kamala Harris confronted Joe Biden over his opposition to busing of black and white students to public schools. Biden was against school busing in the early 1970s, at a time when President Richard Nixon was urging the desegregation of public schools “with all deliberate speed”.
     Biden has also been criticized for having authored the Clinton omnibus crime bill (The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), which put one or two million non-violent offenders in jail, most of them black and brown.
     Do these positions on busing and crime control, suggest that Joe Biden is a racist? Can Biden win the presidency, or even the Democratic nomination, if he continues to be dogged by the same sorts of rumors of racism which have followed President Trump?

Sources:

Kamala Harris criticizes Joe Biden over 1970s busing position:


     26. Members of the so-called “Alt-Right” - such as Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos - have gained notoriety for using statistics to dispute claims that blacks are subject to harsh arrests and sentences more often than whites are.
     What are the statistics anyway? Do African-Americans really serve longer sentences than whites, and are they more likely to be killed by police during arrests than white people are? How do these facts compare with statistics about the rates at which blacks commit violent crimes?
     Is it “racist” to point out that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by African-Americans? Or is it more “racist” to fail to consider that the history of racial discrimination and poverty, may have contributed to the current high black crime rates which we are seeing today?

Sources:
Data showing that law enforcement is tougher on blacks:



     27. Many people wishing to be “politically correct” refer to the imprisonment of black people as “modern-day slavery” and “The new Jim Crow”? Why is that? Why do some people think that slavery never ended, and was never abolished?

     Answer: Considering the high number of African-Americans whom are incarcerated – many of them unable to vote – it's arguable that prisons are continuing the legacy of slavery, albeit under a different guise.
     The facts that most prisoners are forced to work, and unable to vote, mean that they have no freedom but must work (like slaves), while they are counted under the census but their voting power is given to legislators whom they cannot choose (also like slaves).
     The 13th Amendment prohibited slavery, but permitted “involuntary servitude” as a punishment for committing a crime. But if we consider that many people are in prison for victimless crimes, locking them up – and taking away their freedoms, their vote, and their rights to own property - could hardly be considered a just punishment.


Sources:

Black incarceration and prison labor are “modern-day slavery”:



     28. What do you think are the most important things that the American people, and/or the U.S. Government, can do, to help promote reconciliation and justice, in a way that heals racial, ethnic, and religious antipathies and divisions?




Written on July 30th and 31st, 2019
Published on July 31st, 2019
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 2, 2018

Thoughts on Immigration, Racial Violence, the 2018 Elections, and the National Debt


     On November 2nd, 2018, I attended a round-table political discussion at the Highland Park Recreation Center in Highland Park, Illinois. Ralph Bernstein moderated the event, and e-mailed his questions to attendees prior to the event. Below are my responses to the questions I cared to answer.



Question #1
     President Donald Trump says he wants to order the end of the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States. The 14th Amendment provides that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen. Can a president, by executive order, change a provision of the constitution? What about changing the First Amendment regarding the press? Are such orders constitutional? If so, what does that do to the presidency, make the president “all powerful?” He has also said he wants to change the 22nd Amendment to allow a term for the president to be 16 years.


Answer #1
     Amending the 14th, or 1st, amendment to the Constitution, cannot be done by the president. That is the executive-branch equivalent of “legislating from the bench”; legislation is Congress's job. Executive orders only allow the president to make minor recommendations as to how the law should be enforced, not to dictate what the law is. Amending an amendment requires the approval of majorities of Congress and 3/4 of the states to approve.
     If your goal is to stop aristocrats' and diplomats' children from becoming American citizens and having too many privileges, then you should be looking at the Emoluments Clause, not birthright citizenship. I'm worried that if Trump goes after birthright citizenship, the next thing he'll do is make it easier for the U.S. government to recognize titles and honors from foreign governments. As well as continuing to do business with governments after you've formed a political campaign; continuing down this route will likely result in a “post-game” rationalization of the legality of what the Trump campaign may have done in coordination with Russians.
     The current birthright citizenship controversy has nothing to do with keeping our country safe, and it has everything to do with cementing Trump's control and giving him dictatorial powers, which will eventually result in any and all citizens (even those born here to citizen parents) being deported, for any cause the president wishes.



Question #2
     When the president uses the word that he is “a nationalist,” what does he mean? Some say it’s a “dog whistle” about” white supremacy” others say it’s just a patriotic expression. Is it better to be a “nationalist” as the president says, or is “globalism” a better way to think? Your thoughts?


