Please Don’t Stop The Music

It’s been goin on two weeks since ‘change happened’ and while folks aren’t popping shots into the sky and dancing in the streets like they were Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning, white and Black liberal types and the mostly white liberal sector of the antiwar movement are still jigglin to the beat.  Forget Fiddy and The Game, wax gangstas all of ’em.  The gangstas in DC are currently being replaced by the new don and his crew of gangstas.  It’s ironic how kids are get bum-rushed by white and Black parents alike who want to know why they listen to music that says such horrible things.  It’s ironic cuz the parents of these urban and suburban hip-hop heads who maintain a steady diet of fake gangsta rap, their parents are in love with the real thing.

This time the papers didn’t lie.  Change did come.  The Obama gangsters debut release looks like it will be much harder than the Bush Boys’.  Like their kids, the liberals aren’t listening to the lyrics, just dancing to the beat.

In the past week and a half, Obama has brought in Rahm Emmanuel, Lawrence Summers (the Harvard prez who thought women’s brains were too small to do math and science), Eric Holder, looks like Hillary Clinton will be the foreign policy rep and Obama’s intelligence transition team is composed of CIA spooks who pushed for torture, invasion and have a hard-on for tapping folks’ phones.  All this done with just a week of being prez-elect.  What will Obama do when he’s actually in office?  I guess we’ll find out soon enough.

Meanwhile the folks over at Dailykos, DemocraticUnderground, Bartcop, Buzzflash and other liberal nightclubs are shaking their asses off to this stuff.  Ask them what they think about Obama’s love for hardcore Zionists, war-hawks and prison industrial complex hangers on and they say to you the same thing their kids say to them; I like the beat.  No one seems to know (even though it’s all on the front pages of even the biggest fishwrappers) or care about what President-Elect Obama’s lyrics seem to be screaming with his new roster of goblins.  This album promises to be nastier than anything Luke ever put out, harder than E’s, Dre’s and Cube’s rawest shit, scarier than Bushwick Bill’s best stuff.

Will liberals stand still long enough to listen to what the gangstas are screaming?  Is it too late in the night for that?  Are they too drunk off the power of their ‘win’?  I guess we’ll see.  Either way, the hangover from this night out will be one they won’t soon forget.  Hopefully.  And what of the Left?  When the libs wake up from the long night out with a hangover and crackers in their eyes will their be anywhere to go sober up?  I predict that it won’t be sooner than many think before the bar closes, dancing stops, hangovers hit and pots of hot reality java will be the order of the day.  The question is will they be takin the forty weight to-go, back to the streets or will the coffee shop be full of a new wave of radicals?

News of the Weird

Corporate news headlines are predictably staid, sometimes silly, always lies and bullshit. But today’s headlines deserve special note.

• The Financial Times informs its readers that a ‘rogue’ trader at French ponzi bank, Societe Generale costs the company 7 billion plus in behind the scenes ‘rogue’ trading. Supposedly, says the bank and the FT, no one at the French bank knew about the billions in losses except the rogue trader.
• The Atlanta Journal-Constitution demands its readers suspend disbelief while Rambo endorses McCain. Oh. And by the way, Rambo comes out today in theaters and McCain was once a POW. Obviously coincidences.
• Black people can’t get cabs in New York, Arabs can’t catch planes but the school that chooses the Nobel Prize in medicine, the famous Karolinska Institute, after turning away thousands, admits Nazis to study to become doctors? Karl Helge Hampus Svensson went to prison 8 years ago for killing someone in a hate crime but had no problem getting around a background check to enter perhaps the most prestigious med school in the world. Refusing to kick Svensson out on the grounds of being a racist murderer, the school claims he was expelled for falsifying his name on a high school transcript.

While the US financial system teeters on the brink of collapse, this is what the country is presented with as news.

Death of the Black/White Electorate

Roberto Lovato reflects on Nevada as the harbinger for the death of the black/white electoral divide.

Everyone’s an Expert on the Latino Vote, Except Latinos

I say good riddance.

Irrational Black People Criticize Ron Paul

I have written a series of short essays addressing some problems I have seen with Ron Paul and the rEVOLution he is leading for a reason: to provide a place where those who might be critical can come and see how issues, apparently not important to the typical Ron Paul supporter are addressed when approached from a perspective not overwhelmingly flattering and subjective in the way of approving of Ron Paul. As most of the information readily available about Ron Paul is produced by supporters who are disproportionately white and male. I didn’t expect to have a rational discussion about race and Ron Paul. I did expect to have the lack of rational discussion be squarely blamed on me as the black male and dissenting, critical opinion.

The disposition towards racial dialog that I have observed amongst Ron Paul supporters is squarely in line with the typical exchange, to speak generally here, that occurs between whites and non-whites. To be a little more particular, that occurs between white males and non-whites. Although the culture of discussion produced by white males often overflows and overlaps into the habits of others, too, as it is hegemonic.

So being blamed for irrationality and for generally being a problem is no surprise in the general population and the Ron Paul following appears to be not much, if at all, different from conversations with Bush or Reagan supporters regarding race.

Please note that I didn’t say Ron Paul has the same line on policy as does Bush or Reagan. He does not. But the kind of conversation from their various supporters is quite similar. And in all cases, their supporters, Bush, Reagan, Paul (and other Repubs) are disproportionately white.

This factor never seems to peg on their intellectual radar as to why the conversations go badly. I believe this is because their is an assumption that exists amongst all these groups on the RIght, whether they identify as Libertarian or Conservative. This assumption is that black people are emotional and irrational about race and therefore need not be seriously listened to or their critiques seriously examined by rational thinkers, who will disproportionately be white. This assumption underlies the thinking and sets the tone for irrational conversations from a group that in their view is commonly irrational, black people.

That is why the statement that was in Ron Paul’s newsletter, “only 5 percent of African-Americans have sensible political opinions” resonated with so many black folks as a believable statement to come from a Ron Paul. We black political types, having encountered this paternal approach so many times, understand that this is something deeply held in the minds of many whites and the tiny smattering of people of color who caucus with the vast majority of whites supporting a candidate like Ron Paul. It was something that was in line with the typical argument that comes from whites when the topic of race and politics is on the table. And being that this is the US, a country founded in the enslavement of black people, when is race not on the table in politics. Never.

A typical comment from a Ron Paul supporter that came in from one of the essays was this from someone calling himself Jack,

After reading your post, all I can say is:

There goes ANY chance of a rational and reasonable discussion. You didn’t intend to have one of those, though did you? You just wanted to call us all racists (without even knowing the color of the people you are talking to.)

Later, fool.

The predictable part is that I took pains to point out that I don’t know if Ron Paul (It’s not even about Jack or whoever ALL means) is racist and that it doesn’t matter whether he personally is or not because the important things, the policies, are racist. I explained this reasoning. But Jack, like most whites discussing from a similar perspective, find it much simpler and quite accepted to label a black person as simply irrational when it comes to race. This characterization of black and irrational is common in their circles and needs scant if any explanation. I asked a question,

If a person or group of people advocate(s) policies that prove consistently to be detrimental to a racial or ethnic group does it matter how that person or group of people personally feel about race if the consequences of his policy actions have race-based consequences?

How irrational of me.

I also pointed out that Ron Paul has significant support amongst white nationalists groups like Don Black’s Stormfront where Paul is criticized as not being the perfect white nationalist candidate but they best that they realistically have right now. This too, I assume is an irrational point for me to mention or as a African in the US, to be concerned with.

I am black and live in Georgia. So, I mention that Ron Paul opposed and continues to oppose the Civil Rights Act. This too, I suppose is an irrational concern. All of these things add up to my irrationality in this discussion.

And this is why I thought it important to touch on the subject of Ron Paul. I know that he isn’t going to win the Republican nomination, no less the presidency. But as an insurgent group of Right Wingers with a lot of slick advertising and marketing, I thought it important to illustrate through interaction with them, how much like the typical Republican or Right Winger, Ron Paul supporters are when it comes to the issue of race in the US. Blaming those victimized by racism (the collectivist line), characterizing criticism of racial comments and policy as irrational, these are the typical tactics utilized by the Right. And the Ron Paul crowd doesn’t break from this tradition and in fact reinforces it by at once claiming to be different but at the same time, demonstrating the limits to Right ideology. Effectively proclaiming that those on the Right can differ about war and peace, the Federal Reserve, to a degree the corporatocracy and religion but when it comes to race, for the most part, they stand united.