Answer #2
     I believe that Trump uses the term “nationalism” for several reasons: primarily to evoke patriotism, and to promote the idea of “American exceptionalism”. Trump wants you to think he believes all nations should put their own interests first (over other nations), but I think he's only referring to the nations he likes; specifically, the white-majority ones. Many worry – rightfully, I think - that “globalist” is being used as racist code for “Jew”.
     It's not wrong to be patriotic, or to put your country's needs before the needs of other countries. But Trump's brand of nationalism takes a perfectly good principle – from an economic school of thought called mercantilism – which says “each country should sell what it makes best”, and he adds an unnecessary social element to it. He attaches the idea that human beings are mere “products” of their home countries, and if you look at his “Mexican rapists” comment, he promotes the idea that these people's governments are deliberately sending everyone who's coming, and sending their worst. Which makes them look like tools, with no free will of their own. This is not only dehumanizing to foreigners, it also disparages America because it denies that an immigrant would have any reason of their own to come here, like freedom or opportunity (which we barely even have anymore).
     Globalism and nationalism, each, have good and bad things about them. I encourage you to look up the term “alter-globalization”. Rather than being simply anti-globalist, alter-globalization favors free travel, free exchange, and integration of economies across the globe; but without endorsing global governance, imperialism, centralization, command-and-control economics, or government-directed so-called “free” trade.
     Real free trade is possible, and if Trump wants zero tariffs, then he should eliminate them, instead of trying to bully, mock, intimidate, confuse, and humiliate foreign leaders into lowering theirs first.



Question #3
     There are thousands of persons who are in Mexico walking to the U.S. border. The president has said he will deploy 5,200 active-duty troops to the border, in what officials of his administration described as a necessary national security measure. Is the deployment necessary or not? Can the military prevent these persons from crossing the border? What about a claim for amnesty by any of such persons? What would be done in this event?


Answer #3
     I support amnesty for all migrants of whom there is no reasonable suspicion of having committed a corpus delicti crime against real persons who can claim victimization, or against their justly acquired property (please note that I did not say "legally" or "legitimately acquired property").
     The notion that non-citizen undocumented immigrants and the children of foreign nationals have less rights (or no rights at all) while in the United States - predicated on the 14th Amendment's clause reading "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - implies that immigrants are not subject to American laws either, which would imply that they cannot be legally deported. This argument against birthright citizenship is self-defeating; anyone on U.S. soil, including at an embassy, can, and of right ought to be able to, apply for U.S. citizenship. Foreign nationals may even be entitled to taxpayer-funded legal representation, so it would not even be accurate to say that their legal rights are fewer or lesser than those of U.S. citizens (at least not in a legal, technical sense; this is not to say that immigrants' legal rights are never ignored, quite the contrary).
     The deployment of troops at the border to stop the migrant caravan from entering is unnecessary. Additionally, the use of military officers to enforce domestic policy is martial law, and the use of federal officers to enforce domestic policy is unconstitutional.
     The Posse Comitatus Act reads in part, “it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress...”.
     Subsequent modifications of that law have resulted in the designation of terrorist groups as people whom the president has some authority to dispatch federal troops to act against. That is why it is being claimed that members of al-Qaeda are present in the caravan. Not only is there no evidence of this, the influx of Honduran immigrants can be attributed to the C.I.A.'s recent backing of a coup there; this is just more of “America's chickens coming home to roost”, we only have ourselves to blame for this. If we don't want foreigners to come here, then we should stop bombing their countries, rigging their elections, and sabotaging their economies. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, that George Soros is funding the caravan. But people all around the world, who don't want the people in the caravan to die on their way here, are sending help too.
     We already have I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which has only existed since 2003. America did without I.C.E. for 227 years, we can do it again, and deportations can still be carried out even if I.C.E. ceased to exist.
     I.C.E. is unconstitutional; the last thing we want to do is do is impose martial law on top of it, which is not only unnecessary and unconstitutional, it would also be a serious human rights violation, that could accelerate with curfews for adults, travel restrictions, conscripting young people into the military, relocation to settlements “for our own safety”, forced labor, or much much worse.
     If you support shooting people who cross the border, you are asking for an international incident, for a war to start, for martial law, and for a race war, as well as for the reputation, credibility, and moral authority of the United States government and its citizens to be ruined forever.
     If you want to go after al-Qaeda, don't go after the migrant caravan. Go after the people who founded al-Qaeda. And I'm not talking about Osama bin Laden, I'm talking about Carter, Reagan, and the Bushes. Jimmy Carter, who started this thoughtless involvement in Afghanistan, and agreed to find mujahideen ("freedom fighters") against the Soviets. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, who continued it. Bush's son George W., who founded the oil company Arbusto 88 with Salem bin Laden, the brother of Osama.
     After 9/11, rumors surfaced that numerous members of the bin Laden family, and other Saudi nationals, had been secretly airlifted out of the country for their own protection. This appears to have been denied by the National Commission on Terror Attacks, Snopes.com, and Osama bin Laden's brother Yeslam, but in truth, the only things they denied were the suggestions that the U.S. government helped, and that it happened before U.S. airspace re-opened. Yeslam bin Laden told Matt Lauer that it was the Saudi government, not the American government, that helped his family fly out of the United States; and that it occurred after airspace was re-opened, not before.
     If what bin Laden's brother said is the truth, then the Bushes would have been in prime positions to help (if they wanted to). Either way, the bin Ladens are among the wealthiest non-royals in Saudi Arabia, so their ability to use their political influence to enlist America's help conspiring to assist the Saudi government, and keep U.S.-Saudi ties strong, should not be underestimated. Especially now, after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the revelations about the Saudi regime's brutal treatment of women and homosexuals (among others).



Question #4
     What role of the President’s warnings about the caravan of migrants headed toward the U.S. border from Central America played in inspiring the virulent anti-Semite who killed 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue and injured 4? Or was this person going to do violence without the migrants coming here because of his hatred toward Jews?


Answer #4
     I believe that the shooter might not have chosen that particular target (the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) if fewer immigrants were coming to America. Immigration and Judaism seemed to be two motivations for the attack, but there might be additional motivations, and we don't know whether there was any particular thing that was a “last straw” or a final trigger for him, so that's why I think it would be unwise to point to just one or two primary motivations.
     If what I have read about the shooter is true, then one of his motivations was his belief that Donald Trump has been compromised in his attempts to revive American nationalism, fight “globalism”, and reduce immigration. It seems likely that the shooter would agree with the statement that “liberal Democratic Jewish politicians are behind a push for more immigration to the U.S.”, and that they are responsible for compromising Trump. It would make sense if that line of logic led him to select for his target a Jewish group that supported immigrants and refugees.
     Many of the people who think that way, consider Jewish people non-white, or as potentially disloyal to America; and many feel that immigrants – Jews and Hispanics included – are part of a virus-like “infestation” that puts our public health and our values at risk. These notions are parts of a mindset that suspects Jewish people of trying to divide all nations of the world against each other, make dissimilar people live together, and compromise the genetic purity of distinct nations through encouraging inter-breeding and increases in the number of mixed-race people. Of course, this is textbook Nazi propaganda, and I don't mean to rationalize it; I only mean to explain how Nazi sympathizers think.
     I believe that the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter chose the target he did, because he believed that the organization was – in some way, however directly or indirectly - providing material assistance (or at least ideological support) for “the enemy”. That is to say, for “the enemy”, as the shooter defines it. Generally, that means foreign-born people, including the migrant caravan (which the shooter likely believes is harboring terrorists). But as I've explained, there's no evidence for that; it's propagandist fear-mongering from the Trump Administration, intended to allow the president to dispatch federal troops to enforce domestic immigration law on the grounds that al-Qaeda might be lurking around every corner, even behind every immigrant.
     We shouldn't assume that the shooter could have been dissuaded from doing what he did, if only there were fewer immigrants coming into the U.S., or if fewer Jewish-Americans supported allowing more people in. If fewer Jewish people approved of immigration, then sure, we might see less anti-Jewish violence from right-wingers, but we might also see more anti-Jewish violence, just coming from different people. That's because leftists, and anti-racists, might see Jewish people strongly criticizing immigration, and conclude from that, that the sentiment is motivated by racism, or perhaps even by a belief in Jewish supremacy. If they conclude the latter, then it is likely that they will come to associate the Jewish religion with racism, violence, or both, and assume that all Jewish people are violent or racist. Coupled with the shooter's belief that H.I.A.S. (the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society)'s assistance of the migrant caravan constitutes material assistance to terrorists, it would be understandable if the shooter felt under attack; by al-Qaeda, with the cover of Hondurans, funding from wealthy Jewish liberals, and housing and employment assistance from H.I.A.S.. (a refugee assistance network of synagogues, in which Tree of Life participates).
     I say this not to rationalize racists' line of logic, but in order to point out the worst things that left-wingers and right-wingers could be thinking about the Jewish people. If you want to defeat your enemy, you have to understand him. If your enemy tells you directly to your face why he hates you and why he attacked you, then you can disagree with the truth of those ideas, but to flat-out ignore them is to carelessly assume that your enemy is irrational. People can be full of hate, and hold opinions about people which are wholly unreasonable, but still make rational decisions in the battlefield. Don't underestimate your enemy by assuming that he is simply crazy, or by assuming that racism is his sole motivation. His reasons may seem backwards, and his logic may seem tortured and convoluted, but admitting that your enemy makes rational decisions in no way obligates you to accept or rationalize everything he says and does. It helps you avoid underestimating the horrors and deception he's capable of.