Criticism from black people about their positions is summarily dismissed as irrational.

This is not the kind of group that I, as a black person want to caucus with. Hell, I can’t caucus with them. And I would encourage any person that identifies as African or as a person of color, generally to look long and hard at the record of a Ron Paul or similar type candidate and not just at their campaign websites or those of their supporters which, of course, will not be critical in important areas. Our objections, no matter how articulated or explained, are simply dismissed. Or at best, they take a speech from their candidate, in this case Ron Paul, and simply quote him. As if the rhetoric of their politician should be more than enough to allay any fears and concerns around race and racial policy. As if politicians don’t say all manner of things and make all kinds of statements and promises. The striking thing is that this crowd understands that politicians do this and this crowd is typically quite skeptical of simple rhetoric. Quite skeptical about issues that they care about. But because the race issue is something that they either have little concern or have a reactionary position on, simply referring me and other black folks to stump speeches or an “issues” page full of campaign trail rhetoric is enough. It is as if they are collectively saying, ‘Look, he said right here on his website that he’s not racist, SO STOP COMPLAINING!‘

And I guess maybe it would be enough…if only I were not so irrational.

Ron Paul and Race

I don’t know how Ron Paul feels about black people.

I do know that Ron Paul released a newsletter that printed some very racist and inflammatory comments.
I do know that Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I do know that Ron Paul opposes Affirmative Action.
I do know that Ron Paul, as do all right wing Libertarians, supports eradication of most gov’t social programs that provide a limited safety net to the poor and people of color in the U.S.

I don’t know how Ron Paul personally feels about black people or ethnic minorities generally. The important thing is that it doesn’t matter, really, what Ron Paul personally feels because he supports an agenda that is hostile to these groups. And about that, I don’t have to guess. He proves it year after year in the US Congress. Dr. Paul has proved it with the totality of his life. Dr. Paul has, for the most part, proved consistent in his right wing Libertarian beliefs. Some people give him kudos for this as most politicians are quite duplicitous and blow in whatever direction the campaign contribution winds take them. However, I can offer Dr. Paul no congratulations for consistent support for policies that have proved to harm the most vulnerable while giving an unneeded helping hand to the most powerful. All under the intellectual guise of enhancing and protecting liberty. The same thing most nuanced right wing Libertarians do. I say nuanced because many right wing Libertarians understand that Africans and other people of color will never vote for them and thus don’t concern themselves with rationals for policy positions perceived as racist. They don’t care. Understanding that their target group isn’t people of color nor is it people concerned about people of color, they dispense with any reasoning for things like opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Nuanced RWLs, however, hope to attract moderate to conservative Democrats (who at the very least, feign concern with people of color) and to convince them there must at least be some rationale for that kind of policy. Even if weak. Understanding Ron Paul and race begs a question. If a person or group of people advocate(s) policies that prove consistently to be detrimental to a racial or ethnic group does it matter how that person or group of people personally feel about race if the consequences of his policy actions have race-based consequences?

I don’t think so.

Interesting Ron Paul Support

Politicians, too often with entangling alliances, can hardly be trusted to do the good things they say they will do. No less tell the truth about the bad they have already done. One way that I have found to be somewhat reliable in predicting the future behavior of a political figure is to analyze the individuals supporting him/her. In the case of Ron Paul and race, it is interesting. Ron Paul, like any politician that wants to get elected these days, claims to not be racist. While I have argued that this claim, true or false is largely irrelevant, what are we to do when unabashed racists with overtly racist agendas, support a Ron Paul.

Stormfront is a white pride internet forum with the slogan, ‘White Pride World Wide’. Any internet political veterans reading this know full well who and what they are. Stormfronters are proud bigots. Some Ron Paul supporters will be surprised to discover that their Ron Paul Revolution holds the distinction of being in the company of David Duke, David Irving and other interesting figures supported by the Stormfront community. Why would a person on Stormfront support a non-racist like Ron Paul? Let’s take a look. Scotsman4096 has this to say to Stormfronters with the audacity to claim that Ron Paul is not the real deal,

If anyone expects better than this from the current crop of political candidates who stand a shot at winning, then that person is dreaming, and quite honestly acting as BAGGAGE to the WN movement, because they’re stalling our progress. Is Ron WN? Who knows – his policies help us, and we need action on our issues NOW, not in 2040 when we’re trying to retake California with tanks.