Question #5
     What has happened to the children who were separated from their parents? Are they still held in these “cages”? Will they be released to the custody of their parents, or what?

Answer #5
     I have heard rumors that some of the children separated from their parents have been essentially sold by the government to adoption agencies. This concerns me, since I have heard horror stories about emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of children; not only in the hands of adoption agencies, but in the hands of I.C.E. themselves. Not to mention police, soldiers, for-profit prisons, and teen boot camps.
     Some of you may have seen the pictures of Obama's and Trump's Homeland Security secretaries walking around in the I.C.E. detention facilities; “family detention centers”, they call them. One picture of the facilities showed a sign that said “males aged 16-18”. So they're separating people by gender, and by age, taking parents away from children, and immigrants are having their religious jewelry taken away. These facts should ring serious alarm bells for anyone paying attention to history and the times they're living in.
     If those facts don't, by themselves, evoke memories of what happened to Holocaust victims, then I implore you to look up “the Bath Riots”. Back in the 1930s, immigrants on their way into El Paso (from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico) were sprayed with harsh de-lousing chemicals, because American authorities thought they had typhus. This continued years after the typhus epidemic went away. One of those chemicals was Zyklon-B, which the Nazis used to poison Jewish people (and other minorities and political dissidents).
     People don't belong in cages. Children should not be taken from their parents without clear and present danger (that somebody else hasn't manufactured in order to whip people into a frenzy), and they certainly shouldn't be sold as commodities by government agencies. Selling human beings doesn't suddenly become “not slavery” just because it's the government who's doing it (instead of a “private” slave master).
     We must stop calling refugee encampments “tent cities”, stop calling forced internment facilities “family detention centers”. We are looking at literal military prisons, like the one at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, except they're in Texas; on American soil, within the contiguous 48 states. And they're being used to indefinitely detain people who ought to have their rights respected; their rights to legal representation, and to apply for citizenship. The existence of embassies does not prove that legal immigration is an easy and realistic solution everywhere; foreign governments are collapsing, and with them, their legitimacy, and thus, people become stateless. As far as I am aware, there is no Anarcho-American embassy at which stateless people can become American citizens (at least not yet).
     I want to say that “the inevitable result of this will be martial law”, but it would be difficult for me to argue that martial law has not already been in effect for 17, or 40, or 100, or 150, or even 230 years (respectively, since the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, or since REX84, or since World War I began, or since the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, or since the imposition of the Constitution in 1789; however you want to measure it).



Question #6
     How will Congress – the Senate and the House – be formed as a result of the midterms? Any guesses? Who will be the leaders?


Answer #6
     I anticipate that the Democrats will retake the House with a noticeable majority, and that they will retake the Senate by a noticeable (but smaller) majority. Given Nancy Pelosi's promise that the Democrats will not pursue impeachment of Donald Trump (as she did with Bush when the Democrats regained the House in 2006), I expect that Nancy Pelosi will encounter a few difficulties convincing her cohorts to give her her old Speaker position back. But I also suspect that dirty tricks will be played, and that all opposition to her from within the party will be easily silenced.
     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will win her election, and emerge as the new conscience of the progressive and farthest-left-leaning Democrats; or else she will be defeated amidst numerous accusations of dirty tricks on the part of her opponent Joe Crowley. Crowley, for those who don't know, is one of the Democratic congressmen thought most likely to become Speaker of the House, in the event that Democrats retake the House. Maxine Waters becoming Speaker of the House would be political suicide for Democrats, but I wouldn't put it past them, and I would understand their rationale for it.
     If Democrats retake the senate, then Dianne Feinstein, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, and Bernie Sanders will comprise the core of the most respected members of Democratic Party leadership (which finally seems to have begun to loose itself from the grip of Hillary Clinton, neoliberalism, the New Democratic Coalition, and the corrupt Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee).
     Hopefully the Democrats will see that what will have made them successful in the 2018 midterm elections, is their recent embrace of the staunchly left-leaning ideas which are necessary to fully distance themselves from what Trump and his loyalists want. Hopefully soon the Democrats will admit, and not forget, that distancing themselves from progressivism, socialism, and leftism has not worked out. If they continue to do so, then they will keep losing elections.
     Giving up hope in places like West Virginia, the Midwest, and the Great Plains states, just sends the message that the party does not care about Democrats stuck in red states, even if they could be flipped to blue with just a little effort. But these states are not thought of as battleground states, by most popular media, in the same way that states like Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina are.



Question #7
     The treasury has announced that there will be an increase in the national debt for this year of approximately $1.2 trillion. How is this explained, when Trump in his campaign promised a substantial decrease?


Answer #7
     Trump can get away with having a $1.6 trillion deficit if he wanted, because he'll always be able to say that Obama's highest was $1.7. We should not underestimate Trump's ability to point to someone who's behaving worse than he is, and use that to make himself look good and moral by comparison (even if what they're doing is more or less equally terrible).
     Trump knows that giving the upper class bigger tax cuts than the ones he gave to ordinary working people, was only going to help the already well established entrenched business interests, which often buy and control our government. He calls them “The Swamp” to his voters, but he seems to think that the only path to economic growth – the only way to increase jobs - involves stealing your taxpayer money, and spending it on his cronies; in the form of bigger tax breaks, undeserved tax credits, stock buybacks, loans, intellectual property protections, trade promotions, subsidies, and even bailouts.
     Trump is illiterate constitutionally, economically, historically, and morally. He is an opportunist, and a narcissist, who has no regard for other people's needs. He seems to have no guiding political principle other than “make the trains run on time” and “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. He cares much more about increasing his own wealth than he does about helping struggling people who are in need and can't afford to buy stocks. Trump has no respect for free markets or economic opportunity; and no desire for lower prices, or even an idea of how to bring prices down to something his cronies' indentured servants (the people) can afford.
     Everyone is focusing on how much we are spending, and what we're spending it on; but way fewer people are talking about where we get our revenue sources from: what we're taxing, why we're taxing it, and whether the people being taxed, (first) can afford it, and (second) did anything wrong in the first place to deserve that “tax” (or, as we Libertarians call it, “theft”).
     Taxing away all the rewards of making improvements to your own home, doesn't help people. Confiscating people's earned income doesn't help them. Confiscating the un-earned income, and ill-gotten profits, of businessmen who balance their books on the backs of taxpayers and government contracts instead of by selling a better product, will help ordinary working people.
     Paying-off the national debt is a lot easier than we think it is. If we want to pay-off $20 trillion dollars, we could pay-off $1 trillion a year for 20 years. If we start now, America can be debt-free by the end of 2038. All we have to do in order to make that happen, is take-in $1 trillion more each year than the amount we spend. As long as we do that, and total federal government revenue stays above $1 trillion a year (it's currently at $4 trillion), then we can have any size government we want, and still balance the budget.
     Nothing is impossible, as long as we don't start-out trying to solve it under the assumption that it's unsolvable. This is a simple mathematical equation, yet many of us have apparently lost the ability to think simply about our problems. Trump's inability to significantly reduce spending, is compounded by his refusal to lower taxes on those who need tax breaks most, and his refusal to tackle either the military-industrial complex, or “The Swamp” of corporate political donors. That's because he's willing to look the other way whenever battling America's demons is too risky for him or it doesn't boost his bottom line.