Brandon, who’s username signature is ‘Our skin is our uniform‘, isn’t convinced,

Ron Paul’s priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Bob Whitaker tries to give Brandon some perspective regarding Dr. Paul’s priorities,

Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has for just 10% of its survival, much less America. He is not your enemy you psycho.
And how do you know that’s not his priority? Remember: the game is rigged. Paul can’t come out swinging.

These are a few snippets of page #1 of currently over 600 pages (and counting) of intensely interested and optimistic discussion regarding their hopes for Dr. Paul’s candidacy. And to be certain that this isn’t some misguided (but ultimately innocent) Ron Pauler that wandered into a racist community on the whole hostile to Ron Paul’s candidacy, if you notice the bottom of the page the Stormfront website actually runs Ron Paul fundraising ads. Stormfront, an advocacy group for white supremacy that supports David Duke, supports the Ron Paul candidacy for president of the United States.

While I’m not surprised to read the racist support of the RP rEVOLution something tells me the average Democrat convert isn’t aware or doesn’t want to admit the true nature of the Ron Paul movement. While ignorant in regards to humanity. Stormfronters are very politically astute and are quite capable of analyzing who is and who is not, as they term it, on the side of the white race. If understanding of fundamental RWL public policy initiatives isn’t evidence enough, Stormfront support for the Ron Paul movement should stand as proof positive that Ron Paul, while certainly not public enemy #1, is unmistakably, not an ally to people of color and our supporters.

Ron Paul and the International Criminal Court

Two days ago I wrote about the political phenomenon of Ron Paul as it related to black people and a few things that troubled me about his policy positions in his run for President of the United States. The responses were interesting and at times troublesome. But the response for the most part was muddled. The muddled nature was largely my fault for including too many issues in the post and for the way in which I presented them which distracted from the core issues.

One of the issues that I mentioned was the International Criminal Court and Ron Paul’s praise of George W. Bush for rebuking the ICC. The United States not being in the ICC is problematic for me. As a six year veteran of the US military and I am perhaps more than most US citizens, aware of what our military engages in overseas. It acts as the police arm of a US empire that is military, economic and cultural in nature. The ICC is an international body that seeks to hold international criminals accountable.

Rep. Ron Paul has expressed a vision of a world where the ICC wouldn’t apply to the US because we would not engage in international military affairs. While this is admirable this isn’t the current reality. So in fact just the other day, right here in the state of Georgia, a US soldier, accused of international crimes but sheltered by the US govt from international accountability for those crimes, was let off the hook. The US Army’s investigating officer reported to the Army,

there was “overwhelming evidence presented” that Corrales “did with the intent to kill, shoot at and hit the detainee multiple times with an M-4 rifle.”

but after concluding that, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the Army investigator added that,

no evidence existed that linked the shots fired by Shore to the detainee’s death two days later.

The multiple shots from the M-4 rifle aren’t evidence enough apparently. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the prosecution of the invasion and ensuing occupation against a largely defenseless country. I’d be interested in hearing how Ron Paul explains this. Did the soldier get justice? He shoots a general during interrogation, the general dies, the US soldier gets the charges dismissed because the evidence can’t link his shooting of the general to the general’s death. This seems highly unjust to me and it is made possible, in part because of the efforts of the Bush regime to remove international accountability for international crimes that US acknowledgment of the ICC would bring. If a soldier from another country killed a US soldier, no less a US general, in interrogation custody we would demand extradition of the criminal to the US for trial and brand the country that refused extradition as a rogue state.

Ron Paul’s support of this travesty of justice seems highly problematic and contradictory to his proclaimed stance of anti-imperialism as well as contradictory to the Libertarian philosophy of accountability and responsibility. It is also disappointing to see so many of his followers and supporters that seem to champion those same ideals stand idly by and not challenge him on the issue of the ICC as it relates to the current imperial regime led by George Bush.