Originally Written and Published on November 2nd, 2018
Expanded on November 2nd, 2018
at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

The Alt-Right, and Nietzsche's "Slave and Master Morality"


     Nietzsche described Christianity as having a "slave morality"; essentially because it lionizes a murder victim as a god, reveres martyrs, and rewards those who submit. Christianity asserts "Christ conquered death"; that our god did not die, and transcended death. The Alt-Right and neo-Nazis fall victim to the same "slave morality" for which Nietzsche criticized Christians for falling, however.
     The Alt-Right see Nazi sympathizers and white nationalists as victims, and characterize anyone and everyone in conflict with them as "the real fascists". Including by pointing to their tactics, which they baselessly use as evidence to connote ideological agreement between the two groups. The use of violence alone does not make one a Nazi.
     The Alt-Right gives in to the "slave morality" concept, by endorsing its swapping of the positions of master and slave. They are every bit as willing to look like the victim, as are the "leftists" and "social justice warriors" whom they criticize. And they do this while claiming that the real victimizers are the people who admit that some people have been victimized, and those who try to draw attention to it. Additionally, those who admit that even when institutional, governmental discrimination ended in one sector, the effects last until this day.
     Most perplexingly of all, it seems that the Alt-Right are so committed to reinforcing this master / slave relationship, that they are not even willing to dismantle it, nor create a state of classlessness, even if solely to prevent themselves from becoming the underclass. That's because the “slave morality” rewards both submission and dominance.


     When the white nationalists marched on Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2018 - shouting "the Jews will not replace us" - they weren't saying "we refuse to let the Jews replace white people as the race that controls America". "The Jews will not replace us" means that they don't want the Jewish people, whom they believe to be controlling the U.S., to replace white people with non-white people, as the Jews' favored race of non-Jews. The idea is that whites would earn a place high in the racial hierarchy, and that then, as the Jews' favored non-Jewish race, they would be inferior to Jewish people, but otherwise in charge of the country, and allowed to keep the other races down. That's what they think.
     Of course, some of them do want to defeat and destroy and replace Jewish people, and it would be naive to suggest that many of them don't want to do that. But the Alt-Right are so cucked by their own ideology, that they seem more willing to assent to a place in the middle of the racial hierarchy which they perceive, than to destroy it altogether.
     As confusing as it seems, I think the rationale for this is fairly simple: it would be too difficult for them to admit that there is a racial hierarchy without using Jewish people in positions of power and influence as the evidence, without exposing white dominance of avenues of control at the same time. Additionally, if, by the phrase, they had meant “Jews will not replace white people as the dominant race”, then that would have been to admit that they are afraid of a Jewish take-over. That shows fear, and showing fear is not acceptable to people whose ideology is based on control.
     On the other hand, the Alt-Right is also unable to claim that whites are in control. They would like to do this, because that would be a way to express dominance. However, to say that whites are in control would be to admit that Jewish people have not taken over white society. It would dismantle the whole crux of their argument; which is that whites need to be in control, and therefore need to do something. They also believe that "cultural Marxism" is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy nations, by introducing multiculturalism and immigration, as a way to make them homogenous. This, the Alt-Right believes, leads to the erosion of social cohesiveness - which they believe to be based on common nation, heritage, and/or language – and also leads to the breakdown of welfare states. Which, for some reason, many of them support; just not for everybody, of course, only for white people.


     In a society which respects and protects individual rights, the whims of fleeting majorities can change constantly, without threatening the most important of anyone's natural rights.
     In the sense that they refuse to challenge the racial hierarchy which they oppose, even when it could benefit them, the Alt-Right are just like the Republicans. The Alt-Right and Republicans both refuse to recognize individual rights, and the illegitimacy of hierarchy, even if only as a way to prevent the disaster they fear, which is that America will get overtaken by a non-white majority.
     Likewise, the Republicans are just like the Democrats, because they too refuse to recognize individual rights, but also oppose stronger supermajoritarian measures to prevent the oppression of minorities by majorities. And Democrats refuse to do so, even if only as a way to prevent the disaster they fear, which is that America will get taken over by Republicans (which happens every several years, and which, for all intents and purposes, is unavoidable).
     In a way, the Democrats, Republicans, and the Alt-Right, are all enabling each other; by subscribing to the same master / slave system; the same hierarchical system, whether racialized or not, and the same reckless disregard for individuals' natural rights to be free from control by majority and minority alike. They even support the same economic system; a right-wing system uniting aspects of capitalism, mercantilism, Keynesianism, liberal-conservatism and a neoliberal market economy, and “state socialism” (which is really just capitalism, but with a welfare system which benefits the select few).
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...